[Ibon]

I find this exchange between Ibon and AD very intriguing. On the one hand AD decrying the uplifting of Man via conscious reasoning and Ibon saying that a mysticism borne out of the dramatic consequences of overshoot shall reign supreme. The essence of the duality of a human is the emotions and reason. I dare say that we cannot separate them. If mankind can somehow muster a response that is bereft of barbarism and savagery in the aftermath of overshoot then perhaps we will emerge on the other side of the bottleneck. But reason alone cannot suffice in the tumultuous times ahead. An appeal to the highest virtues of mankind must be juxtaposed within the pragmatic chores and preoccupation with resurrecting society . I think that is what Ibon refers to AD. A profound anchoring of the human psyche and spirit via a communion with timeless virtues of caring, altruism, peace , harmony and love. Reason does not inform us about these virtues only our emotions can connect with these virtues. Ultimately, these virtues are what can guide us to greener pastures in the future. To me a divorce from Nature has been symptomatic of a divorce from these higher virtues. These higher virtues are life affirming while we live now in the age of destruction.

I don't dispute the logical arguments that AD is presenting but I do refute a reductionist position that conscious socialism necessitates discarding a more mystical or spiritual orientation. AD equates mysticism with primitivism. I don't. As I mentioned in the past there are secular scientists who study ecology whose relationship with the ecosystems they work with is one of reverence and holding them sacred. The sheer diversity of life is marveled at, not glorifying a creator but glorifying the fecundity of biodiversity itself. This is compatible with secular thought and not a lingering primitivism.

In addition, I also mentioned that you can have parallel movements in our macro institutions. If the Catholic Church continues down the road of tying faith to care of the environment and if we continue to have a large percentage of oue population for hundreds of more years wanting to follow religious doctrine then it is not hard to conclude that secular and rational conscious socialism could evolve side by side with religious sensitivities toward sustaining the ecosystems on the planet. Religious mysticism is not a primitive legacy. There are also spiritual practices that truly are therapeutic. Prayer is not just an opiate and primitive. If you read some Buddhist text on temples that are 500 years old in Nepal or Tibet they read like contemporary 20th century psychology. There is wisdom in these spiritual teachings that touch on other aspects of human life that will continue to have value for thousands of years to come.

This is not an either or argument I am having with AD. He tends to be simply reductionist and sees a single global society eventually homogenized around a single conscious socialism.

One thing certain though. Capitalism has succeeded in trumping almost all other political ideologies, cultural groups, language groups. We see it ubiquitous across the whole planet. So there is a homogenizing affect here. So who knows, we might be heading toward a more homogenized cultural representation going forward. And so AD might be on to something in terms of this reductionist direction he foresees.

I can present a point of view at the same time as entertain another one since I am not all that emotionally invested in any one position.

[americandream]

Good replies guys and there is the challenge but I hear you. The call to reason in circularity ONLY relates to objects and commodities and the role they play in mediating:

1 Needs

2 As opposed to hierarchies especially capitalism where objects mediate relationships especially with the planet.

But at the level of organic relations, circularity is fundamentally on all fours with relationships of a full magnitude. If that includes celebration of the planet I see no problem with that unless it also carries a hidden agenda for reviving divine privilege for a particular group. In fact a secular but sensuous relationship with all organic life as well as the planet is very healthy and I for one would enjoy the experience.

[onlooker]

In discussing this issue guys I am constantly having to hold back a reminiscing of the past. Perhaps because via the past we can always learn something of the future. American Indians lived in relative harmony for a very long stretch in the new continent. They did so partly because they had a reverence and respect for life and what they know gave life meaning the Earth. To not ever go down the path we have gone as a species we must understand why we did go down this path of destruction. This fervent materialism to me is a sign of some psychosis or emotional emptiness along with the ongoing competition and pursuit of wealth that characterizes our evolution. All this signals a disquieting lack of harmony in the heart or soul of mankind. In that sense our civilization so contrasts with American Indian society. Sensuous relation or Mystical relation are ways to describe a healthy relation with existence. A harmonious life can be attained incorporating these timeless virtues because they give Man fulfillment while establishing a positive relation with his surroundings. It seems to be this has been lacking and so we have sought the superficial fulfillment of consumerism and achievement. Or in other words power and money. So by incorporating our being with these virtues we can proceed forward with a more healthy outlook that will be respectful of the Earth and all existence. I do not think it is coincidence that so many thinkers and philosophers over time have referenced these virtues .

