I really enjoyed reading that, it puts me at ease surprisingly enough.
I think that is because pondering the situation over and over can cause a great deal of anxiety when it comes to the "what to do" question.
I am glad that some of his ideas are conclusions I was developing on my own and gives me confidence that I can at least "see" the right path.
I particularly liked this bit:
In the same way, those who put their hopes on grand political transformations, or conveniently undefinable leaps of consciousness, or the timely arrival of Jesus or the space brothers or somebody else who will spare us the necessity of inhabiting a future that is the exact result of our own collective actions, are not doing anything that hasn’t been tried over and over again in the decades just past
You may disagree Robert, but I think he just described most of the "Green" political movements around the world including our own.
Wealth redistribution? it aint gonna happen with our current definition of wealth.
There is so much that could be done on a political level that would effectively be below the radar of left/right thinking.
Any thing else is a costly diversion and waste of valuable time.
Thanks for posting the link Robert, very thought provoking, this guy is like a modern day prophet.
"In the same way, those who put their hopes on grand political transformations, or conveniently undefinable leaps of consciousness, or the timely arrival of Jesus or the space brothers or somebody else who will spare us the necessity of inhabiting a future that is the exact result of our own collective actions, are not doing anything that hasn’t been tried over and over again in the decades just past
You may disagree Robert, but I think he just described most of the "Green" political movements around the world including our own."
I think you missed the 'Jesus' bit, Shunda. I think too, that you are close, but no cigar, regarding the Greens. Your assessment is valid, but only to the view of the Greens held by you. I argue that you are incorrect in your view, that you haven't look at their policies and philosophies and behaviour with an un-jaundiced eye, and so haven't seen them yet. You've declared, over and over, that the political (with a capital 'P') way is doomed to failure and all of your comments stem from your belief. The Archdruid's words confirmed that for you, but he says, 'grand political transformations', where I would see the Greens making a series of subtle changes that would effect positive change, that would mesh with grassroots changes of the sort you espouse. You say, Wealth redistribution? it aint gonna happen with our current definition of wealth." but fail to see that changing the definition of wealth is what the Greens have been promoting for years and years. I don't know how you've missed it. You also say, "There is so much that could be done on a political level that would effectively be below the radar of left/right thinking." yet must have heard the Greens claim that they are neither left nor right. I know you baulk at the claim and most likely will spin out upon reading it, but I'd ask you to consider it a little more dispasionately. Ask yourself this: does any other party say that? Why not? Why do you think the Greens, honest folk that we are, say such a thing? Is it possible, Shunda, that it might have validity? Could you have missed it somehow? I've seen you getting the wrong end of the stick on a couple of issues, I wonder if you may have done that here :-) That said, I join you in thinking highly of The Arch Druid. Is this the first time you've read his work? He's been saying these things for some time and I've been recommending him for a while. I know a number of the Frogblog commentators read him. How's your backyard looking?
No, actually, I didn't. I believe that much of the institutional church is exactly as he described, I also believe that the real teachings of Christ are very different from those of the institutional church.
You should check them out some time ;)
And regarding the Greens.
People can claim all sorts of positions on things, say all the right words, yet still be far short of actually doing it.
You claim I am blinded by some sort of prejudice, but I can sniff out tired old mantra as good as anyone. Perhaps you want the greens to be more than they are, have you considered that could be just as much a possibility? Is it possible that we are both a little bit wrong? Perhaps I may be a bit too negative, you may be a bit too positive?
I think that is far more plausible, we actually share a lot in common, yet there is obvious tension between some of our view points. Isn't it possible that we are dividing on stuff that we are both wrong about?
This 'conflict' is where the transition will be won or lost in my opinion, just like the Arc Druids comments regarding "salvation", it is all or nothing. Very interesting.
I agree the concept of a Green party could be very useful, but you shouldn't demand that I be converted to their ideology in order to be a legitimate part of solving these problems.
When people care more about redefining marriage, feminist rants and slinging mud over all sorts of meaningless 'luxury' issues, I will not be on board and I will not see it as anything other than what it is - wasting valuable time.
"Is it possible that we are both a little bit wrong? Perhaps I may be a bit too negative, you may be a bit too positive?" Yes. The position I broadcast is trimmed for ease of delivery. I subscribe to no party's philosophy. I'm cast as a Green Party activist, even by my local journalists, but I've never claimed that, I think, unless in jaded jest. Wanna talk 'redefining marriage'? Did you see the Conservative guy on Q&A and the Labour woman, discussing the homosexual marriage issue? Louise Wall? She was right, he was wrong :-)
What I will say is it is a pointless insignificant issue as far as human rights go. Since when was redefining a tradition a fundamental human right? I now accept the way I see marriage is very different to most and my values are going to be trampled on.
I also accept that the "God hates fags" crowd completely destroyed any civil debate on the issue and only made the situation more confusing and polarised.
