Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- Slaughter in Connecticut: 20 Children, 6 Adults Dead in Kindergarten Massacre
- How the Mighty (Mississippi) Has Fallen: Historic Drought Plagues US
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Study: World's Mighty Giants Dying off at Alarming Rate
- A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill
- 'I'd Rather Fight Like Hell': Naomi Klein's Fierce New Resolve to Fight for Climate Justice
- Save the Children: Tears and Tragedy in Connecticut
- Remember All the Children, Mr. President
- Thinking the Unthinkable: On Mental Health, My Son, and Gun Violence
Popular content
Today's Top News
The False Idol of Unfettered Capitalism
When I returned to New York City after nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans, I was unsure of where I was headed. I lacked the emotional and physical resiliency that had allowed me to cope as a war correspondent. I was plagued by memories I wanted to forget, waking suddenly in the middle of the night, my sleep shattered by visions of gunfire and death. I was alienated from those around me, unaccustomed to the common language and images imposed by consumer culture, unable to communicate the pain and suffering I had witnessed, not much interested in building a career.
It was at this time that the Brooklyn Academy of Music began showing a 10-part film series called "The Decalogue." Deka, in Greek, means 10. Logos means saying or speech. The Decalogue is the classical name of the Ten Commandments. The director was the Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski, who had made the trilogy "White, Blue and Red." The 10 films, each about an hour long and based on one of the commandments, were to be shown two at a time over five consecutive weeks. I saw them on Sunday nights, taking the subway to Brooklyn, its cars rocking and screeching along the tracks in the darkened tunnels. The theater was rarely more than half full.
The films were quiet, subtle and often opaque. It was sometimes hard to tell which commandment was being addressed. The characters never spoke about the commandments directly. They were too busy, as we all are, coping with life. The stories presented the lives of ordinary people confronted by extraordinary events. All lived in a Warsaw housing complex, many of them neighbors. They were on a common voyage, yet also out of touch with the pain and dislocation of those around them. The commandments, Kieslowski understood, were not dusty relics of another age, but a powerful compass with vital contemporary resonance.
In film after film he dealt with the core violation raised by each of the commandments. He freed the commandments from the clutter of piety and narrow definitions imposed upon them by religious leaders and institutions. The promiscuous woman portrayed in the film about adultery was not married. She had a series of empty, carnal relationships. Adultery, at its deepest level for the director, was sex without love. The father in the film about honoring our parents was not the biological father. The biological mother was absent in the daughter's life. Parenting, Kieslowski knew, is not defined by blood or birth or gender. It is defined by commitment, fidelity and love. In the film about killing, an unemployed drifter robs and brutally murders a cab driver. He is caught, sentenced and executed by the state. Kieslowski forces us to confront the barbarity of murder, whether it is committed by a deranged individual or sanctioned by society.
I knew the commandments. I had learned them at Sunday school, listened to sermons based on the commandments from my father's pulpit and studied them as a seminarian at Harvard Divinity School. But Kieslowski turned them into living, breathing entities.
" ... For 6,000 years these rules have been unquestionably right," Kieslowski said of the commandments. "And yet we break them every day. We know what we should do, and yet we fail to live as we should. People feel that something is wrong in life. There is some kind of atmosphere that makes people turn now to other values. They want to contemplate the basic questions of life, and that is probably the real reason for wanting to tell these stories."
In eight of the films there was a brief appearance by a young man, solemn and silent. Kieslowski said he did not know who the character was. Perhaps he was an angel or Christ. Perhaps he represented the divine presence who observed with profound sadness the tragedy and folly we humans commit against others and against ourselves.
"He's not very pleased with us," was all the director said.
The commandments are a list of religious edicts, according to passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy, given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. The first four are designed to guide the believer toward a proper relationship with God. The remaining six deal with our relations with others. It is these final six commands that are given the negative form of "You Shall Not ... ." Only two of the commandments, the prohibitions against stealing and murder, are incorporated into our legal code. Protestants, Catholics and Jews have compiled slightly different lists, but the essence of the commandments remains the same. Muslims, while they do not list the commandments in the Koran, honor the laws of Moses, whom they see as a prophet.