[evilgenius]

The communist point on labour value is that it is the source from which commodities derive their value in the transformation process along with the capitalists contribution of capital. However, without the input of labour, capital would be a dead entity, devoid of any use.

That may be Marx's point of view, but it is actually pure bunk. The truth is that labor does not add value to anything. Value is always determined by a market.

Not quite and this is basic physics. Commodification requires the transfer of energy, sentient human energy to mould the object and inorganic energy in oil to amplify that moulding process. So human energy is the most desired having the capacity to consciously add value to something and oil is a necessary amplifier to render the process JIT.

Value of that energy input in the market is expressed through the commodities vintage. If of a needs nature, it is thus valued for that function, if on a wants basis, the ad industry plays a role here in creating an objects mediated social relation.

That being said, there is still no value to anything that people don't agree to give a thing by their beliefs. Even the law, being formed of norms, obeys this. And it is the law which actually gives capital its ownership. Without the law capital has no more right to claim ongoing control than labor does. That is why nations, having the authority of the people, can nationalize businesses, or even whole industries. I'm not saying that the goal of freedom that Marx sought was wrong, but I highly stress that his labor theory of value is fatally flawed. It is the result of misunderstanding the inherent value of man as having any relationship to money, either its creation or its existence.

And, as far as ethics being subjective, that is only the case if your word has no value. The reason for this is that a person's word, if it has value(and we are talking ethical value, such that people can trust it and therefore believe you the next time you say something) then you will move heaven and earth to keep it. It may be the case that there are circumstances wherein you would be released from your word, but none that are merely built upon whether the set of potential outcomes are now not in your favor.

[americandream]

The communist point on labour value is that it is the source from which commodities derive their value in the transformation process along with the capitalists contribution of capital. However, without the input of labour, capital would be a dead entity, devoid of any use.

That may be Marx's point of view, but it is actually pure bunk. The truth is that labor does not add value to anything. Value is always determined by a market.

Not quite and this is basic physics. Commodification requires the transfer of energy, sentient human energy to mould the object and inorganic energy in oil to amplify that moulding process. So human energy is the most desired having the capacity to consciously add value to something and oil is a necessary amplifier to render the process JIT.

Value of that energy input in the market is expressed through the commodities vintage. If of a needs nature, it is thus valued for that function, if on a wants basis, the ad industry plays a role here in creating an objects mediated social relation.

That being said, there is still no value to anything that people don't agree to give a thing by their beliefs. Even the law, being formed of norms, obeys this. And it is the law which actually gives capital its ownership. Without the law capital has no more right to claim ongoing control than labor does. That is why nations, having the authority of the people, can nationalize businesses, or even whole industries. I'm not saying that the goal of freedom that Marx sought was wrong, but I highly stress that his labor theory of value is fatally flawed. It is the result of misunderstanding the inherent value of man as having any relationship to money, either its creation or its existence.

And, as far as ethics being subjective, that is only the case if your word has no value. The reason for this is that a person's word, if it has value(and we are talking ethical value, such that people can trust it and therefore believe you the next time you say something) then you will move heaven and earth to keep it. It may be the case that there are circumstances wherein you would be released from your word, but none that are merely built upon whether the set of potential outcomes are now not in your favor.

These points all refer back to social relations which ultimately determine the quality of a thing. The further back social relations are taken, the more rudimentary are these things till we get back to pure need and base value. Therefore the value of a need object ultimately depends on the social relations. The value of a need in capitalism is thus a function of history multiplied by the function of capitalist social relations being accumulation.

The value of ethics is likewise construed, having one threshold in say this corner of the globe and another elsewhere. However, evolution has set a benchmark by virtue of our ability to forwardise cause and effect and thereby arrive at a rational outcome (unless we are subject to some cognitive malady or for some other reason absent of capacity). This is basically reasonableness which is widely used in jurisprudence and is a universal tool for measuring someones actions, the vagaries of ethics notwithstanding. Thus the consciousness tool has clearly sharpened with the passage of time from the days when we shoved kids up chimneys to these times where we take a reasonable approach to their maturity, allowance being made for the as yet incomplete globalisation of Reason.

