Hello all, my first post - in fact, this is my first forum post ever! Anyway, I've had a little meandering train of thought which I've been following for a while, and I'd like to share it, and I would desperately like your opinions, because as we all know, stoners know best So, in human history, or at least in the west, we go through numerous 'intellectual movements' or 'social movements' every couple of decades or so, usually a reaction against prevailing political or social norms, which were themselves usually brought about by a social change. For example, romanticism in the 19th century, a reaction to the industrial revolution; surrealism in the early 20th century, a reaction to the bourgeois, aristocratic values that survived the 19th century; existentialism, a reaction to general objectivity and various systems that prevailed in philosophy; and the civil rights movement in the 60s, a reaction to racism and inequality that had dominated for the past few hundred years. Now, in the modern age, we are passing though the information movement, and the values of the West - those of materialism, capitalism, etc, threaten to consume the world - literally. But once more, there is change in the air. Those of us who were born in the 90s have been brought up by the internet, and the huge corporations that surround us are ancient, compared to us at least, and this is the social background we are reacting too - there is change in the air! At least, there seems to be change in the air. The youngest musicians, artists and philosophers I know are representative of a new movement, one which I hope will react to all materialism, to consumerism, to the usual 9-5, working for money, you all know what I mean. What I put to you is this - are people alone enough, artistically, musically, philosophically, enough to push this movement forwards? We are tiny, compared at least to the profit-making companies which would stand in our way. Do we require a bigger vehicle to push progression? Such as a 'developing country' - one who's culture has not been shaped to the whimsy of capitalism. And surely, weed has its part to play in all of this - indeed, the legalisation of weed seems to be one of those reactions, one of those social movements, of which I spake! ANY INPUT WOULD BE WONDERFUL. I'm not entirely sure if this is in the right place, but oh well! This is a lovely community and I'm happy to be a part of it Seratonin
Welcome-another mind always is.. My thought is that, yes, there is a segment that is 'waking up' to new possibilities of trade without the gold standard. It has a long way to go before it conquers establishment. I think the more people can break out into their like minded communities-small communes-the more likely they are to survive the chaos of building a new system. Much of the world's population is still in starvation/very low resource mode...and sometimes there's a double whammy with fundamentalist movements. There's a major blockage there. Those problems, in my view, will have to be taken care of before the rest takes place on any large scale. Technology can help but it can't change minds-yet. Don't get me wrong-as long as you're alive you can make it better.
Hello! Thanks for replying Yes, my view of the world is a little distorted, since I live in such a developed country (UK, when I say 'developed' I mean it with a hint of cynicism), but I understand that the majority of the world is still developing - however, the industrial west threatens the rest of the world with it's massive consumption of natural resources, massive firepower, etc etc. The way I see it, there are two possible routes a) the 'revolution' (not necessarily implying violence) begins in the developed world, first in local communities, with the help of technology and social media, spreading nationally, which eventually takes hold in the wider world. b.) the 'revolution' begins in the still developing world - the poorest of countries still have huge potential with where they will go when they develop, in terms of their culture, values, norms, and they might naturally develop into successful socialist/communist economies, espousing peace, freedom and justice for all, eventually overtaking the west in terms of technology/economy etc because their societies might just work better than ours I think a) is less likely, as the opposition from corporations, greedy politicians, their influence over the media, is just too large of an obstacle to overcome, though I suppose it is possible! But truly, I think we need intelligent, resourceful people to guide the developing world, to shape it, bearing in mind the example of the west, build them up, poof! People will wake up, see how great this new generation of nations are, and things will be better. Hopefully. Why do I always write so much, I'm not even stoned
http://youtu.be/LPAKhltpk48 http://youtu.be/KXA3zfP5V5E http://youtu.be/x6X9p9uzrso http://youtu.be/NuNMRrot3rY http://youtu.be/eDYhc7T2wb4
I agree, and will stand with you when the time comes! Since i joined this forum i am relieved to find so many people who think similarly, good to know not everyone is like 'the others'! Sent from my GT-S6810P using Grasscity Forum mobile app
What I put to you is this - are people alone enough, artistically, musically, philosophically, enough to push this movement forwards? No. I would also dispute that it should be in the hands of 'philosophers' , musicians and artists. I'm a writer, artist and musician and have done each professionally for a while; I also write about and teach meditation and Buddhism. Am I the kind of person who should be helping move the world forward? No, that I do these things does not make me a better human being, wise, or even intelligent. In my experience of other writers artists and musicians ( a good deal of them) that I have known and know now, do I consider any of them world leaders or the kind of people who should be telling us how to run the world. Hell no. A clever man is a clever man regardless of his leaning towards the arts. Do we need a better way of running society? Of course, but that doesn't mean we should let 'artists' have a say in what the alternative is just because they might, for example, have written some excellent lyrics for a Tool track..... MelT
We are all the others. Being proactive in your local community is a practical way of testing ideas and possibly making change.