The commandments are not defined, however, by the three monotheistic faiths. They are one of the earliest attempts to lay down moral rules and guidelines to sustain a human community. Nearly every religion has set down an ethical and moral code that is strikingly similar to the Ten Commandments. The Eightfold Path, known within Buddhism as the Wheel of Law, forbids murder, unchastity, theft, falsehood and, especially, covetous desire. The Hindus' sacred syllable Om, said or sung before and after prayers, ends with a fourth sound beyond the range of human hearing. This sound is called the "sound of silence." It is also called "the sound of the universe." Hindus, in the repetition of the Sacred Syllable, try to go beyond thought, to reach the stillness and silence that constitutes God. Five of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai are lifted directly from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead." No human being, no nation, no religion, has been chosen to be the sole interpreter of mystery. All cultures struggle to give words to the experience of the transcendent. It is a reminder that all of us find God not in what we know, but in what we cannot comprehend.
The commandments include the most severe violations and moral dilemmas in human life, although these violations often lie beyond the scope of the law. They were for the ancients, and are for us, the core rules that, when honored, hold us together, and when dishonored lead to alienation, discord and violence. When our lives are shattered by tragedy, suffering and pain, or when we express or feel the ethereal and overwhelming power of love, we confront the mystery of good and evil. Voices across time and cultures have struggled to transmit and pay homage to this mystery, what it means for our lives and our place in the cosmos. These voices, whether in the teachings of the Buddha, the writings of the Latin poets or the pages of the Koran, are part of our common struggle as human beings to acknowledge the eternal and the sacred, to create an ethical system to sustain life.
The commandments retain their power because they express something fundamental about the human condition. This is why they are important. The commandments choose us. We are rarely able to choose them. We do not, however hard we work to insulate ourselves, ultimately control our fate. We cannot save ourselves from betrayal, theft, envy, greed, deception and murder, nor always from the impulses that propel us to commit these acts. These violations, which can strike us or be committed without warning, can leave deep, often lifelong wounds. There are few of us who do not wrestle deeply with at least one of these violations.
We all stray. We all violate some commandments and do not adequately honor others. We are human. But moral laws bind us together and make it possible to build a society based on the common good. They keep us from honoring the false covenants of greed, celebrity and power that destroy us. These false covenants have a powerful appeal. They offer feelings of strength, status and a false sense of belonging. They tempt us to be God. They tell us the things we want to hear and believe. They appear to make us the center of the universe. But these false covenants, covenants built around exclusive communities of race, gender, class, religion and nation, inevitably carry within them the denigration and abuse of others. These false covenants divide us. A moral covenant recognizes that all life is sacred and love alone is the force that makes life possible.
It is the unmentioned fear of death, the one that rattles with the wind through the heavy branches of the trees outside, which frightens us the most, even as we do not name this fear. It is death we are trying to flee. The smallness of our lives, the transitory nature of existence, the inevitable road to old age, are what the idols of power, celebrity and wealth tell us we can escape. They are tempting and seductive. They assure us that we need not endure the pain and suffering of being human. We follow the idol and barter away our freedom. We place our identity and our hopes in the hands of the idol. We need the idol to define ourselves, to determine our status and place. We invest in the idol. We sell ourselves into bondage.
The consumer goods we amass, the status we seek in titles and positions, the ruthlessness we employ to advance our careers, the personal causes we champion, the money we covet and the houses we build and the cars we drive become our pathetic statements of being. They are squalid little monuments to our selves. The more we strive to amass power and possessions the more intolerant and anxious we become. Impulses and emotions, not thoughts but mass feelings, propel us forward. These impulses, carefully manipulated by a consumer society, see us intoxicated with patriotic fervor and a lust for war, a desire to vote for candidates who appeal to us emotionally or to buy this car or that brand. Politicians, advertisers, social scientists, television evangelists, the news media and the entertainment industry have learned what makes us respond. It works. None of us are immune. But when we act in their interests we are rarely acting in our own. The moral philosophies we have ignored, once a staple of a liberal arts education, are a check on the deluge. They call us toward mutual respect and self-sacrifice. They force us to confront the broad, disturbing questions about meaning and existence. And our callous refusal to heed these questions as a society allowed us to believe that unfettered capitalism and the free market were a force of nature, a decree passed down from the divine, the only route to prosperity and power. It turned out to be an idol, and like all idols it has now demanded its human sacrifice.