[onlooker]

It dawns on me AD, that unfortunately, the evolution of this social circular reasoning did not compel mankind to take more care of Mother Earth. I wonder what is your take on why we in all the span of human civilization not come to the point of rationalizing the importance of Earth. That is why I think reason alone may not suffice, mankind can most respond to a profound emotional message and I am persuaded to believe this message must point to the profound dysfunctional nature of our ethics and value system. Because at its heart I cannot quite accept that it is a problem of reasoning but rather of ethics whereby we are not prone to wars, destruction and domination but rather a creed of empathy, nurturing and care as I described above in the timeless virtues. Only by adopting this value system which incidentally speaks to the above posts about what we assign value too or how much value we assign, so we MUST assign the highest values to actions and thoughts that are positive in all respects.

[SeaGypsy]

Positive is subjective, means totally different things to different people & is only useful in context. Out of context, positivism is new age hogwash.

[evilgenius]

The value of ethics is never construed, not as regards truth. There is a reason why the very first thing that God asked of man was circumcision, for instance, well before any obedience or even acknowledgment. It amounts to saying that the act of paying attention is that important. Inherent within the lesson is a type of attention which is not focused upon the self for its benchmarks. Yes, the flesh is circumcised, and therefore participates, but it is inherently not the object. It, the flesh, has a voice, but that voice is informed by a type of deliberate weakness. Circumcision, when properly understood as a circumcision of the heart, is a basic condition required of man to function ethically.

[Timo]

Better, more responsible ethics is, indeed, a better alternative to capitalism. Uniform spirituality and respect for Mother Earth will solve everything.

Everyone agreed on that?

Any ideas on how to impose a universal code of ethics to achieve this? Genuine, practical, and achievable ideas, and not wishful thinking, or empty rhetoric?

Philosophical discussions of the problem we face is a start, but talk is cheap without viable solutions.

[onlooker]

Wow the convoluted Ethics question has been debated for thousands of years. I do not think we can arrive at a consensus here. I will say that I personally believe that certain beliefs and ethics stand the test of time. That is caring, empathy, selflessness, love, compassion and a few others. I do not think they are subjective thus they should always be what humans can agree are positive and necessary to hold up as virtuous.

[SeaGypsy]

The assertion by EvilG that ethics requires more than fear of negative consequences of behaviour outside the social ethics of your environment is spurious.

The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.

[onlooker]

The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.

Good point Sea, and in a global perspective we, meaning from the highest levels to the lowest have bought into this material false promise and along the way forgot about compassion and empathy and so we have this unequal world ridden with inequality ,injustice and avarice. The byproducts of Capitalism. So that is why I press forward the ethics question. Would we all have so easily and quickly bought into this world if we we had the integrity borne out of the ethics which I speak of? I posit that NO. We would have demanded more from all our Institutions. We would have voted for those who stood by these moral codes, not for those promising economic growth. If need be we would have all around the world risen to demand changes. For the cynical, how do you stop millions and billions from being heard? You do not. Alas, as Timo accurately stated the problem is numbers not enough to make a difference.

[kanon]

Better, more responsible ethics is, indeed, a better alternative to capitalism. Uniform spirituality and respect for Mother Earth will solve everything.

Everyone agreed on that?

Any ideas on how to impose a universal code of ethics to achieve this? Genuine, practical, and achievable ideas, and not wishful thinking, or empty rhetoric?

Philosophical discussions of the problem we face is a start, but talk is cheap without viable solutions.

It seems AD believes we will evolve or transform into a higher ethical state. One small problem I see is those who are not transformed will probably have guns.

I agree that "talk is cheap without viable solutions." One other thing we are all agreed on is reduced availability of resources in the future (and the present). Granted that most or our resource usage is waste, simply transforming resources into garbage or consuming fuels in frivolous activities. Most conflicts are about resources. So either higher ethics creates a new distribution system or lower ethics creates conflicts. The one thing about people with guns is they have a way of forcing the situation, so you must be able to deal with them, usually with your own guns. So the overriding consideration becomes the need for military capability and this often takes all available resources.

