Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
But if there would be problems with "pretty much everything" about the past and present state of "X" while not describing any viable alternative "Y" in past, present and future, the most reasonable conclusion would be that you're just describing the nature of "X" in the first place and so have undermined by your own description the whole reasoning on there being a major "problem".
There are plenty of alternatives. Just off the top of my head, I know of a certain community of around 200-300 people living in the forest, growing food, living minimally, nightly fires, close interactions community wide, lots of discussion, non-violence, no police presence, focus on compassion, discussion, meditation, and so on. While this isn't some ideal I've chosen and I'd no doubt find faults with some aspects of it (they're probably just classic hippies on drugs from what I hear) it still seems a far better example of a lifestyle than a Sydney lets say. Suicide rates will no doubt agree with that estimation in regard to a city lifestyle...the power of logic, common sense, and estimations, see? Don't even need to look that up to know it's true. But how? How could I possibly accurately guess such a thing which couldn't be known without in depth studies? Preposterous right? You see, it would only be possible if my reasoning fit in line with the reality of the human condition.
For example: you're living in a society populated by immense geniuses (to various degrees) who have been able to carve out a living arrangement beyond the animal and initiated and maintained some form of reason, including the development of free speech, free time, experimentation and so on. Would you credit this to only a few individuals (please name them) or to the unbelievable, near-divine, twisted, counter-current effort of generations of hard working and brilliantly desperate dreaming people who you prefer to call delusional and almost imply as worthless and unnecessary?
Of course it's entirely relative, that is beyond obvious. I am comparing the average person to wise sages and the like, that's where all of those harsh truths I listed become clear cut. Even compared to you Diebert those truths would be beyond obvious, do I really need to give you my mothers/aunties/uncles/cousins/female acquaintances/friends numbers so you can form your own opinions? It's all perspective and relative of course but we are subscribers to the view that there is absolute truth and objective wisdom are we not? You're denying reality for no reason at all save for that disagreement/challenge tendency I mentioned to jupiviv.
The feminine mind' has had a negative effect probably throughout all of history, which is why I don't imply that people were much better in the past
So it's always been there despite humanity having developed over and beyond ape
. Amazing feat! What are the odds?[/quote]
Since at least the bible backwards, yes it has been since there are numerous references to the perils of the feminine, sexual license, and so on, but yes men have still developed despite it. A relative example of degradation might be the massive rise in sexual partners of women in recent decades since the rise of feminism. Again, I won't go in detail to explain to you why I count this as degradation since it's all relative and a holistic picture would need to be painted, if I were to tho I would make many estimations as to the varying negative effects of such changes. Including things like mental illness, depression, etc.
So could you specify a bit further where and how these 'good' things like wisdom, virtue, 'higher' discussion happened and who were engaged in this, whose efforts made them possible for the masses to enjoy if they desired to?
Men with masculine qualities.
Because as you mentioned "nearly everyone" is and ever was incapable of even a conversation and the majority is so deluded, arrogant, egotistic and " it has been that way, with changes to environment, education, culture". And yet here you are defending unique, rare qualities like freedom of speech, masculinity, wisdom, virtue and 'higher' discussions as something within that same society. I mean, all despite nearly everyone being "so far removed from reality"? This very idea would imply some amazing miracle indeed!
Yeah, it was the minority, (assuming human nature has been similar in the past), which are not part of that "nearly everyone".
I mean, if a delusional, insane society can produce such qualities,
They're only unique and rare relative to the delusional, insane society. I'd assume nearly everyone would be wise if you altered education. Wise people had those qualities despite the others and it was not as virtue of the specific ways in which the society functioned or to be attributed to them, but rather a result of the truth that wisdom is simply present 'within'/'awaiting' all sentient beings and it is inevitable that it would flourish in at least a minority.
I'd almost wonder if we even should try to change anything at all,
When you're constantly playing devils advocate/challenging every idea to the point of ridiculousness as there's no exceptions for you, I'm not surprised you'd wonder that.
So you'd value of course the opposite I assume: less people,
No, I meant more living in smaller homes, not 'more people'.