Moral laws were not written so they could be practiced by some and not by others. They call on all of us to curb our worst instincts so we can live together, to refrain from committing acts of egregious exploitation that spread suffering. Moral teachings are guideposts. They keep us, even when we stray, as we all do, on the right path.
The strange, disjointed fragments of our lives can be comprehended only when we acknowledge our insecurities and uncertainties, when we accept that we will never know what life is about or what it is supposed to mean. We must do the best we can, not for ourselves, the great moralists remind us, but for those around us. Trust is the compound that unites us. The only lasting happiness in life comes with giving life to others. The quality of our life, of all life, is determined by what we give and how much we sacrifice. We live not by exalting our own life but by being willing to lose it.
The moral life, in the end, will not protect us from evil. The moral life protects us, however, from committing evil. It is designed to check our darker impulses, warning us that pandering to impulses can have terrible consequences. It seeks to hold community together. It is community that gives our lives, even in pain and grief, a healing solidarity. It is fealty to community that frees us from the dictates of our idols, idols that promise us fulfillment through self-gratification. These moral laws are about freedom. They call us to reject and defy powerful forces that rule our lives and to live instead for others, even if this costs us status and prestige and wealth.
Turn away from the moral life and you end in disaster. You sink into a morass of self-absorption and greed. You breed a society that celebrates fraud, theft and violence, you turn neighbor against neighbor, you confuse presentation and image with your soul. Moral rules are as imperative to sustaining a community as law. And all cultures have sought to remind us of these basic moral restraints, ones that invariably tell us that successful communities do permit its members to exploit each other but ensure that they sacrifice for the common good. The economic and social collapse we face was presaged by a moral collapse. And our response must include a renewed reverence for moral and social imperatives that acknowledge the sanctity of the common good.
The German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "Tell me ‘how' you seek and I will tell you ‘what' you are seeking." We all are seekers, even if we do not always know what we are looking to find. We are all seekers, even if we do not always know how to frame the questions. In those questions, even more than the answers, we find hope in the strange and contradictory fragments of our lives. And it is by recovering these moral questions, too often dismissed or ignored in universities and boardrooms across the country, laughed at on the stock exchange, ridiculed on reality television as an impediment to money and celebrity, that we will again find it possible to be whole.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
66 Comments so far
Show All"The moral life, in the end, will not protect us from evil. The moral life protects us, however, from committing evil."
Words to live by. Thank you Chris for your thoughtful and insightful piece.
Another great article by Chris.
A confirming article from NYT that echoes his thoughts:
s It Time to Retrain B-Schools?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15school.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=b-schools&st=cse
It contains following thoughts:
"“It is so obvious that something big has failed,” said Ángel Cabrera, dean of the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale, Ariz. “We can look the other way, but come on. The C.E.O.’s of those companies, those are people we used to brag about. We cannot say, ‘Well, it wasn’t our fault’ when there is such a systemic, widespread failure of leadership.”
Critics of business education have many complaints. Some say the schools have become too scientific, too detached from real-world issues. Others say students are taught to come up with hasty solutions to complicated problems. Another group contends that schools give students a limited and distorted view of their role — that they graduate with a focus on maximizing shareholder value and only a limited understanding of ethical and social considerations essential to business leadership.
Such shortcomings may have left business school graduates inadequately prepared to make the decisions that, taken together, might have helped mitigate the financial crisis, critics say. “It is so obvious that something big has failed,” said Ángel Cabrera, dean of the Thunderbird School of Global Management in Glendale, Ariz. “We can look the other way, but come on. The C.E.O.’s of those companies, those are people we used to brag about. We cannot say, ‘Well, it wasn’t our fault’ when there is such a systemic, widespread failure of leadership.”
Critics of business education have many complaints. Some say the schools have become too scientific, too detached from real-world issues. Others say students are taught to come up with hasty solutions to complicated problems. Another group contends that schools give students a limited and distorted view of their role — that they graduate with a focus on maximizing shareholder value and only a limited understanding of ethical and social considerations essential to business leadership.