It is said "blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth," but I don't think anyone believes or understands that. Since I do not believe evolution is directed towards a higher state and am not aware of any time when people did not invade their neighbors, I have to say any idea based on a universal code of ethics has to include the adoption and enforcement part. Just because an alternative system is more just, fair, sustainable, etc. does not mean it is more practical.

[SeaGypsy]

"The meek (those hiding in caves or deep in the few remaining wilderness, or having established their own islands of independence) shall inherit (walk out & find what's left of) the earth (after everyone else has done with killing each other),

Least that's what I always thought that bit of the Bible was about.

[Ibon]

The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.

This is a major issue I have also mentioned. Let's assume we have some serious consequences coming up that pinch not only the luxury consumption (wants) but also start to threaten basic needs. Under this scenario you could have religious institutions through a priesthood mold the flock by saying that gods wrath has thrown us these consequences for having trashed the earth and then use an angry mother earth god as the basis in developing a set of ethics and taboos around consumption.

Or we use a rational and logical set of guidelines along the lines of what AD is proposing, using conscious socialism to bring the focus away from consumption and towards values that strengthen human relationships with each other and the planet.

When you consider different bio regions around the planet with varying degrees of vulnerability to environmental disruptions, the varying degrees of religious or secular beliefs in populations, the varying degree of technological advancement, the varying degrees of secular individuality vs communal orientation, you can see that we really do not have a choice between these two options but rather an integration.

If you implement a strong set of ethical principals based on secular science and promote AD's approach and parallel to this you frame this in a spiritual context then this does not have to be an either or choice. Segments of the population will resonate either from their secular objectivity or religious subjectivity. IF both approaches are responding to consequences of human overshoot then the whole population is rowing the boat toward the same sustainability. Who then cares what we are debating here if the goal is the same?

We already exist in a society with a population that is a mix of secular and religious. The whole point here is that we move toward a rational sustainability and if we use elements of conscious socialism and religious principals then fine.

This comes back to my basic point of the catalyst of consequences steering us forward. All orientations will capitulate whether they are religious, economic or a form of government. In other words, all macro institutions will be moving toward responding to the imbalances of human overshoot.

Now to mix up a bit further the mixed bag of responses humanity will attempt in adjusting the consequences of human overshoot we have all those nasty resource wars and authoritarian despots and all the rest.

We create these mental constructs here based on our internal narratives in how we project into the future. This causes us to see this homogenized global response. Reality tends to be a far more messier mixed bag.

If I can indulge a moment in my own internal narrative I do tend to have a somewhat optimistic prognosis that following the rather turbulent upcoming period of adapting to consequences we will fall back to a baseline that very well might include a lot of the elements that AD has been proposing. I think this turbulent chapter coming up is not going to be brief but rather last many decades or even a century or two.

[onlooker]

This point by Ibon is great because it stresses that combined reason and a moral compass can accomplish great things. I still though side a bit more towards a moral framework because reason can tend to favor selfish myopic thinking. While a moral framework will frame the issues in good or bad ways so that people can understand what society expects from them and what they in turn can expect from society rather then availing simply of the reasonableness of people. So the adopting and enforcing as Kanon alluded too will depend on society or the community prevailing upon its members in a clear and forceful manner the guidelines that inhabitants should adhere to. Think Ten commandments. I know I will get into trouble with AD but I have to state my mind. You see the issue revolves around people seeing themselves as part of something greater so they will not transgress if they know they are part of the team and hurting the team only hurts themselves. You can call it soft enforcement when people wish to cooperate out of caring and a awareness that in unity their is strength. With just reason I think it will not be as firm as people always by default can reason in favor of their immediate individual or family well being and self-interest. Perhaps that is why the history of mass movements has been sporadic as not enough people see beyond their particular immediate personal well being or self-interest.

[evilgenius]

The assertion by EvilG that ethics requires more than fear of negative consequences of behaviour outside the social ethics of your environment is spurious.

The problem isn't lack of ethics or religion in the population, it is the mental & intellectual weakness of the population & defenselessness against manipulation via base instincts only too well understood by- religious institutions, political machines, advertisers, media moguls, bankers, developers, lawyers & legislators, military industrial complex. It is at these levels decisions are made & the populace are led like sheep to the forgone conclusion.