Yes yes, You are certainly right there! But for any sort of counter culture that is going to change the world, and I'm especially talking about a counter culture focused around enlightenment and the sort, it would need (well, not 'need') some degree of artistic or musical force to increase public perception, to gather support for the movement and so on.. Now I see that such an artistic influence is not necessary to the creation of a new society, or a new set of values for our society, but in the setting of our current world, people are not going to listen to a group of technical philosophers, if those philosophers could stop smoking weed long enough to make a difference! But people are going to listen to music, and indeed, listen to their friends, and so on.. Obviously the most difficult part is establishing what is right, or what the right way of living should be, and to consider the whole world in this question is near-on impossible.. But if we move to establish enlightenment, justice, love, freedom, peace, happiness publicly, as the values to judge our lives by, other than consumption and capital, then people will surely see the light! Of course, we should do this in our local communities, with our friends, our families, but to bring this to a global audience, I think we need music, literature, art, of many kinds, and a cultural movement that unites it all together.. Of course, those artists and musicians, and writers, will only be a vehicle for this movement, the movement will not stem from the people themselves.. but from the values of the culture they inhabit.. Of course, beginning in local communities does seem to be the best bet, but I want music and art of the enlightenment (the 'new enlightenment') to come next
But people are going to listen to music, and indeed, listen to their friends, and so on.. Unfortunately I have to disagree. Music is just music, most of it commercial and based on the greedy values you want to avoid. Only a select few, listening to select type of music, and of a particular type of mind are influenced by it. It has no inherent meaning, or value in a moral or cultural sense; and when it does have an effect it usually isn't positive. In fact the spread of certain types of music in the UK coincided three times with rises in crime and the glorification of violence. Obviously the most difficult part is establishing what is right, or what the right way of living should be, and to consider the whole world in this question is near-on impossible.. And this is the problem. Who is to say these people have any more understanding of how the world should be run than anyone else? For the most part, serious musicians are in a sense capialists, there to make money. The only ones I have heard saying very much on society other than saying it's screwed up are usually angry, disaffected and not the sort of people I'd want in charge. So, what is the function of the people you are talking about, what is it you think they offer and where you going to find them? Can you give an example of an artist or musician who has answers, not complaints? But if we move to establish enlightenment, justice, love, freedom, peace, happiness publicly, as the values to judge our lives by, other than consumption and capital, then people will surely see the light! Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca, political parties, philanthropic societies, etc. have spread all of the same values above, but many of the people in big business who you and I regard as the lowest of the low, belong to these groups and it hasn't changed them. Religion is a world-wide phenomena that the majority have followed for thousands of years, but ultimately, it hasn't stopped the world becoming what it has, or made the people in it better. Music could not compete with the power of religion, and it would fail too. Of course, we should do this in our local communities, with our friends, our families, but to bring this to a global audience, I think we need music, literature, art, of many kinds, and a cultural movement that unites it all together.. Of course, beginning in local communities does seem to be the best bet, but I want music and art of the enlightenment (the 'new enlightenment') to come next I don't think that music is as important as you believe, and certainly not art, and that you may be over-estimating their power over people. For example, how can art change people's attitudes, morally? We can say that putting up a mural in a slum might make people happy, but it's never going to change the world, so what would be the function of artists, how would they promote any of the things you're talking about? MelT