Such shortcomings may have left business school graduates inadequately prepared to make the decisions that, taken together, might have helped mitigate the financial crisis, critics say......"
B-School students - all students - shouldn't need to be taught ethics and social considerations in the first place: those lessons should have been instilled by the parents long before the kids were let off the leash.
Seriously, if a young adult has to be "taught" that stealing from your neighbor, or sleeping with his wife, or cheating on your significant other, or killing anyone you want is wrong, then no graduate-level course is going to help.
The only lasting happiness in life comes with giving life to others. The quality of our life, of all life, is determined by what we give and how much we sacrifice. We live not by exalting our own life but by being willing to lose it.
------------------------------------------
That's because the other is us.
Everything is connected.
Today the human being has millions of years of evolution to look at in the rear view mirror. But just up ahead is one of the most dramatic episodes ever created by that natural process. Dramatic because the question of human survival is truly in doubt.
The capitalist economic system is exhausted and will soon collapse. From the time of the collapse of feudalism and its birth in the Industrial Revolution, capitalism was always destined to become a dominant global force. Globalization will be a historic marker as the zenith of its existence. But globalization robbed the system of the only thing that kept its fatal internal contradictions at bay—-growth. Capitalism has conquered the planet, it has nowhere else to feed. The time of its death is now at hand.
There have been riots in Greece and Latvia that threatened to bring down the governments of both countries. In fact Latvia's government is down and out. There has been civil unrest in Eastern Europe and preparations for it in China, India, Russia and the United States. Skirmishes around the world are signs the two most powerful groups that capitalism creates are beginning to engage in a final battle for power. Marx called them the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, and the proletariat, the working class. It can be most simply described as the clash between the wealthy and the working people.
The fight is inevitable and it will destroy one class or the other. Then on the ruins of the old system, the class that prevails will reorganize society along the lines of their dictates. If the bourgeoisie remains on top it will not mean the restoration of capitalism to health and stability. It will mean the depopulation of the planet and the enslavement of man in a world described in the dystopian literature of Orwell, Huxley, and Atwood.
"The authorities" in England are preparing for what they expect to be and have named a "summer of rage" which of course will be one of the opening battles between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
ekaton
Sioux Rose
EKATON: I think you're onto something. One possible covert strategy behind the "war on terrorism" is creating large bodies of uniformed soldier-spies in our midst; and more troubling is the loose language that barely sets up a discernible barrier between the conscientious objector to war, ecologically derelict corporate policies, or leadership that fails to answer to the purportedly represented citizenry, and the authentic "terrorist" or "evil doer." These gray areas are not especially comforting given the history of class struggle, and the fact that the financial cupboards are now all bare.
Good points, Malcolm Martin:
The riots you described are hardly shown on mainstream media, and quite possibly for the specific reason of not alerting the American people to how others are fighting for justice and equality in their own countries. Don't give us any ideas! Suppress "real" news and fill monopolistic media with tidbits of sensationalism and 30 second sound bites, which gives viewers the illusion of being informed on up to the minute news information. For the most part, it has worked, but in this New Age of Aquarius, the falsehoods and well thought out lies and misconceptions which have enslaved most of the human race for thousands of years has been exposed and slowly but surely, people in all walks of life and races and cultures have seen the proverbial "light" and have initiated different plans and are rethinking ways to replace the worldwide concept of greed, selfishness, and violence towards others as a means to an end, and are working for a more egalitarian society. The battle will be difficult as you well know, and like Michael Parenti has said, "the rich and powerful give up nothing without a fight," as we can see with an unhealthy increase in police and military spending. Capitalism has an insatiable appetite for gluttony and must be dismantled and discredited and replaced with a new world concept of true brotherhood among the people of the world and an egalitarian system of living which is sustainable.
Still, Hedges is growing, as Sioux Rose mentioned, and I have great respect for him and his article touched base on many key issues dear to all of us. (ya' can't please everybody!) We need more people like Chris Hedges in this world.
Sioux Rose
Nice post PEACEMAN, and you are privileged to speak FOR The Aquarian Age as one of its emissaries.
