Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

From: Dan
Date: September 15, 2013, 10:24:08 AM EDT
To: Lawrence Rupp
Cc: .........
Subject: Re: Quo vadis CoF?

Larry,

Yes, this just what I've been trying to get across to the CoF.......

If you treat us, humans, like animals, you can only expect us to behave like animals, which, most generally, is to breed to capacity.

Now, yes, we can advocate that there be much more of the monkey-see, monkey-do strategy which is what one our most successful population initiatives does, getting birth-control messages, subliminal or otherwise, inserted into soap-operas around the world. Very effective, indeed.

But, yes, again, most of us seem to feel that we also need to change attitudes, by reasoning with our fellow humans.

But, guess what, sports fans, there are absolutely no examples of reasoning in the 'natural' world.

And, yes, it was the philosophers who first realized that the sapience of homo-sapiens is an absolute exception within Nature.

So, what will it be my friends.......? Are we just stuck with monkey-see, monkey-do, plus autocratic coercion, as in China, or do you actually wish to engage with your fellow humans as the exceptional creatures that we are?

Is this a tough choice, or what?

From: Dan
Date: September 16, 2013, 12:42:44 PM EDT
To: Russ H
Cc: .............
Subject: Taming the Beast of Human Exceptionalism....

Russ,

As you point out, the notion of human exceptionalism can place us in harm's way.  It is, indeed, a dangerous idea.  Nonetheless, it is an idea that has haunted humanity from the depths of our archeological past.  That fact, alone, makes us the exceptional species, but now at what price?  

From whence came our exceptional smarts?  Everyone on this CoF list supposes that our minds are a fluke of nature, or, as Craig Dilworth puts it, we are just 'Too Smart for our Own Good'!  

And that may well be the case, but, unfortunately, 99% of the target audience for your anti-exceptioanlist message are...... exceptionalists.  And not only that, the notion of individual and human exceptionalism is as deeply ingrained in our psyches as is any other cultural artifact.  

Non-exceptionalism is going to be an exceedingly tough sell, as we have all been finding out, the hard way.

But, as it turns out, I happen to be one of the few articulate exceptionalists, and I just happen to be available to help you understand the nature of the Beast that you are hoping to tame.



On Sep 15, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Russ H wrote:

Dan,

Jumping off a giant skyscraper will eventually make us go really really fast.  So fast, that it seems exceptional.  It may feel like flying.  However, there will eventually be a crash.  Planes don't crash in this way (at least not too often), not because they deny the law of gravity, but because they accede to it by using the laws of aerodynamics.  Instead of thinking of ourselves as exceptions to the laws of ecology, we need to accede to them so we can land safely.

Russ
www.PanEarth.org

37 years ago, in the fifth year of this life, in my grandmother's house, a tall man in a great dark suit knelt down before me as I sat listening to the adults speak and he looked at me with pleading eyes: “little one, when you grow up, help them remember who they are.”

From: Ron
Date: September 16, 2013, 9:51:36 PM EDT
To: .......
Subject: Syria is Burning

Dear Brothers, Sisters, and Friends of the Princess,

You may have heard statements about the problems in Syria from the leaders of Russia, France, Israel and the United States, but if you want to hear about a clear path to solutions, tune in to Wolf Spirit Radio tomorrow [today!] at 5:00 PM EST for a special Leopards on the Prowl hosted by Princess Aliyah. Or join the Princess Live at the Great Falls Library.

dan wrote:

From: Ron
Date: September 16, 2013, 9:51:36 PM EDT
To: .......
Subject: Syria is Burning

Dear Brothers, Sisters, and Friends of the Princess,

You may have heard statements about the problems in Syria from the leaders of Russia, France, Israel and the United States, but if you want to hear about a clear path to solutions, tune in to Wolf Spirit Radio tomorrow [today!] at 5:00 PM EST for a special Leopards on the Prowl hosted by Princess Aliyah.  Or join the Princess Live at the Great Falls Library.  

dan wrote:

From: Ron
Date: September 16, 2013, 9:51:36 PM EDT
To: .......
Subject: Syria is Burning

Dear Brothers, Sisters, and Friends of the Princess,

You may have heard statements about the problems in Syria from the leaders of Russia, France, Israel and the United States, but if you want to hear about a clear path to solutions, tune in to Wolf Spirit Radio tomorrow [today!] at 5:00 PM EST for a special Leopards on the Prowl hosted by Princess Aliyah.  Or join the Princess Live at the Great Falls Library.  

The guest is Ahmad Beetar, from Aleppo.  He has a blog, but I cannot find it, now.  

From: Dan
Date: September 18, 2013, 4:51:23 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .............
Subject: Human Exceptionalism and the New World Order......


