Discussion

[dmvernona]

I think so far that equation has generally been proven true. I also agree that at first glance at today's society from an obvective point of view, possession seems to be a part of man's nature. Obviously it wasn't always a facet that was there, at least in the same way or to the same degree we see it, so it's negotiable to me.

I was doing some yard work with my father today and was medititating on this general idea when I realized that "communal living" is truly an oxymoron. Man obviously only has and will only ever live communally with his fellow man. The failure or success of interpersonal relationships is to a great degree rooted in the ability of the individual to understand and respect that they are a part of the communal system of living that is their race.

Since I was in middle school I daydreamed about having a secluded home in the Smokey Mountains, a tropical locale in Central America, etc. Today I find myself faced with the reality more and more that life is what you make of it. Location is a very signifigant variable to take into account when describing your life but I think that it's considerably less signifigant than I once thought it to be.

Obviously I am limited in my actions by institutions in the country I'm living in but as you're saying, it's the burden of the individual to "unplug" from preconcieved truths of this failed society. I think this can be done in a variety of ways. To relate this idea to the location of the individual vs. the reality of the individual, I think it suffices to say that there is one place, if you're not on drugs someone else is telling you to take, that the individual has the freedom to do what they will - the psyche. Although I share sentiments with you that the ideal way to "unplug" from the reality most people see and to begin living in a truer and more real sense would be to cultivate both mental and physical landscapes anew, it is certainly possible for an individual to endure any surroundings and operate mentally in a completely original and autonomous manner. Case and point in this arguement would be that the revolutionary minds, nevermind whether you're interested in their thoughts or not, of Freud and Kafka were shackled to jobs as clerks for long periods.

My point in all of this is not that I think that any individual should put up with any less from their physical reality than it granting them and becoming their wildest dream, but that every day I think about it, it becomes clearer to me that there is no excuse for the individual to perpetuate the failed society around us. It's funny to be saying this because it takes me back to a conversation I had at least five years ago with a friend of mine's older brother who paints - you know who I mean. I was saying the same thing then as now. Part of that conversation that I haven't acknowledged yet though is that there are a million personal sacrifices to be made to get to a place where one is true to the idea I just set out. I say there's no reason but to give one simple example about what I'm talking about in counterpoint is that if 5 years ago I acted on these ideas completely my family as I know them today wouldn't be a part of my life. I and the world would be better for my actions though and I can't help but think I'm lucky enough to have a family that could understand whatever I do to a reasonable extent.

To wrap all this shit up, what I've been getting at is that what is called for in this sad day and age isn't a revolution of regionalism or any other concept but a revolution of the mind - this means a communal revolution of the individual - which, returns to my original thought of this post.

Lastly, regardless of what you have to say about all of the above, I'm still trying to get a straightforward answer from anyone in regards to the question, "can man save himself from himself?"

ML, are you suggesting from your "unplug" scenario that if you stick a communal tribe on a remote island to begin anew that they would possibly be capable of saving themselves from perpetuating many of the same evils they escaped? I think, to weigh in on this, being my previous question that I was holding off on biasing the field to answer one way or another, that man is capable of saving himself and only himself and that therefore the man - in the broader sense, that is, than the individual man who can be saved - is doomed.

The next logical progression of this conversation to me is to delve into utopian experiments and the like. It's my personal nature and I think general nature of man to, even if they believe their species is doomed, hold out a shred of hope that there is some configuration of existence in which a special effort could be made for some sustainable, undoomed life.

Tell me what you agree and disagree with if you would in regards to my major ideas and points above before we delve into all that though. This is a fascinating discussion to me that I don't mind drawing out.

[dmvernona]

you slippery little mother, you totally slipped that in before me while i was typing.

anyway, all good points. agreed, agreed...agreed. also, you're on the money as per asking for a definition of failure. The definition to which my answer was relevant is this:

"The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends"

[Muddy Love]

I'd have to say I agree with Fick's definition of failure there, though we might be talking about slightly different things. Is man a failure in the sense that he is meant to achieve some sort of goal and at this point has not done so?
I think maybe, but I'm still holding out hope that people, like us, can prove that theory wrong.