I don't accept either side as having a strong case for anything but their own particular bigotry, which both sides show in abundance.
However, this has little to do with the important issues in the Arch Druid report, or indeed, anything important at all, it is just a pointless diversion from reality for the liberal elite (including DPF).
Too much of what the Greens are about is all this diversionary continuation of sixties activism, all I can say to that is change the record and put something relevant on for a change.
It is easy to take positions on issues, it is much harder to actually commit to solving problems in a lasting way.
I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am definitely seeking them with more determination.
Of course, Shunda, it's a minor issue but if you were in a position of Governance, where the fate of those potentially affected by legislation changes around the issue, what would you say? It's not important, so I'm not going to tell you our position? As soon as you profess to be capable of decision making, as each party does, you have to be prepared to have a position, party or personal, on all sorts of things that aren't critical to the survival of the human race and the planet we infest :-) Come on, Shunda, are you suggesting the Greens say...what?
My own values demand I listen to you on this Robert, but I'm still going to be as stubborn as a mule on things I am not sure about ;).
One thing I will say is that you and people like Kevin Hague have been far more responsive to my questions than many others have.
I have contacted various Christian groups that I thought were on to something (not so much lately) and been given the frosty shoulder, sensitive bunch they are. Seems to me that I am considered to be a 'dirty' Christian because I refuse to hide who I really am (warts and all), it seems to make them uncomfortable, funny that! :).
Unfortunately I identify some of the same control tactics in certain circles on the left, you must understand my reluctance to get too close.
But as for the future, I like a biblical saying: better to fall on the rock and be broken than have the rock fall on you and be crushed it seems to me that that is the message in the Archdruid, or perhaps "feel the pain and do it anyway".
I feel more determined of late Robert, I have all sorts of interesting ideas coming to me after a long period of frustration.
I'm still very interested to hear what it is you are developing, Shunda. Your 'promised' email has got lost in the ether somewhere between the Coast and here, so I'm left guessing. Are you joining the circus? Have you found evidence that New Zealand was settled by Noah and his wife? Have your own wife invented a device that turns coal into pavalova? As to the gay marriage discussion, I'll pass on that. getting you to address it was like getting blood out of a stone :-)
9 comments:
I really enjoyed reading that, it puts me at ease surprisingly enough.
I think that is because pondering the situation over and over can cause a great deal of anxiety when it comes to the "what to do" question.
I am glad that some of his ideas are conclusions I was developing on my own and gives me confidence that I can at least "see" the right path.
I particularly liked this bit:
In the same way, those who put their hopes on grand political transformations, or conveniently undefinable leaps of consciousness, or the timely arrival of Jesus or the space brothers or somebody else who will spare us the necessity of inhabiting a future that is the exact result of our own collective actions, are not doing anything that hasn’t been tried over and over again in the decades just past
You may disagree Robert, but I think he just described most of the "Green" political movements around the world including our own.
Wealth redistribution? it aint gonna happen with our current definition of wealth.
There is so much that could be done on a political level that would effectively be below the radar of left/right thinking.
Any thing else is a costly diversion and waste of valuable time.
Thanks for posting the link Robert, very thought provoking, this guy is like a modern day prophet.
"In the same way, those who put their hopes on grand political transformations, or conveniently undefinable leaps of consciousness, or the timely arrival of Jesus or the space brothers or somebody else who will spare us the necessity of inhabiting a future that is the exact result of our own collective actions, are not doing anything that hasn’t been tried over and over again in the decades just past
You may disagree Robert, but I think he just described most of the "Green" political movements around the world including our own."
I think you missed the 'Jesus' bit, Shunda. I think too, that you are close, but no cigar, regarding the Greens. Your assessment is valid, but only to the view of the Greens held by you. I argue that you are incorrect in your view, that you haven't look at their policies and philosophies and behaviour with an un-jaundiced eye, and so haven't seen them yet. You've declared, over and over, that the political (with a capital 'P') way is doomed to failure and all of your comments stem from your belief. The Archdruid's words confirmed that for you, but he says, 'grand political transformations', where I would see the Greens making a series of subtle changes that would effect positive change, that would mesh with grassroots changes of the sort you espouse. You say,
Wealth redistribution? it aint gonna happen with our current definition of wealth." but fail to see that changing the definition of wealth is what the Greens have been promoting for years and years. I don't know how you've missed it.
You also say,
"There is so much that could be done on a political level that would effectively be below the radar of left/right thinking." yet must have heard the Greens claim that they are neither left nor right. I know you baulk at the claim and most likely will spin out upon reading it, but I'd ask you to consider it a little more dispasionately. Ask yourself this: does any other party say that? Why not? Why do you think the Greens, honest folk that we are, say such a thing? Is it possible, Shunda, that it might have validity? Could you have missed it somehow? I've seen you getting the wrong end of the stick on a couple of issues, I wonder if you may have done that here :-)
That said, I join you in thinking highly of The Arch Druid. Is this the first time you've read his work? He's been saying these things for some time and I've been recommending him for a while. I know a number of the Frogblog commentators read him. How's your backyard looking?