Allow me to explain the subject heading.........

The New World Order (Novo Ordo Seclorum) has been an essential component of the American mythos, since the founding of the US.

Needless to say, post-WWII, the 'NWO' has been a term of opprobrium, having become associated with the imperial dimension of our Manifest Destiny. Imagine our being reprimanded by Vladimir Putin for our alleged espousal of American exceptionalism.

Yet, it is hard for me to imagine a Circle of Friends that is not associated with good ol' American idealism, or, some might say, naivete.

Sensitivity to the the negative connotations of the NWO is one of the reasons why we are wont to play down any tone of messianics or megalomania in our seemingly simple desire to espouse Stop At Two(minus!).

But, it should be no surprise that I will pose as the contrarian.........

My exhibit A should be Jack Alpert, and his utopian(?) dream of Rapid Population Decline to 1% of our current population. If ever there were to be an NWO, would this vision not be high on the list?

The CCP represented an NWO for China, and that it what it took to implement the first ever population policy. Should we expect any less for the rest of us?

More of us believe that, as with China's NWO, a global NWO cannot be ushered in without a global 'shakeup', of 'biblical' proportions!


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: September 18, 2013, 5:55:30 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: ...........
Subject: Re: Human Exceptionalism and the New World Order......

(cont.........)


I am sure, however, that many of you cringe at my juxtaposition of Exceptionalism with an NWO. But, I ask you, should these two concepts not be virtually synonymous?

Yes, there have been instances of NWO's in the past, of a purely natural sort. I refer to the K-T and P-T extinction events? But I don't suppose that this is what we have in mind when we imagine a natural NWO.

Hey, this in not rocket science, there has never been natural, non-external NWO. Achieving any sort of sustainability would be an NWO of geological proportions. That we even contemplate that we might sneak Sustainability in, under the 'apocalyptic' radar is what...... a pipe dream?

Yes, sports fans, we do have a tiger by the tail, and to pretend otherwise may be rather less than truth in advertising. And this is precisely the reason why our struggle is such a lonely one. Everyone else is just a lot less naive about the magnitude of the task that we are wont to embrace.

Silly us!???

But this is just my point. The need to worry about sustainability has been brought on by our exceptionalism.

The possibility of our doing anything about it is equally contingent upon our treating each other as exceptional, within the entire natural order.


(cont.........2)

From: Dan
Date: September 18, 2013, 6:34:00 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: ...........
Subject: Re: Human Exceptionalism and the New World Order......

(cont........2)


Have I adequately explained why our scientific colleagues are no-shows for our Sustainability NWO party?

So what do we do, now? Cry a lot?

No, this is not my message.

My message is that if we wish to acknowledge that human exceptionalism is both the cause and the potential solution to our resource crisis, then we do need to think outside of our scientific box.

But, note-bene, our merely supposing that we might think outside of the scientific box would, in an of itself, constitute an NWO.

Modernism is all about binding ourselves, like Sisyphus, to the rock of scientism. The reason that we are so reluctant to loose the chains of scientific reductionism is simply because scientific reductionism has been responsible for all of our technological progress, for the last four centuries. I would not be able to ask you to look beyond scientific reductionism, were I not, at the same time, exploiting its technological fruits.

Am I, therefore, in a logical bind? I don't think so. Rather, we are all in a logical bind, if we don't seek to exploit our newfound communication power to the utmost. In order to do that, you will probably find it expedient to stop treating your fellow humans as if we didn't know any better.

Stop treating us like animals, and we might respond in kind.

Is this rocket science?

From: Dan
Date: September 19, 2013, 4:30:19 PM EDT
To: Steven Earl Salmony
Cc: ............
Subject: Re: Does the world need to be saved?

(cont.......2)


Science denies any and all ultimacy wrt humanity and wrt life, in general.  

When the existentialists posit that life is an absurdity in a meaningless universe, the scientific community nods its assent.  

So, then, here is the issue........

Humanity..... are we a cancer or a chrysalis?  

Science, if it says anything, says that we are a cancer.  OTOH, religion hold open the possibility that we are a chrysalis.  

It is the aim of the MoAPS to shift the intellectual balance toward the chrysalis paradigm.  

Just the fifty of you on this list, should you be so disposed, could provide an enormous impetus toward the benign paradigm.  

IOW, I am claiming that I have sufficient, semi-privileged information to puncture the very fragile structure that constitutes scientific materialism, and that, were you to care about saving humanity, I could, at the very least, point you in the right direction.  

Is this an offer that we can afford to refuse?  How do we wish to look this gift-horse in the mouth?  