As for the utopian society question, I'm not really sure. If I acknowledge that possession is not a innate trait, that its learned through a serious of manipulations, then perhaps a new generation could be taught, in time, to react accordingly. I don't think that would be allowed however. NOt in the here and now, anyway. Also, I still feel that you have to completely unplug, but I'm less certain that uprooting is the right answer, I used to think so. I think other things can be done...

[refill]

just when we thought life couldn't get any better, gentlemen, read this story please!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9896401/

[eltonjohn]

But what is this "goal" we are supposed to achieve? Because if we are talking about man in general, ultimately, I don't think we know exactly what our desired ends are. I mean we can speculate as to what it is... live a good life, treat people as you would have them treat you, reproduce to continue the life cycle, leave this world better than the way you found it, etc. etc. but is it really possible for us to actually know what it is we are here for? Or are you talking about achieving a desired end or goal on a more individual level? I'm not trying to be a dick with all these questions, I'm just trying to grasp what you mean to say, because I get the feeling that all of us may be talking about and thinking "slightly different things."
Anyway, I really think that this may spawn an entirely different discussion. Maybe not just yet, but keep it in the back of your minds - what do you think man is here for? what do you think his desired ends are?
As for utopian societies, well, I have to remind you all of our good friend Richard Everall and the conversation we had over the summer. Just hear me out before you pull out the crucifix for bringing this up. Muddy, when you said "perhaps a new generation could be taught, in time, to react accordingly" that is exactly what Mr. Everall was talking about. He had this idea of an ideal world with small communal societies throughout it. Now, I have to agree with ML, I don't think this is very likely to ever happen, because the way the majority of men have thought for thousands of years makes me think that man will be thinking that way for thousands of years to come.
Th biggest problem I have with these anarchist motherfuckers, or whatever the hell you want to call them, those who believe in some ideal world, is that most of them are not doing a goddamn thing about. Sure, they go to all their protests and wreak havoc on corporate buildings and so on, but that's not doing a fucking thing in this day and age. People just aren't too impressed by that kind of stuff anymore. If you believe in something so strongly do something more meaningful than that. Like Fick said, you have to make a million personal sacrifices, and I just don't think a lot of people are willing to do that. I mean, you really have to lead by example, but the 'examples' used today, I just don't think they are getting much accomplished.
I think that improvements can be made on the way things are now, but I really don't think we'll ever reach the extreme of a utopian society. I sure as hell would like to hope that a society that resembles a utopia is possible, but I guess only time will tell.

[eltonjohn]

Oh, and by the way Fick, I'd like to thank you for using punctuation in your last response. It makes reading and understanding you a hell of a lot easier.

[dmvernona]

very interesting direction to go man and i'm all for delving into it. there's things you're really talking about there:

1. "goals"

2. possibilities

they're both very interrelated b/c i think that man's "failure" isn't a lack of having achieved goals. we've created a bunch of bullshit ones and totally outdone ourselves. big fucking deal. look where it got us. what i think is that society on the whole has failed the only responsibility it has, which is to respect the individual. as an individual you ought to be able to do what the fuck you want and not do what the fuck you don't want. these possibilities need to be there within the scope of actions that don't encroach upons others' ability to do the same. beyond that, compromise is great too so anything's still possible. if you wanna murk somebody and you find somebody up to getting murked - have a blast! get my drift?

the individual is the sum of their actions to any given point in time. man collectively is the sum of the actions of individual throughout history. i see no overriding goal of man other than to live according to the way they want to within the above certain reasonable limits in today's society i can't do this. not only are actions institutionalized that promote negative effects on others, therefore railroading my conciencous ass into being an offender of the things i rally agaist far too often, but i am unable to do many things that would harm no one that i wish to do. that said, i think the great "goal" of man/the individual is to have the greatest number of possible paths open while obstucting as few as possible - which is zero - paths of others to do as they wish.

