Very occasional posts about sustainability that focuses on the real meaning of sustainability, rather than the woolly meanings that seem to get tossed around without much thought, these days.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Closing the Circle
John Michael Greer is always worth a read. His blog posts come out every week (Wednesday in the US) and this week's was particularly good, so I thought I'd post a link:
HI Sofistek, Greer censored my response to you where I attempted to clarify what we were talking about.
I said: Sofistek, I quite agree that it is the sensible response. Where I disagree is with the little word “only.” I am seeing the most sensible approach as two-pronged: on one hand, all the individual changes people here recommend (and I am on the same bandwagon), on the other hand, “collective” changes needed to conserve the commons. (except by collective I don't mean working the mainstream political process, as some of the commenters assumed I meant)
I've come close to being accused of beating a dead horse on JMG's blog too. :-)
You're right, in the sense that the commons is doomed without collective action but you came across as using that notion to justify no, or little, individual action, even if you didn't intend it.
Of course, if enough individuals take action, it starts to become a collective action. Certainly, I am completely on board with the need for individuals to do something themselves. It really is the only response that most individuals can make. But I'm not using the word "only" exclusively. Powering down and simplifying is the only response, in terms of an individual's lifestyle, but people can also try to help turn the ship around, in the larger community and society.
If you've read JMG over a long period of time, you'll realise that he has argued well that the kinds of supposedly collective actions we see, like Transition Towns, are to be encouraged but are unlikely to have any impact.
Hi again, Sofistek. Yes, I think you are right, and what I said could have been seen as pooh-pooing individual action. The post that tried to clarify that got censored. So I went ahead and wrote a post of my own that attempts to make the argument a bunch clearer. I hope you come and visit and make a comment... I think this is important enough for us to come to greater clarity.
I too remain skeptical of Transition Towns... but at the same time, I believe that there is a sort of "collective action" that does work, and we must bring it to bear on the problem. Anyways, looking forward to your comment, here is the link:
Since I couldn't find a more recent post or an e-mail, I'll post it here (this would likely get censored from Greer's blog). To be very clear, the propaganda Greer is spreading about magic is more like mysticism masquerading as such. He does not speak for all magicians, in fact he has some serious blinders on, limiting himself to the psychological "magic" as he does. Magic as the masses suspect is about effective power in wish fulfillment, and that includes manipulating the environment, as well as people. (BTW, I don't know why you are wasting your time debating with Greer on this matter, he is quite literally infected by a linguistic virus, you won't change his mind.)
Sorry you've had to resort to my occasional blog to voice your criticism of JMG, blacksun.
I don't regard his explanation of his view of magic as propaganda but I do object to his unshakeable belief in his own abilities and in his insistence that his definition of some word is the right definition - it seems to be a waste of time to me. I guess being an archdruid, he feels obliged to push the druid view on people. I have to say, though, that he doesn't really do that overtly - maybe he's weaving his kind of magic.
The reason I say it is propaganda is that the psychological model he uses is very limiting, and it is conciliatory (it is a whitewashing and stuffing under the rug of a great deal of "embarrassing" easy to ridicule things). He is providing you with a more palatable version, less offensive to moral sensitivities and less offensive to the rationalist/materialist. Don't be fooled by the well-meaning and thoughtful argument, it is no replacement for personal experience, and that ultimate standard of pragmatic utility, "do what works."
Oh, his arguments are very well thought out for the most part, and, as far as I can tell, he practices what he preaches. The only problem I have with him, and, to be fair, it's a common failing among bloggers, is that he almost never alters his stance as a result of arguments put forward by others. Actually, this side of his is becoming most off-putting. My recent spat with him about the meaning of magic is a case in point. His responses to my comments are very childish, presumably because I made a good point that he's unable to counter - even though he half acknowledged that I was right.
But he has written a lot of good stuff and rightly turned some conventional wisdom on its head. I like that kind of thing but what I find most irritating is that he can give it but he can't take it. I'm beginning to think that he feels he has a duty to always say the opposite of what most people believe to be fact. Most of the time he might be right but occasionally he's just plain wrong. In my opinion, of course!
Another irritating aspect of bloggers is the tendency for them to attract devoted disciples who won't hear anything bad about their idol. I've seen this with JMG, Mike Ruppert and Chris Martenson most of all but there is an element of it in all of the blogs I've followed.
I would be very interested to see ALL of the comments that have been censored on his blog. That's another aspect of propaganda, hiding dissent and differing opinions/viewpoints/perspectives.