(cont.......3)



On Sep 19, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Dan wrote:

(cont.......)


To sum up, many or most of us suppose that it would be really swell if the world could be saved from its imminent calamities, but, if we were into gambling, we would not be betting on it.  

Me, however, well, I'm laboring under the impression that I know a few things that the rest of you don't.  I could well be mistaken, and am always expecting to be taken to task for my presumption of privileged information.  

All of my information is shareable, but, over the years, its sharing has proven problematic, for any number of not very good reasons.  But hope springs eternal.

In this time-frame, I claim to have developed a robust scenario for the saving of the world, should that occasion arise.  My exhibit 'A' entails the MoAPS, or the mother of all paradigm shifts.  

Here is my little MoAPS...........

1.)  Science does not countenance exceptions or anomalies, yet, I submit that humanity presents many anomalies that the scientific 'Establishment' is either ignoring, denying or denigrating.  

2.)  Most on this list claim the mantle of science, in one way or another, but we all notice the absence of our colleagues, in this discussion.  

3.)  We who wish to discuss the ultimate concerns of humanity are given very little encouragement from the scientific or from any other establishment.  

4.)  The simple, sociological fact is that science has, from its inception, been paranoid wrt religion, and for reasons that are more or less cogent.  As a result, religion retains an hegemony wrt ultimate concerns.  

5.)  In as much as we face an existential crisis, both science and religion are, wrt our existential concerns, in a mutual grid-lock.  

6.)  The primary purpose of the MoAPS is to break the grid-lock between science and religion.  


(cont.......2)



On Sep 19, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Dan wrote:

Yes, no...... maybe?  

Another conundrum, closely related to human exceptionalism and the NWO, is whether or not the world needs to be saved.  

And, if so, from what and by what is it to be saved?  

Our sectarian brethren generally suppose that the world needs to be saved from human perdition.  

While our more secular brethren suppose that the world needs to be saved from human predation.  

What does the CoF believe?  

Our beliefs, although scattered, might be grouped as follows, ranked inversely according to radicalness......

1.)  Public policy needs to be revised to favor lower fertility and consumption.  

2.)  #1 will require a major shift in public attitudes toward economics, politics and religion.  

3.)  #2 will require a revolutionary upheaval in global civilization.

4.)  #3 will be accompanied by very significant increases in human mortality.  

I'm guessing that Jack Alpert may be the only one on this list who supposes that #1 alone might suffice to avert human disaster.  

By the same token, I may be the only one on this list who supposes that #1-3 might be accomplished without the accompaniment of #4, which would make me the most radical of all.  

#1 and #2 could be accomplished within the framework of existing intellectual and social structures, given sufficient time.  

But, if we are, indeed, facing a crisis, we may not have the luxury of time to figure out how to muddle through, and then, yes, the world will need an unforeseen set of circumstances to avoid a global collapse of civilization.  

Yes, we would need quasi-miraculous intervention or eventuality to save our sorry *sses.  


(cont.......)

From: Dan
Date: September 19, 2013, 6:28:48 PM EDT
To: Steven Earl Salmony
Cc: ..........
Subject: Re: Does the world need to be saved?

(cont.......3)


Should humanity build its Castle on the foundation of Science?

Isn't that what we have been doing for the last several centuries? How is it working out for us?

Not too well?

Can we switch horses in the middle of this raging river? Do we have a choice? Or do we need a fresh horse?

These are some serious questions. I am not being overwhelmed with your suggestions.

I present you with a fresh horse. Does anyone have a better one?

I ask you, why is it that every spiritual tradition sees us as being presented with a fresh horse, in the so-called endtimes? Do those traditions possibly harbor some knowledge that science lacks?

Can we truly afford to turn up our noses at the ancient wisdom? Can beggars be choosy?

From: Dan
Date: September 21, 2013, 10:20:28 AM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: ... nine others on the CoF list.......
Subject: Re: Response Required - Steve Salmony, I would like an answer.

John,

Yes, you and I concur, especially on your 2x3 sets of points enumerated below.

And I also concur with Jack Alpert's prescription for RPD, wherein we should, temporarily, be averaging less than one child per woman.

You are looking at the steady state solution to the population problem, whereas Jack is looking at the solution to the (temporary) overshoot problem.

I hope that this has (temporarily) resolved this recent breakdown in communications.

There was a similar breakdown of communication amongst cosmologists, of which I am also acutely aware. This was the case of the Steady State vs. the Big Bang cosmologies. It almost became a holy war.

According to the Big Bang cosmology, the universe and everything in it, especially us, humans, are merely a flash in the cosmic pan. Fred Hoyle was just the last of the ptolemaic Mohicans. Fred rejected both the big-bang and abiogenesis, and invented the Anthropic principle.