that said, there's one way to attain the "goal" i see. it's not pooping on corporate buildings with richy richy at a rally, although a rally can be a good public forum for the discussion of who may be encroaching upon others and how to stop them, not to mention a confidence builder for those interested as they if nothing else, by showing up to a rally can physically see that there are other people trying to work with them to help each other. what people need to do to get what they need out of life - if they share my perspective that is - is simply not involve themselves with things with negative implications on others. in today's world this may be impossible to do while maintaining a reasonable existence. the more ways in which you choose to avoid these implications though, the more you're helping and the better off you and the rest of the world are. as for the obvious flaws in this logic when one doesn't simply stop using currency and live on the street because it's the only way not to ever impact someone else badly to eat out of dumpsters and shit, i think that if people with enough sense to see the world clearly and give a shit, like us, simply stayed organized as a rule and expressed themselves and made sure that people knew what they thought about the things they couldn't control without unreasonable sacrifices, shit would get better faster than any other way i can think of.

like you said, you definately have to lead by example. in the instances that's not feasible you just got to raise fucking hell until shit gets changed - and i don't mean pooping on doorsteps and tossing a brick bi-monthly.

lastly, like i was saying - fuck utopian societies. it's a real cool idea but people lost their chance a long time ago. there's too many people now to run away from things. the only good effect of this is that as fucked as the global society is, everybody's in it together. that should serve as motivation for people to think globally. personally i think the only relevant citizenship is global citizenship. if that's a cliche to some folks then they're not acknowledging how little space there is as opposed to the number of people romping around.

everybody with me here? if not tell me what you think.

as for punctuation, you're welcome, although i think you mean capitalization (i don't know if that's part of punctuation really, is it? doesn't fucking matter, does it). on a sidenote i've found that i type faster without it and that there is truly no loss in meaning. it's simply b/c people are used to it being used that it throws them off.

also, as for my visit upcoming, i think i'm going to be arriving sunday afternoon. that depends on what i hear back from my host in nyc though so i'll let you know for sure when i know. also, should be leaving the day after the concert - wed. - cause i have to get back home to see another one thurs. in delaware

[Muddy Love]

Here's the thing about utopian societies, they are not entirely defined by location. That's why I can't say that I don't believe they would ever work. I'm not going to uproot and move to an island and spawn a new generation and teach them what I think and hope that they pass on the message. I will however stay put and make an outright objection to what I see around me and make some suggestions as to what I think we can do to change things. Furthermore, I'll live my life as I think one should live, and this can be seen by others as an example. The differences between those two scenerios are so trivial that I find it hard to come up with a pertenant difference. A movement, an enlightenment, a utopian society, I'm for whatever works.

As for this "goal" we are all talking about different things, and I think that's fine. My path is not the same as any of yours, I think we can all agree to that, an an individual level. However, generally I would have to say that we have failed because we are no longer part of the balance. The human race is less of an animal and more of a virus. We destroy all of our resources, we destroy our own minds with machines that make things "simple", and we destroy eachother. We have failed, even when measured by the scale of a senseless animal.

Not to negate any thought that I may have affectively conveyed in my last statement, but I feel that I need to also add that I think we have failed because we have successfully halted our own evolution.

[dmvernona]

don't get me wrong to elaborate on my my "fuck utopian societies" statement, i mean, fuck not acknowledging, as i said before, "'communal living' is truly an oxymoron. Man obviously only has and will only ever live communally with his fellow man. The failure or success of interpersonal relationships is to a great degree rooted in the ability of the individual to understand and respect that they are a part of the communal system of living that is their race."

as per how we're talking about different "goals" i don't feel i'm completely understanding you. i think i was about as broad in my view of the term as i could get and i intended to encompass in my above statements the idea, as you just put it, that we all have a different path, and furthermore that any human "goal" comes from within the psyche of the individual.

simply to play devil's advocate i'd also like to put this thought out here:

although i'm really in agreeance to a great extent that man has stopped his own evolution and we could very easily be continuing on that path, it's conspicuous in a way that any product of evolution could transcend it. from another perspective one might say that man is now being destroyed as a product of evolutionary flaws, by natural selection. who ever said it's relevant whether or not that a species that evolves and fails and is phased out by that same evolution destroys other species and it's global environment in the process?

[dmvernona]

on a sidenote, here's an article i think that at least you'll be into ML on our boy from black dice.

http://www.ialink.tv/e_news/10-01-05/hisham.php

this kind of brought to mind something i was talking about with anna the other day and will also ressurect the spirit of the old trascending conventionalism thread - i really have a lot of respect for this dude as an artist/musician b/c i look at what he does in both mediums. his work in both seems really akin to the other.