I think you missed the 'Jesus' bit, Shunda.
No, actually, I didn't. I believe that much of the institutional church is exactly as he described, I also believe that the real teachings of Christ are very different from those of the institutional church.
You should check them out some time ;)
And regarding the Greens.
People can claim all sorts of positions on things, say all the right words, yet still be far short of actually doing it.
You claim I am blinded by some sort of prejudice, but I can sniff out tired old mantra as good as anyone. Perhaps you want the greens to be more than they are, have you considered that could be just as much a possibility? Is it possible that we are both a little bit wrong? Perhaps I may be a bit too negative, you may be a bit too positive?
I think that is far more plausible, we actually share a lot in common, yet there is obvious tension between some of our view points. Isn't it possible that we are dividing on stuff that we are both wrong about?
This 'conflict' is where the transition will be won or lost in my opinion, just like the Arc Druids comments regarding "salvation", it is all or nothing.
Very interesting.
I agree the concept of a Green party could be very useful, but you shouldn't demand that I be converted to their ideology in order to be a legitimate part of solving these problems.
When people care more about redefining marriage, feminist rants and slinging mud over all sorts of meaningless 'luxury' issues, I will not be on board and I will not see it as anything other than what it is - wasting valuable time.
"Is it possible that we are both a little bit wrong? Perhaps I may be a bit too negative, you may be a bit too positive?"
Yes. The position I broadcast is trimmed for ease of delivery. I subscribe to no party's philosophy.
I'm cast as a Green Party activist, even by my local journalists, but I've never claimed that, I think, unless in jaded jest.
Wanna talk 'redefining marriage'?
Did you see the Conservative guy on Q&A and the Labour woman, discussing the homosexual marriage issue? Louise Wall? She was right, he was wrong :-)
I haven't seen it, so I can't comment.
What I will say is it is a pointless insignificant issue as far as human rights go.
Since when was redefining a tradition a fundamental human right?
I now accept the way I see marriage is very different to most and my values are going to be trampled on.
I also accept that the "God hates fags" crowd completely destroyed any civil debate on the issue and only made the situation more confusing and polarised.
I don't accept either side as having a strong case for anything but their own particular bigotry, which both sides show in abundance.
However, this has little to do with the important issues in the Arch Druid report, or indeed, anything important at all, it is just a pointless diversion from reality for the liberal elite (including DPF).
Too much of what the Greens are about is all this diversionary continuation of sixties activism, all I can say to that is change the record and put something relevant on for a change.
It is easy to take positions on issues, it is much harder to actually commit to solving problems in a lasting way.
I'm not saying I have the answers, but I am definitely seeking them with more determination.
Of course, Shunda, it's a minor issue but if you were in a position of Governance, where the fate of those potentially affected by legislation changes around the issue, what would you say? It's not important, so I'm not going to tell you our position? As soon as you profess to be capable of decision making, as each party does, you have to be prepared to have a position, party or personal, on all sorts of things that aren't critical to the survival of the human race and the planet we infest :-)
Come on, Shunda, are you suggesting the Greens say...what?
As to The Archdruid, I share your view - he's really onto it, albiet somewhat American-centric, as you'd expect.
My own values demand I listen to you on this Robert, but I'm still going to be as stubborn as a mule on things I am not sure about ;).
One thing I will say is that you and people like Kevin Hague have been far more responsive to my questions than many others have.
I have contacted various Christian groups that I thought were on to something (not so much lately) and been given the frosty shoulder, sensitive bunch they are. Seems to me that I am considered to be a 'dirty' Christian because I refuse to hide who I really am (warts and all), it seems to make them uncomfortable, funny that! :).
Unfortunately I identify some of the same control tactics in certain circles on the left, you must understand my reluctance to get too close.
But as for the future, I like a biblical saying: better to fall on the rock and be broken than have the rock fall on you and be crushed it seems to me that that is the message in the Archdruid, or perhaps "feel the pain and do it anyway".
I feel more determined of late Robert, I have all sorts of interesting ideas coming to me after a long period of frustration.
And no, I haven't started smoking weed.
I'm still very interested to hear what it is you are developing, Shunda. Your 'promised' email has got lost in the ether somewhere between the Coast and here, so I'm left guessing. Are you joining the circus? Have you found evidence that New Zealand was settled by Noah and his wife? Have your own wife invented a device that turns coal into pavalova?
As to the gay marriage discussion, I'll pass on that. getting you to address it was like getting blood out of a stone :-)
Post a Comment