You, John, with your emphasis on the steady-state, take after Fred, whereas Jack is more cognizant of the Big Bang Overshoot.

I sympathize with both. For me, time is in a bottle. Time is real, but it is overshadowed by a hyper-real super-steady-state.

What could Hyper-reality possibly have to do with the reality of our Overshoot??


(cont.)


On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:38 PM, John Taves wrote:

It is a law of nature for a finite environment and a species that requires 2 to make an offspring. It always applies, just like gravity. You can take the formula for gravity and get the wrong answer because you forgot to factor in the Moon, and similarly you can abuse this formula and come to the idiotic notion that it does not apply. The scientists that we depend upon for our population related information routinely make the mistake of looking at some finite time period, failing to notice this fact of nature, and then coming to ridiculous conclusions that it does not apply.

It must be taught. We must know this. It is the base, like the DC offset to an alternating voltage/current. If everyone knew this, they would evaluate the number of children they have against 2. In a period where we need to reduce our numbers, then 2 is too many for you. If we are in a period where we need to increase our numbers, or it is OK to keep our numbers, then 2 is OK. Failure to respect this, results in childhood deaths. Yes, murder. Obviously this must be taught, because obviously nobody is doing that evaluation.

I agree it is not useful to calculate the death rate of children. There is really no point to attempting to determine how many children we are killing as a consequence of our births. We should stop doing that murder. The formula is useful to make it clear that the death rate of children is determined by how many children we average. If we want to ensure that we do not kill children by making too many babies, we had better know this concept and we had better know a few other things.

"assuming that we are at the limit" This is a correct assumption. Let me make this clear. There are three ways to measure an assumption.

1) is it probable? (it is a good assumption that the gun is not loaded, because it was not loaded earlier, and the child who is playing with it would have had to get the bullets from the locked drawer, and load them properly)
2) is it the safe thing to assume? (Clearly it is safest to assume the gun IS loaded)
3) is it the right answer? (you have to check the gun)

"we are at the limit" is a good assumption on all 3 measures:
1) we are on a finite planet, and have been in existence for a long time, have always attempted exponential growth, and have never controlled our fertility. The opposite assumption, which is assumed by every population scientist, is ridiculously improbable.
2) assuming that we are not at the limit is just plain evil. It allows children to continue to die as a consequence of births.
3) It is the correct realty today. We observe child mortality from starvation, clustered in poor groups, where the parents are not mentally and physically handicapped. What we observe in the world today, exactly matches being at the limit. What we observe today is predicted when we properly comprehend these fundamental principles.

jt

From: Dan
Date: September 22, 2013, 9:13:19 AM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: ...........
Subject: Flash in the Pan, Overshoot and Exceptionalism

(cont.......)  (This is all from yesterday, Saturday.........)  


Flash in the Pan, Overshoot and Exceptionalism..........

I think we also agree that I'm the only one on the CoF list who wishes to talk about exceptionalism.  

Exceptionalism is a bugaboo with environmentalists.  But should it be?  

1.)  One point is that, if we wish to reason with our fellow humans, then we are assuming that they are exceptional.  There are no natural explanations for reason.

2.)  If we wish to appeal to altruism or morality, we had best not make the assumption that we are talking to social insects.  If we treat our fellow humans as social insects, what should we expect?  

3.)  Let's make up our minds, folks...... are we dealing with a terminal cancer, or are we dealing with a potential chrysalis?  


(somewhat random notes from last evening......)  

Sustainability?  Survival for the sake of survival?  Do we live to eat, or eat to live?  

Do humans have a handle on eternity?  Is this about going to heaven and choirs of angels?

Can we not appeal to something higher?  But how does eternity differ from sustainability?  

What is so great about the transcendental?  Holism.  Beyond alienation.  Meaning.  At-one-ment.  Redemption.  


(cont........2)  

From: Dan
Date: September 23, 2013, 11:23:56 AM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: .........
Subject: Worry warts........

Gary,

Grant me this much....... only humans can worry, and isn't that why you and I are here...... to discuss our ultimate worries.  

What I am saying, Gary, is that my worries are more inclusive than yours, or, for that matter, more inclusive than anyone else's I know of.  

Am I bragging......?  Only in as much as my bragging will induce more folks to include themselves in the ultimate inclusiveness, wherein lies our only possible salvation.  

So, yes, not only am I talking about anthropocentrism, I'm also talking about Danthropocentrism, or, as my friends like to call it, Danianity.  You may, initially, wish to view this as merely a take-off on Christianity...... its reductio ad absurdum, me being the last of God's foolish clowns.  