8 comments:
HI Sofistek, Greer censored my response to you where I attempted to clarify what we were talking about.
I said: Sofistek, I quite agree that it is the sensible response. Where I disagree is with the little word “only.” I am seeing the most sensible approach as two-pronged: on one hand, all the individual changes people here recommend (and I am on the same bandwagon), on the other hand, “collective” changes needed to conserve the commons. (except by collective I don't mean working the mainstream political process, as some of the commenters assumed I meant)
Best to ya! I thought you made very good points.
Hi Vera,
I've come close to being accused of beating a dead horse on JMG's blog too. :-)
You're right, in the sense that the commons is doomed without collective action but you came across as using that notion to justify no, or little, individual action, even if you didn't intend it.
Of course, if enough individuals take action, it starts to become a collective action. Certainly, I am completely on board with the need for individuals to do something themselves. It really is the only response that most individuals can make. But I'm not using the word "only" exclusively. Powering down and simplifying is the only response, in terms of an individual's lifestyle, but people can also try to help turn the ship around, in the larger community and society.
If you've read JMG over a long period of time, you'll realise that he has argued well that the kinds of supposedly collective actions we see, like Transition Towns, are to be encouraged but are unlikely to have any impact.
Tony
Hi again, Sofistek. Yes, I think you are right, and what I said could have been seen as pooh-pooing individual action. The post that tried to clarify that got censored. So I went ahead and wrote a post of my own that attempts to make the argument a bunch clearer. I hope you come and visit and make a comment... I think this is important enough for us to come to greater clarity.
I too remain skeptical of Transition Towns... but at the same time, I believe that there is a sort of "collective action" that does work, and we must bring it to bear on the problem. Anyways, looking forward to your comment, here is the link:
http://leavingbabylon.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/conserving-the-commons/
Since I couldn't find a more recent post or an e-mail, I'll post it here (this would likely get censored from Greer's blog). To be very clear, the propaganda Greer is spreading about magic is more like mysticism masquerading as such. He does not speak for all magicians, in fact he has some serious blinders on, limiting himself to the psychological "magic" as he does. Magic as the masses suspect is about effective power in wish fulfillment, and that includes manipulating the environment, as well as people. (BTW, I don't know why you are wasting your time debating with Greer on this matter, he is quite literally infected by a linguistic virus, you won't change his mind.)
Sorry you've had to resort to my occasional blog to voice your criticism of JMG, blacksun.
I don't regard his explanation of his view of magic as propaganda but I do object to his unshakeable belief in his own abilities and in his insistence that his definition of some word is the right definition - it seems to be a waste of time to me. I guess being an archdruid, he feels obliged to push the druid view on people. I have to say, though, that he doesn't really do that overtly - maybe he's weaving his kind of magic.
The reason I say it is propaganda is that the psychological model he uses is very limiting, and it is conciliatory (it is a whitewashing and stuffing under the rug of a great deal of "embarrassing" easy to ridicule things). He is providing you with a more palatable version, less offensive to moral sensitivities and less offensive to the rationalist/materialist. Don't be fooled by the well-meaning and thoughtful argument, it is no replacement for personal experience, and that ultimate standard of pragmatic utility, "do what works."
Oh, his arguments are very well thought out for the most part, and, as far as I can tell, he practices what he preaches. The only problem I have with him, and, to be fair, it's a common failing among bloggers, is that he almost never alters his stance as a result of arguments put forward by others. Actually, this side of his is becoming most off-putting. My recent spat with him about the meaning of magic is a case in point. His responses to my comments are very childish, presumably because I made a good point that he's unable to counter - even though he half acknowledged that I was right.
But he has written a lot of good stuff and rightly turned some conventional wisdom on its head. I like that kind of thing but what I find most irritating is that he can give it but he can't take it. I'm beginning to think that he feels he has a duty to always say the opposite of what most people believe to be fact. Most of the time he might be right but occasionally he's just plain wrong. In my opinion, of course!
Another irritating aspect of bloggers is the tendency for them to attract devoted disciples who won't hear anything bad about their idol. I've seen this with JMG, Mike Ruppert and Chris Martenson most of all but there is an element of it in all of the blogs I've followed.
I would be very interested to see ALL of the comments that have been censored on his blog. That's another aspect of propaganda, hiding dissent and differing opinions/viewpoints/perspectives.
Post a Comment