Jump to content

Coping with an increasingly secularized world


InDefenseOfPOMO

Recommended Posts

InDefenseOfPOMO
On 8/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, uhtred said:

I don't think its a bad as you think it is.

 

Almost nobody knows what I think because most people do not listen.

 

Before anybody takes offense, let me point out that I said almost nobody. There are some people who listen.

 

In response to your words I will just say that the people in this world who are empathetic and compassionate and who truly care are the most reliable sources about how good or bad things are.

 

I do not evaluate how good or bad things are based on sensationalism or objective, indifferent facts. Jean Baudrillard wrote the book "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place". The latter is a good reminder that much of what is presented to us through on-demand mass communication should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

The hopes, fears, resolve, determination, struggles, perseverance, experiences, visions, dreams, solidarity, etc. of people on the ground is where I find how good or bad things are. What I have seen, heard and felt makes the Myth of Progress and the evidence presented in favor of it ("200 years ago if you had a toothache you died. Now, thanks to science, you have dentists to save you!) look like the spiritual and intellectual refuge of cowards.

 

The philosopher John Gray is less charitable--he says "Belief in progress is the Prozac of the thinking class."

 

 

On 8/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, uhtred said:

There are advances and backslides, but over time I think the advances have outweighed the backslides. 

 

Just in the last couple of days, Saudi Arabia gave women the right to drive. Should have happened long ago, but at least its improved. 

 

When I was young it was illegal to be gay in many parts of the US.  Now we have openly gay politicians, and characters in popular movies.

 

Such language makes it sound like some peoples and places are "backwards" and others are "advanced".

 

 

On 8/2/2019 at 10:18 AM, uhtred said:

Climate change is bad - but action is being taken. I've seen the huge wind and solar farms in China - a country that used to have no concern at all about the environment. 

 

I read not too long ago that scientists are not being completely straightforward about how bad the situation really is.

 

It could be that the complete, honest truth about anthropogenic climate change--the lifestyle changes that will have to be made; the sacrifices that will have to be made; the preparations that will have to be made; how little time we have to avoid disaster; etc.--is something that we are not psychologically or politically ready to hear without the whole globe or large parts of it erupting into disorder and chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I read not too long ago that scientists are not being completely straightforward about how bad the situation really is.

 

It could be that the complete, honest truth about anthropogenic climate change--the lifestyle changes that will have to be made; the sacrifices that will have to be made; the preparations that will have to be made; how little time we have to avoid disaster; etc.--is something that we are not psychologically or politically ready to hear without the whole globe or large parts of it erupting into disorder and chaos.

Climate change has been brought about largely by the opposite of progress in humanity's understanding of what is beneficial to our environment.   It is being exacerbated by the refusal to recognize reality.  

 

True progress has been achieved in much of the world through heightened understanding of the value to human life of social equity and kindness.   That's demonstrated by the differences in treatment of different orientations, genders, and religious groups from several hundred years ago.  As a woman, it's ridiculous to me that anyone could claim that such progress is nonexistent.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

Almost nobody knows what I think because most people do not listen.

 

Before anybody takes offense, let me point out that I said almost nobody. There are some people who listen.

 

In response to your words I will just say that the people in this world who are empathetic and compassionate and who truly care are the most reliable sources about how good or bad things are.

 

I do not evaluate how good or bad things are based on sensationalism or objective, indifferent facts. Jean Baudrillard wrote the book "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place". The latter is a good reminder that much of what is presented to us through on-demand mass communication should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

The hopes, fears, resolve, determination, struggles, perseverance, experiences, visions, dreams, solidarity, etc. of people on the ground is where I find how good or bad things are. What I have seen, heard and felt makes the Myth of Progress and the evidence presented in favor of it ("200 years ago if you had a toothache you died. Now, thanks to science, you have dentists to save you!) look like the spiritual and intellectual refuge of cowards.

 

The philosopher John Gray is less charitable--he says "Belief in progress is the Prozac of the thinking class."

 

 

 

Such language makes it sound like some peoples and places are "backwards" and others are "advanced".

 

 

 

I read not too long ago that scientists are not being completely straightforward about how bad the situation really is.

 

It could be that the complete, honest truth about anthropogenic climate change--the lifestyle changes that will have to be made; the sacrifices that will have to be made; the preparations that will have to be made; how little time we have to avoid disaster; etc.--is something that we are not psychologically or politically ready to hear without the whole globe or large parts of it erupting into disorder and chaos.

Are you saying that you don't judge by objective "indifferent" facts? But if not by objective facts, how to evaluate?  