Here's the deal.........

I am a super-pantheist or simply, and more technically, a relationalist...... to be is to be related, wherein love is the ultimate relational force.  Yes, love is killing us softly, we being both its perpetrators and victims.  

Why then all the hate?  Hate just keeps us alive, it's love that kills..... in the end, which need not be all that far off...... depending!  

So there you have it...... you will never get it simpler.  This is the ultimate KISS.  

There are, however, some very significant corollaries to this cosmic KISS.......

1.1)  There can only be a finite number of lovers.  In point of fact, there is an optimal number of lovers, which is pretty much where we are at, population-wise.  Love is unbounded, but lovers are not.  

1.2)  Infinite love = finite world.... both in space and time, as in pre-Copernican!

1.3)  Relationalism < Personalism

Next to God, persons are the ultimate love machines.  The more [gods] the merrier?  No....!

Why not?  Well, this is why monotheism has generally supplanted polytheism.  The love-bug has to stop somewhere.  The love-bug needs an anchor in eternity, which anchor we are won't to call God.  Wouldn't two anchors be better than one, like in a hurricane?  No, and that is just point.  

The Center must hold.  Being ellipsoidal is just inviting centrifugalism.  But, wait, maybe that's what creation is?  Now I get it, creation is a bit like crack-the-whip...... or like the gluon chain that holds the quarks together, we being the gluons, and love being self-containing color-force.  Hey, don't mind me, but I did have to struggle for those two (2) masters degrees in physics!

And how many quarks in a baryon.......?  Well, you see where that is going.  

The point is, there can be no free quarks, so there can be no free souls.  Not even God can be free, because that would be a naked-singularity (google it).  No, God must be concealed by the veil of Nature or creation.  The more creations the merrier.......?  Sorry, but quantity is no substitute for quality.  There can be no also-rans, in the creation game.  It is serious stuff, and it is for keeps!  

Have I left anything out, sports fans?  

And what does this have to do with the price of condoms in Times Square?  It has a lot to do with the cost of condom ads in the global soap-opera arena.

And does this make me my dolphin's keeper?  Well, the Dolphin may be our keeper, but only on the other side.  On this side, the species-buck stops with us..... we are the dolphins' keepers, deny it as you will.  

Challenge of Faith.  The Princess advises that the festival of Eid al-Fitr is an occasion for showing gratitude to God and the true Prophets, not to the people who falsely represent God.  It is for this reason that all good people give thanks for the guidance they receive from the Princess. The Footman represented all in the Palace in offering the following dedication.

You are our link to God and all happiness, a messenger who identifies the evils of the world and provides the means to defeat evil in all forms.  You bring life forward and complete the circle for those who betray the meaning of life.  Either fighting for Justice, or protecting endangered species, your Sword brings God to those who listen and brings those who will not to God.  Today is for celebration and thanksgiving.  Through you we have been saved, brought back to life through your love, kindness, and generosity.  All good people will rejoice together giving thanks for your presence, guidance, and assistance.  Then on behalf of the Palace staff, the Footman offered a small token of appreciation.  

From: Dan
Date: September 24, 2013, 10:30:07 AM EDT
To: Lawrence Rupp
Cc: ......CoF........
Subject: Nor would we deny human nature.....

Larry,

Yes, here we are, all dressed up, and nowhere to go......

And, yes, Exceptionalism is the favorite piñata of environmentalists, but, without that exceptionality, you and I would not be here to question human authority/priority.  

Do we, environmentalists, wish to be painted into the corner of denying the exceptionality of human rights?  If you wish to paint yourself into that, then you might as well take up the cause of China's CCP.  

Only by means of the most strenuous application of genetic engineering will you induce humankind to remove itself back to the paleolithic caves from which we sprang.

Are you suggesting that humanity became immoral at the same time that we first took up our spears against the mastodon?  Or was it when we first put plough to soil?  

Yes, we are now in Overshoot, but when did that regime start, and where were you then?  

When should resource rationing have first been implemented, and under what authority?  

Or was it the invention of democracy that spelled the doom of humanity?  

These are not easy questions, Larry.  But, much too often, we environmentalists dress up in diapers, as if we were babes-in-the-woods.  You, who is without sin, please cast the first stone.  

>>> Here is the question that you absolutely must answer before you have the slightest right to play Doctor to humanity........

Who are we.... from whence do we come and whither do we go?  

If you think you know the answer to this question, then please, pretty please, tell us, all, your answer.  Otherwise, I suggest you do your homework, with regard to human nature, before you arrogate yourself to being our Doctor.  

Dan

From: Dan
Date: September 26, 2013, 3:15:23 PM EDT
To: Steven Earl Salmony
Cc:
Subject: Re: Why not care?