Sorry, as briefly as I can: Why any plan to change the world or even a local community is hampered from the start: man's opportunistic nature and inability to play fair. Let me give an example. My wife runs part of a lab', a unit of 28 people, all of them well-educated with degrees and good moral values. Last week she took in a small gift of one bag of chocolate eggs for each of them, and left them in a box for collection with a note saying that there was only one each and that if they took more, someone would have to do without. In an hour, there were three short, two hours six short, because people had taken two. She caught one woman, who's excuse was that she had two children and one bag wasn't enough. People don't see anything wrong with stretching and breaking rules to the point where we don't really care much if it affects anyone around us as long as we have what we need. We are almost to a man/woman unable to play fair, even when the opportunity to do so presents itself. We aren't just being ripped off by bankers and politicians, but by friends and even family. There is no 'them and us', nobody to overthrow, we are the enemy too. The trouble is that what we might call 'revolutionary' type music, or even 'slightly fed up with the world and thinking of moving out of your parent's basement' type of music, helps make people become self-righteous, and they justify everything they do wrong in life by saying, 'well, we're being repressed/ripped off/held back, so we're allowed to steal and do what we want' . People lap it up, whether they've been 'repressed' a day in their lives or not. A common, unseen and largely imaginery enemy that's meant to be out there in big business is actually down here in us all. A revolution against who exactly? MelT
Very well put, MelT. I couldn't have said it better. Perhaps conflict is the price we pay for individualism? Johann Galtung wrote extensively on these concepts; most notably on his concepts of positive and negative peace. His conclusions are anything but conclusive, but his theory is very well-grounded and performs very well in modern indisciplinary discussions of development, culture and rights. What's more important; dignity or property? nature or society? the individual or the community? self-determination or self-identification? the child or the adult? the present or the future? If you have the skill to answer any of these questions satisfactorily - I can find you 100 people who disagree with you. And you cannot change their minds without social conflict.
I understand your arguments! What I mean, when I say 'revolution', is a kind of personal 'enlightenment', but I have also used it in a way to mean, a revolution against the status quo, that is consumerism, materialism, etc.. Now I know, that there is nothing wrong in the natural world, and the problems within our society are the same problems that are in all of us, but human minds are - for the most part - formed by the society we grow up in. But humans have more freedom than animals, they CAN go against their greedy instincts, they CAN be peaceful, if we choose too. The revolution I spoke of first, I mean as an 'enlightenment' - a revolution against our own nature, an overcoming of ourselves. Many people on here might call it 'waking up' but I doubt that's very well understood. Now I am suggesting, that we overcome this - this greedy nature, formed at large by our society (so 'human nature' is a bit of a misnomer really), by starting in a country that is still developing, that is not as set in its ways as ours. And after this enlightenment, it should be easier to conquer the social issues and social conflicts we might have, which would be the second 'revolution' I spoke of. I believe music and art can have the power to trigger this 'enlightenment', in addition, maybe to marijuana, a thorough studying of philosophy, etc.. In fact, I have seen people 'woken up' by traumatic life experiences. Of course, if only a few people are so 'enlightened' or 'overcome', not much can be done, but if a large amount of people are, they can act as an example to the rest of the world, they can govern themselves in a stable, self-sufficient way. It's difficult to get to the heart of what I mean. While I have some people here, may I ask for your opinions on these topics? Is 'waking up' (in the way that I mean it) a genuine phenomenon? Can it be studied? Can it happen to everyone? If so, can it only happen if certain conditions are met? What causes it? Why do some triggers work for some people, but not for others? I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak with you!
Of course, I agree with you. But someone is going to have to take responsibility before the effects of humanity are irreversible! Not necessarily as a dictator, or even a politician - but to help the rest of the world 'wake up' 'overcome itself', and thereafter humanity will - should - be able to govern itself effectively, freely, equally Of course this is all mere abstraction I would love to respond to all of your points, but I fear making the scope of this discussion too wide to be of any use
Oh fuck. I spent 15 minutes writing a really detailed response full of research and reading suggestions.... and my power flickered and my computer reset. Shit fuck damnit.....