 

How can someone argue that "the gulf war did not take place"?  Its possible to argue whether it was reasonable, or moral, or more or less destructive etc, but many thousands of people were moving around shooting at other people.   That seems to fit any reasonable definition of  "war" 

 

I was talking mostly over time about more and less advanced civilizations.  Certainly for technology its true - when the Roman empire collapsed, a lot of technology was lost. Similar for the collapse of the Mayan civilization.    In other cases I think by any reasonable measure some cultures limited human rights far more than others.  Nazis, Khmer Rouge,  Maoist China, probably the Aztecs, ISIS, Imperial Britain,  etc.  Today there are still places where women cannot own property. 

 

Where did you read that scientists are not being straightforward?  Also, which scientists - there are lots of them (I'm one, but in a different field) so I'm sure not every one is telling the truth.  The IPCC report is the best indication of the scientific consensus,which is basically that its bad, but not hopeless. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 8/11/2019 at 1:14 AM, uhtred said:

Are you saying that you don't judge by objective "indifferent" facts? But if not by objective facts, how to evaluate?

 

You said that things are not as bad as I think they are.

 

Nobody apparently knows how bad I think things are--although I have made no secret of it here.

 

The bad is represented by the suffering--probably much of it untold--that the majority of people past and present have been subjected to in the name of "progress".

 

The good, according to what I have read in works like "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures", is that some, if not many, have withstood the onslaught of "progress " and are poised to pick up where they left off hundreds of years ago before domination by outsiders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

You said that things are not as bad as I think they are.

 

Nobody apparently knows how bad I think things are--although I have made no secret of it here.

 

The bad is represented by the suffering--probably much of it untold--that the majority of people past and present have been subjected to in the name of "progress".

 

The good, according to what I have read in works like "Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures", is that some, if not many, have withstood the onslaught of "progress " and are poised to pick up where they left off hundreds of years ago before domination by outsiders.

What about the reduction in disease and hunger brought about by progress? That has affected a huge number of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 8/12/2019 at 11:32 PM, uhtred said:

What about the reduction in disease and hunger brought about by progress? That has affected a huge number of people.

 

We would have to hear actual stories.

 

Otherwise it is all myth warehoused in people's minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
On 8/3/2019 at 5:57 PM, uhtred said:

Hasn't science allowed us to appreciate some things more?

 

In practice how many people have done that?

 

Every new thing that science reveals is received as more opportunity to objectify and exploit things.

 

If appreciation was what science is about, there probably would not be much support for science.

 

 

On 8/3/2019 at 5:57 PM, uhtred said:

Science and technology allows us to enjoy nature without being threatened by it.

 

We can do that without the scientific method.

 

Meanwhile, science has given us a lot of man-made threats such as nuclear weapons, anthropogenic climate change, the overuse of antibiotics, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all benefiting from science and technology everyday. I mean, look at the devices we are communicating through right now. A lot of science and technology behind that. A lot of people I know, including myself, would probably be dead now if it weren't for science and technology and progress in those areas. That's no myth or illusion. If progress is a problem how far back would you have to go to where it wasn't a problem? It's not hard to find examples where each generation you go back had it worse in many respects. I wouldn't want to go back to the 1950s, much less the 1850s or the 800s or any past time really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

We would have to hear actual stories.

 

Otherwise it is all myth warehoused in people's minds.

Really?  I  thought people not dying of smallpox and other horrible diseases due to medical science progress was kind of a good thing.  But your mileage may vary.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

We can do that without the scientific method.

 

Meanwhile, science has given us a lot of man-made threats such as nuclear weapons, anthropogenic climate change, the overuse of antibiotics, etc.

and without scientific insight there wouldn't be anyone to tell you that those notions are intrinsically inhospitable to humanity. science is a tool, not something good or bad. it can be used shortsightedly, it can be used maliciously. just like spirituality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the opposite is happening over here in my previously small town.

I've seen 5 new churches built in over 3 months time, increased harassment by religious and conservative people, and more and more people are posting how lgbt , atheism, and socialism is a "sin".

I fear coming out or even talking once more due to everything going on due to the possiblity of assault or even conversion camps if I dare as come out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 9:31 PM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

We would have to hear actual stories.

 

Otherwise it is all myth warehoused in people's minds.

Stories, not statistics?  OK, I've traveled around China a fair bit and infrastructure and standard of living seem to have visibly improved in the last 20 years

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2019 at 9:50 PM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

In practice how many people have done that?

 

Every new thing that science reveals is received as more opportunity to objectify and exploit things.

 

If appreciation was what science is about, there probably would not be much support for science.

 

 

 

We can do that without the scientific method.

 

Meanwhile, science has given us a lot of man-made threats such as nuclear weapons, anthropogenic climate change, the overuse of antibiotics, etc.

I disagree with some of that.  Nature is fun to explore when you have warm clothes, clean drinking water, waterproof boots, light weight tents etc. It would be a lot less fun with neolithic technology.  Its much easier to appreciate nature when you are not worried that its going to kill you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...