Wonderful.........  

So, I wonder, then, why, in this alleged bastion of 'truthiness', religion is almost never confronted as being public enemy #1??

Oh, no, we, the Cassandras of human demise, are much to polite to say anything derogatory about our believing brothers and sisters!  

I wouldn't be here, unless I were a lot less polite..........

1.)  Slept with a pistol under my pillow in Pocatello, after confronting the local Mormon congregation wrt their fertility proclivity.  Mind you, that was back in 1967.  

2.)  Twice been threatened with a police summons, at my present church in Timonium.  

3.)  Been obliged to hangout with a climate and holocaust denying CIA officer, Ron Pandolfi.  

Here is my point.........

1.)  Believers...... if we can't beat them, then we had better join them.  

Am I asking you to become believers?  Heck, no!  

Am I asking you to be my witnesses?  Maybe.........




On Sep 26, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Steven Earl Salmony wrote:

Yes, definitely yes, Dan.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan
To: Steven Earl Salmony
Cc: ............
Sent: Thu, Sep 26, 2013 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: Why not care?

Steve,

Well, you did mis-attribute my only slightly ambiguous preposition......

So, once again.........

Do you dispute my assertion that the number one reason why most people do not and will not take personal responsibility for the human/resource crisis?

From: Dan
Date: September 26, 2013, 6:44:03 PM EDT
To: Gary Gripp
Cc: ...........
Subject: Re: Why care?

Gary,

Excellent....... excellent!  

And, yes, we should all note Sheffler's column in the Stone.  

And, yes, Gary, you are right on the mark.......

>>> Of all the gazillion holons within this holarchy, one is so out of balance that it is threatening the entire holarchy at the planetary level. The question this situation asks is: can this holon self-correct, and take responsibility for itself, in time to avoid utter ruin? Utter ruin means extinction for us, and at least most of everything else on planet Earth. Why should we care? Because we know something valuable when we see it, and we want to see it continue in all its splendorous beauty--even if that “seeing” is only a projections of our hearts and minds, a projection of our smaller self into our larger Self. <<<

Yes, it is all about our connection with the "larger Self".  

And, do you truly suppose that the Larger Self is indifferent to our fate?  Are we indifferent to the fate of the Dolphins?  

The only question is..... how might this larger Self lend us a hand in our moment of existential crisis?  

I believe that I have a possible answer, and it has something to do with my bbq-buddy.  But I could be wrong.  




On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Gary wrote:

Why we can Care about a World without Us....?

    The human being lives by story. We depend upon our stories to give our lives meaning. When our stories are consistent, one with another, creating a blended but coherent narrative, we have every reason to be clear about who we are, and the purpose of our lives. Some humans in the historical period, and others throughout prehistory, seem to have been more fortunate in their stories than we are today. That is, their stories, taken together, provided an unconfusing narrative by which to live. Those of us who grew up under the influence of Western civilization were not so lucky, because our stories, taken together, are self-contradictory in the extreme. In today’s America, for instance, you can try to choose to live by a single narrative thread, while ignoring all the others (as fundamentalists tend to do); you can compartmentalize, and accept, say, the atomistic/materialist narrative in one part of your life, and embrace the Platonic/dualistic/religionist narrative in another part of your life, and ignore the contradictions. If you are one of the few who requires philosophical coherence, you can make the heroic effort to reconcile (ala Teilhard de Chardin) two systems of thought that blend no better than oil and water. But, to make things more interesting still, there are story threads that run deeper than just these two, stories that are part of our genetic memory, our collective unconscious (ala Carl Jung). This is the source of a larger story that links the human being to a narrative inclusive of all Life.

    In most of us, this deeper and broader narrative has been mostly overridden (and overwritten) by our contradictory cultural narratives. And yet, intimations of a deeper connection to all of Life sometimes rise from the vaults of our unconscious mind into semi-consciousness, and we sense/feel/know that we are part of something far grander than our skin-encapsulated ego-driven (small s) self. In transcendent moments, we experience ourselves as simultaneously a small self and the larger Self, which includes the entire cosmos, and its 14 billion years of evolutionary florescence, including the creation of our solar system, and the transformation of our own planet from a fiery gaseous rock to a watery blue orb that supports life. We may or may not be aware of the details of Life’s flowering forth, but we sense the profundity of this Grand Experiment, and we identify with it, sharing in its glory.