That's flat out wrong. It is fear which provides the basis upon which all of the things you mention can thrive. Mostly, fear that love has no solution for them. That it has no efficacy. Just try training an animal by brutalizing it every time that it fails to do what you want as opposed to rewarding it when it does right and you will see what I mean. In order to understand ethics you have to believe that right works, and that it works for you. Once there you will see that being good is its own reward. The unbelief of fear, that short circuit is an easy out. It comes because your average person is not capable of seeing enough of the pieces to put two and two together.

As I've said before, it would require super human memory for a truly ethical human to exist, and that only after trial and error. People don't have those kinds of memories. Instead they reinvent themselves in light of their own view of themselves as whatever construct their own selfishness has created for them at the time they do so. As a way to cope with the troubles this creates for them most people turn to the collective in order to measure themselves and make sure they at least fit in somehow. They don't realize the collective can't be trusted. Wisdom is a much better alternative, but to achieve that one must endeavor to at least partially solve the memory problem, so that comparison of like situations, at various levels, can be gotten at. Even then you can't be certain that your memory isn't fooling you, so that your analogies actually match in enough ways to pass a standard of validity pertinent to the situation you are attempting to solve.

[Ibon]

I know I will get into trouble with AD but I have to state my mind. You see the issue revolves around people seeing themselves as part of something greater so they will not transgress if they know they are part of the team and hurting the team only hurts themselves. You can call it soft enforcement when people wish to cooperate out of caring and a awareness that in unity their is strength. With just reason I think it will not be as firm as people always by default can reason in favor of their immediate individual or family well being and self-interest. Perhaps that is why the history of mass movements has been sporadic as not enough people see beyond their particular immediate personal well being or self-interest.

Onlooker, it can be with just reason for a large percentage of mainly secular individualists. They can be morally persuaded to be part of the "team" so to speak with just rational arguments. Others will require a more spiritual context. When I say this needs to be integrated it does not mean integrated within the same individual but rather in a society where both points of views are valid and cultivated.

On a personal note, besides studying organisms within the framework of classical ecology I also did a lot of experiential wilderness trips when I was young as well as experimenting with psycho tropics deep in nature. For me integrating the secular science with the shamanistic is not inconsistent. There is probably only a very small percentage of our global population that will ever be able to resolve the inherent contradiction of spiritual / secular and move to a deeper place where these are integrated. Most are stubbornly secular or stubbornly spiritual. or agnostic which allows for doubt but is also in a way non committal.

I think AD brings up a very good point on one of his recent posts which I will repeat here.

The call to reason in circularity ONLY relates to objects and commodities and the role they play in mediating:
1 Needs
2 As opposed to hierarchies especially capitalism where objects mediate relationships especially with the planet.

Render into Caesar what works in the secular world. A rational approach in reference to the physical and commodities is correct. Trying to apply mysticism to this is folly.

Experiencing the divine is the singing that can take place within the architectural cathedral of AD's rational proposition. That spirituality is there for those that want to cultivate it. But built on a rational structure.

[onlooker]

On a personal note how are things in the bush so to speak Ibon? Your posts seem to conjure up this pristine setting which you are fortunate to have. I guess it is tough for us to have the personal experience of nature that you have had. Something some city folk like me envy. By the way Ibon stands for bird right?

[Ibon]

On a personal note how are things in the bush so to speak Ibon? Your posts seem to conjure up this pristine setting which you are fortunate to have. I guess it is tough for us to have the personal experience of nature that you have had. Something some city folk like me envy. By the way Ibon stands for bird right?

The nature here is breathtaking and we live essentially in a national park. The project is demanding. The situation: I am almost 60 years old. Access to Mount Totumas is 10km up a 4WD road. The place is spectacular and borders an immense upland wilderness. The managing and running of it is slowly getting beyond the scope of an older couple. I am right now in the beginning phases of creating a non profit foundation whose mission will be to preserve this as a wilderness for as long as this legal entity will be respected by modern governments. I hope to open up ownership of the foundation to other individuals who share our vision for this place. Folks who can also commit to the sweat equity of spending several months a year here. Since this will never be a business any foundation member will be putting in funds that is not an "investment" so much as "benefactor" funds for preservation. Other members will have to have a degree of independent financial wealth. I hope to be a part of this project into my old age as a member of this foundation with others.