Of course, I agree with you. But someone is going to have to take responsibility before the effects of humanity are irreversible! All of us, as I said previously. Not necessarily as a dictator, or even a politician - but to help the rest of the world 'wake up' 'overcome itself', and thereafter humanity will - should - be able to govern itself effectively, freely, equally There is not one person nor one set of ideals to follow that will solve the world's problems or suit the situation in every country, it can't happen. There are no great thinkers - particularly philosphers, who's realm is guesswork who couldn'y even begin to run the world. Anyone can suggest a better world, none are fit to provide a solution as the problem is inherent in man. There is no person or philosophy that could do that, or spread throughout the world and be accepted enough to make change. What you'e sayig smacks of Merola and he Zeitgeist movement, a revolution wihtout a leader, destined to fail from the start because it was based on lies and under the control of politics from day one. I believe music and art can have the power to trigger this 'enlightenment', But you don't say how. You're also beginning to equate gaining social responsibility with 'enlightenment' which is an overblown comparison. If you mean being a good person then it would be better to say it. However, at the end of the post you continue to define it as a special state akin to eastern enlightenment, but the two are not the same. Which do you mean? MelT
A revolution against who exactly? \n\nAgreed, its something we all want to be a part of its just given different labels.
I am trying to define 'enlightenment' in my own way for the sake of this discussion! I cannot find a currently existing word for what I mean, so enlightenment has to do. I do not mean enlightenment in the Buddhist usage, but I do mean an upheaval of human consciousness, but I would also collate it social responsibility, to a fuller appreciation for existence, to a greater grasp of the world, for logic, for the environment, four our place in nature, etc - and I would assume it is a discrete state of being, but a continuous spectrum.. but it is not something I know anything about, and I am merely abstracting. I would rather like a bit of help trying to define it. Now to resettle this: There are no problems inherent in man that cannot be overcome my man himself. I would even go so far as to say that there is no objective human nature, and a man always chooses for himself. This man can choose to be good if he wishes, he can choose to be bad - but given into a state of 'enlightenment' - not whatever your definition of enlightenment is, but mine, as I just laid out - he would work for the good values, the good values that he chooses. I am not saying that this any form of solution, but it would most certainly be progress. To take responsibility into our own hands? Now, again! There is but one effective way of spreading an idea - through culture - the culture of a society. And I mean these with their sociological definitions. A lot of things shape a culture, and a society - yes, including music, and art. Even for the wrong reasons, they still do influence us. Perhaps they shaped culture more ideologically in the past, but I can still feel the influence of modern music in the people that listen too it. But many, many other things shape culture, this I know, and so do you. If we had access to the all resources of a small, developing country, and to its artists, its musicians - to its writers.. and links to its communities.. I'm sure - we could shape its culture in whatever way we wanted. We could shape it so that the ideologies it nurtures are those of peace, justice, love, autonomy.. But I have said more than I want to say. I am just so desperate for humanity to have a sustainable future! But of course I am not motivated by anything more than a selfish gene who wants to survive beyond the trappings of a mortal body Seratonin
Oh my, Timesplasher, that was beautiful! That is all very well and good, but the fact remains, this system we've built is not sustainable. We will not survive unless we start making changes quick. I'm fairly sure the most recent IPCC survey I read gave us about 5 years to reduce carbon emissions, before the effects become irreversible, and that was about 2 years ago. Emissions went up! With all that and the idiocy behind power (authority), control, land, material gain etc, call me pessimistic but I can hardly see us surviving another century. It's all very well saying we don't understand the world, our environment, even reality, but the consequences of our actions are very real, and change has to happen, and it has to happen soon. I am not seeking an ideal world, or a utopia - Just a better world. Give me a second, I think I'm having a change of heart.
To respond and build on both statements: I agree in the statement that it is near-impossible (actually, impossible in my mind) to establish norms and rules for soceity based on majority consensus. Even with the best intentions, attempting to control other's lives and prohibit or restrict certain behaviors is futile and immoral. We can't trust indviduals to guide themselves through life and make decisions that are in their own self-interest, but we seem to trust ourselves and appointed/elected individuals to make these judgements on a much greater scale (often to our own detriment). If society does build a strong consensus regarding social/political issues, it will behave accordingly anyways, as the majority of individuals will act in their own self-interest, according to their own moral standards. Establishing what is 'right' or 'wrong' should not be a matter of coercion and persuasion, but a matter of education and communication. I believe that we will see society elevate itself to a new level of self-awareness and inter-conectedness in this century, or we will see technology thrust us into a new "Dark Age", where accessibility and communicaiton is prohibited by class and technology is continued to be used to distract, dazzle, delude, destroy, deceive, and descend us an era of technocratic feudalism. In any case, technology has an amazing ability to empower individuals and bring society together, but it also has a dark side: dependance and abuse.