    The impulse to care about the continuity of the Grand Experiment of Life derives from a part of our psyche that has been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of experience of living on Earth. Even if our cultural conditioning has made us so anthropocentric as to care only about our own species, our own short lives make no sense (of the satisfying sort) out the context of the continuation of our species. (Samuel Scheffler makes this point in The Stone, in his article “The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously”.)  This is where narratives get truly tangled: where the natural impulse to understand that one’s own self interest is utterly dependent upon the health and welfare of the larger systems that make life possible, and to identify one’s smaller self with that larger Self, get stepped on not only by cultural memes that go back thousands of years, but by cynical manipulation on the part of entities interested only in their own institutional liquidity.

    We have been sold a bill of goods by the promoters of capitalism when human beings are reduced to “rational maximers of self-interest.” This maxim of capitalism is a convenient point of doctrine for a system based upon a zero-sum game of winners and losers that is grounded in naked selfishness, but this gives a severely distorted reflection of human motivations. We’re not that simple.

   Suckled on the myth of the self-made man in a culture of hyper-individualism, we are invited to see ourselves as ending a hair outside our own skins. In a limited way, we are permitted to see ourselves as part of a family, part of a community, part of a nation-state. Xenophobes that we are, we are not especially encouraged to see ourselves as belonging to that order of being we might call humanity. Nor is it fashionable to regard ourselves as citizens of the world. That is just a little too broad-minded for a people who see themselves as “good ‘Mericans,” number one in all the world, and the greatest people who’ve ever lived. Human exceptionalism is thus reduced to American exceptionalism, and reflects tribalism run amok.

    Then there is the myth of the selfish gene, promulgated by Richard Dawkins. According to this overly simplistic view, we rational maximizers of self-interest have no real interest in the future of humanity except as that pertains to our own particular genetic line. This reductionist view is the opposite of holistic: it has no sense of history, or of our larger context, and shows no understanding of the ecology of the Earth Community. It is atomism run amok.

    Dualism run amok is no better. Call it co-creation, or whatever, it is allopoetic in outlook and depends upon the intervention of an outside force. But let’s go with Occam’s Razor and say that there is no such outside force: that this is too complicated and unwieldy an explanation to likely be true. Instead, let’s posit a self-creating, self-contained unity, and, indeed, a holarchy. Of all the gazillion holons within this holarchy, one is so out of balance that it is threatening the entire holarchy at the planetary level. The question this situation asks is: can this holon self-correct, and take responsibility for itself, in time to avoid utter ruin? Utter ruin means extinction for us, and at least most of everything else on planet Earth. Why should we care? Because we know something valuable when we see it, and we want to see it continue in all its splendorous beauty--even if that “seeing” is only a projections of our hearts and minds, a projection of our smaller self into our larger Self.  

From: Dan
Date: September 27, 2013, 11:54:05 AM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: .........
Subject: Re: Why not care?

John,

Most folks believe that we remain under a divine obligation to 'be fruitful and multiply'.  

You and I would most likely not be here to worry about this obligation, had our ancestors not conspired to fulfill it, with some gusto.  

IOW, had the bible taught what you prescribe, almost none of us would be here.  The same would be true, even if we had followed the word of Malthus, back in his day.  

What you are preaching would have been an existential threat to most of us, presently breathing.

When is comes to considering human destiny, timing is of the essence.  In your many pronouncements on fertility, you have not once acknowledged the relevance of the temporal dimension of human existence.  

The fatal flaw in your dictum is that it gives no credence to history.  You give no credence to history, yet you are countermanding what most of us suppose is the God of history.  It seems that you have no standing in this historical arena.  



On Sep 26, 2013, at 9:04 PM, John Taves wrote:

I dispute your assertion. Uncontrolled fertility is entirely caused by ignorance, ignorance that can be corrected. Except maybe in this group.

From: Dan
Date: September 27, 2013, 6:23:55 PM EDT
To: John Taves - stopattwo.org
Cc: ............
Subject: Re: Why not care?

John,

Thank you for these responses, which lead to the following clarification.........

You are suggesting that we should all assume responsibility for our individual and collective fertility. This would constitute an unprecedented act of self-determination.

The vast majority of your target audience, however, prays for daily divine guidance in all matters, large and small.

Now, we might arrange for the national leaders to claim divine guidance in the issuance of an international set of policies to control human fertility, which would lead us to sustainability.

But what is with sustainability? Sustainability is simply not in the lexicon of the major religions.

Rather, the prophetic tradition points to an (early) end of history, before which a crescendo of famine, plagues and wars are expected. Sound familiar?

But, then, God does intervene, and God's Millennial kingdom on Earth ensues, before the final judgment.

The question before the faithful is..... when and how God will intervene?

Whether you care to admit it or not, John, you are looking to bring about a final, peaceable era of history. Those of the prophetic tradition might wish to know if God has anything to do with this plan.