The size of the home wouldn't be so relevant in an ideal off the top of my head, just the prevalence of nature.
more land and nature
Yes but only because I'd be choosing between one or the other, not because I think natural settings are necessary for wisdom growth.
less virtualization, less militarization,
Definitely, those I can say with relatively much more certainty.
No not necessarily, that is again just a better option than what you have trending in the west today as I mentioned above.
The important factor here would simply be for men to have dominance over women so their insanity doesn't gain foothold or is given such power as today, and so they could teach wisdom to the women since they would be much less likely to seek it on their own.
and family homes,
Again this is just in contrast to glorified storage containers stacked upon one another, not any utopian ideal.
more organized religion,
Christianity being better than materialist 'death is the end' atheism or YOLO-based-vanity for sure, but again, only relative. Ideally the 'organized religion' would not be anything like Christianity but instead focused on studies of a very broad variety of texts with a core focus on 'eastern wisdom' and all that's entailed there like meditation.
less restrictions and so on?
Too tricky a question to answer holistically but I'd say less insane restrictions for sure and the number of restrictions and responses to those, whatever they would be, would probably go down hugely and be simplified. People tend to over complicate things beyond what's necessary. Feel free to ask for examples. Luckily for this one they have a very long list of insane laws I can google.
a product maintained by millions of deluded people in the past and present? Or perhaps a few wise rulers or thought leaders, not sure yet how you're seeing this.
It's an intricate causality, whatever came about was not ordained by men, but by God, and if those wise ideals mentioned spread further, that would also be causality. These deluded people are potential Buddha's after all, so as I said, it's no surprise some truth shines through the mess.
a holistically more ideal human civilization would include the things you were valuing before
I elaborated above but a holistically more ideal human civilization would take weeks even for me to create a bad fantasy draft of, I'm not sure how I'd answer that question beyond what I have already said on those topics since there are so many moral questions and other concerns that come up.
Actually I'd say it has only degraded since the dawn of what was apparently a tribal lifestyle, but perhaps some of the tools invented could be used to make something ideal.
So the tribal lifestyle with all its suffering, lesser individuation or "free speech", increased ignorance on the supernatural and more unconscious living is now some more ideal state from where we have "fallen"? [/quote]
You made a few assumptions there. Ignorance on the supernatural is relative, I think materialists are up there when it comes to believing in fantasies. Of course that's very different to monsters and the such, but plenty still believe their dreams are demonic visions and whatnot.
One might also assume that the relative silence and natural peace would be a better catalyst for ineffable inner wisdom. One might assume there would be a lot less vanity and egotism too. I don't see why you'd assume humans were any less conscious.
Then you need to make clear what exactly has been degraded. I suppose you might think of all the intimate, direct connections and dependencies with natural surroundings and of course with other tribe members.
Yes that's entirely what I was referring to. I was not referring to the prevalence of wisdom at all really, just my own subjective view on what kind of surroundings and interactions are 'better' relatively. Especially in terms of worldly matters, you'd have a hard time proving that drastically changing the environment of an animal which had lived in a natural environment for tens of thousands of years is a good idea. Whether people did it to themselves in the past is irrelevant since that says nothing about whether it was in their benefit, especially since 'humanity' lasted at least tens of thousands of years and only relatively recently abandoned or even massacred remnants of its former tribal existence, and more recently the industrial age, plus 'humanity' may be gone entirely soon (merged with AI or whatever happens). Also, nowadays we are born into the results of those changes.
A few things to think about off the top of my head are how being locked up in a whitewashed room might drive a person mad, or where suicide might take place, or in what scenario depression is more likely to occur, or how wisdom cannot be shared without communication.
I see it a bit like the possibility of the garden of eden having been replaced with grey pavement. Ideally technological advancements would be fine but only if they were strictly monitored, some being abandoned for potential harm, based on whatever holistic ideal platform is there which would decide those greater moral questions such as longevity through technology.
. Furthermore I sincerely doubt the idea of "utility" linked to any deeper wisdom. Or perhaps I should ask: utility for whom or what exactly?
I did not manage to catch your meaning here.