From: Dan
Date: September 27, 2013, 7:49:46 PM EDT
To: Michael Kavanaugh
Cc: ...........
Subject: Reimagining civilization.......

Michael,

The meditation that you suggest is what I do most of the time, in the process of composing emails and blog posts.

1.) Methinks you underestimate the power of love in our everyday lives. Hate has only ever been parasitic upon love. Likewise, with distrust being parasitic upon trust. How could we get out of bed in the morning, without conjuring a profound sense of trust?

But, yes, our sense of love and trust is very often unrequited. How do we rationalize our perseverance in the pursuit thereof? We suppose that, in the end, love can and will reign. That is all that we can ask and pray for.

How else, Michael, can we possibly make sense of our difficult lives?

There are times that we frankly wish we had not been born, but this is hardly the norm, now is it? Else-wise, we can only marvel at the existence of seven billion indefatigable dreamers and lovers. Perhaps this was an accident of nature, but how many believe that, in our heart of hearts?

Yes, Michael, the Force has been with us, right up to this very point in time. But now we seem well justified to wonder how the Force can possibly pull our iron out of the fire of an imminent apocalypse.

I can think of a thousand ways that this could happen, but, then, being an indefatigable dreamer, I must speculate on which of these myriad possibilities we might actually strive for.

Is it John's StopAtTwo, is it Jack's RPD? It is these..... and more..... much more.

Look at it this way...... who amongst us does not acknowledge that the saving of our sorry *sses, at this late hour, would constitute a veritable miracle? The Force that brought us to this juncture, all the way out of the primordial ooze, would have to pull a new trick out of its hat. No doubt about it!

Are we being toyed with? Is 'God' some sort of drama Queen? Do we sit back and watch the Divine Comedy?

My deepest impression is that Salvation is not a spectator sport. What we are about to witness is a whole new level of human participation in our own destiny, along with a very strategic nudge or two from the Force.

Does anyone have a better idea?

From: Dan
Date: September 28, 2013, 9:51:58 AM EDT
To: John Taves @stopattwo.org
Cc:
Subject: Limits of science........

John,

I'll wager that I know more population scientists than you do, and I don't know of one that is as stupid as you are making them out to be.  

The problem, John, is not that they failed their courses in elementary arithmetic, the problem, from you perspective, at least, is that they better understand their limitations as scientists vis a vis an entirely human dilemma.  

You, on the other hand, bless your heart, have not yet understood the human limitations of science.  My mission, should I choose to accept it, is to school you, and maybe a couple of others, in those limits.  

Here is the very very first lesson that my dad taught me about economics...........

Economists tend to talk about long term effects, forgetting that, in the long run, we will all be dead.  Or, to put it another way, what has posterity ever done for us?  

I have spent most of my life trying to find a work-around to my dad's dictum.  

Have you found a work-around?  I'll give you a little hint, John, it's not about posterity!

From: Dan
Date: September 28, 2013, 11:19:16 AM EDT
To: Fred Magyar
Cc: ..................
Subject: Re: Why care?

Fred,

Exactly!  And why is this excruciatingly obvious idea so difficult to get across to an erudite group?  



On Sep 28, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Fred Magyar wrote:

Interesting talk about 'WHY'

http://www.ted.com/playlists/60/work_smarter.html

From: Dan
Date: September 28, 2013, 4:12:17 PM EDT
To: John Taves
Cc: ...........
Subject: By what Authority......?

John,

Yes, you do make the excellent point that I had not completely grasped..... that, even in the best of times, we are still producing progeny right up to our daily limit, resulting in daily childhood mortality.  

My response, however, stays much the same........

You wish to tell humanity what to do and how to do it..... prevent (excess) childhood mortality.......

But, John, you are not explaining why we should do this.  

To you, the answer seems obvious, but, to everyone else, the why of it is much less obvious.  

For instance, it is often said that we should only have as many children as we can afford.  This has been the golden rule of reproduction, up to this point, and it has worked fairly well, up to this point.  

But, now, John Taves comes along and wants to tell everyone that this golden rule of reproduction is no longer applicable.  You say, StopAtTwo.  Jack says, stop at 0.01!  

I point out to you that almost none of us would be here had our ancestors followed either you or Jack.  

You and Jack are asking humanity to undertake its greatest change of behavior, ever.

But, on what authority do you make this admonition?  On the authority of science, logic or arithmetic?  Humanity has not accepted that authority, up to this point.  What do you think will cause us to accept this authority, now?  

Every other scientist already understands this problem of Authority.  You are the only one who does not.  By clinical definition, you might well be taken to be insane, not to put too fine a point on it!