Sioux Rose, You are very kind. The wheels are grinding slowly but they are moving. Look at the progress made in South America with Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, for starters. That continent is becoming more democratic and the continent to the north more authoritarian, and the power-elite are fearful, which is why they have increased the fear propaganda tactic. Years ago, liberals and progressives were considered "communists," and now are called "terrorists supporters." Same-o same-o throughout the ages.
This moral collapse has its roots deep in the histories of our respective societies.
The Collapse is fueled by the people who insist we forget our past wrongs and transgressions and just "move On".
Unless we are willing to face up to our past wrongs and make restitution for them we can not regain "Morality". In the world of "Lets just move on and look to the future" , our sense of Morality is always consumed by temporay physical gain.
In such a world of "lets just move on" those individuals that would commit evils (and by extension the society itself) have no reason to live to "Moral" rules.
Sioux Rose
Four points of observations:
First, Hedges is growing as a human being. Graduating from "War is the Force that Gives our Lives Meaning," to a recognition of love's importance speaks for his evolution. Bravo to that.
Second, while certain points about human nature are true and ubiquitous, all persons are not at the same level of spiritual evolution. None of the seductions he points to in media, for instance, get to me. There are many persons who see through materialism and the grotesque appeals aimed at the ego that advertisers thrive upon. There are those born awakened souls who will never have the wool pulled over their eyes, because they recognize a higher Truth than that which is made fashionable by the megaphone voices echoing through this epoch (or any other).
Third, although I think he makes a good case for a context for shared laws and behaviorable constructs, Hedges has not touched the question that might ask why a nation as religious as America, one that supposedly thus honors the Ten Commandments, can commit such wonton violence in the form of wars of aggression, added to its financial equivalent as seen in brutal trade deals, added to its punitive applications as per the burgeoning prison-industrial complex, added to a disrespect for nature, the Great Mother, added to unapologetic homage to Mammon and Mars. His conjucture breaks down the ways that individuals miss the mark, but he doesn't connect the dots between so many religious folks and policies of vengeance, violence, and depravity. I guess to do so would prove a move towards that sacred cow of patriarchal religion that he won't touch.
Fourth, while I applaud his bringing Buddhist and Hindu teachings into this discussion, there is no mention of Indigenous societies or those with more egalitarian bases for sharing wealth, power, and privilege, and what they can teach us.
All in all, this piece raises some interesting points and I salute the evident growth in Hedges, as a human being. Having lived on the front lines and seen the most depraved aspects of human nature at play, now he is learning to walk among "the people" and feel what flesh is heir to. It'll be interesting what his active and intelligent mind produces as a result of this new personal hybrid.
Thanks for commenting, Sioux Rose, I was hoping you'd add your wisdom to this discussion.
This article confirms my belief that Chris Hedges is a disappointed former Christian fundamentalist. As a former disappointed Christian fundamentalist myself, I recognized the arc of his development. There is something very comforting in the ideology of black and white, Good vs. Evil, and the other clear oppositions between sin and righteousness. I left that behind when I realized that fundamentalist theology excluded some of the people that I believed were beloved of God -- for me, if Jesus as the savior could not extend his reality to all human beings, then he wasn't really the ultimate reality -- and if the ultimate reality was not bound by the very narrow path of my faith, then there was no reason to be a fundamentalist Christian.
I felt very lost, however, and I went through a period of deep despair in which I imagined that if the story of redemption through Jesus wasn't true, then the world I saw around me was all there was -- with no heaven, no divine justice, no new world post-apocalypse, how could I have hope for human beings? I have seen this despair reflected in Hedges' darker writings on this site.
Now he's finding hope through love, as you pointed out, Sioux Rose. To me, though, he hasn't reached the final step -- letting go of the concept of sin and the idea that humans are fundamentally flawed. I'm glad he's seen parallels to the ten commandments in other religions, but you're right, Sioux Rose, he's still seeing them through the patriarchal received tradition, which he is avoiding criticizing. For me, the change came when I realized that humans are powerful actors in the world -- capable of great acts of love, as well as great acts of selfishness and violence. Because we are powerful, we, collectively, have the power to change the way we interact with the world.
So I'm not so sure it's a failure of individuals to adhere to the ten commandments, even to the ten commandments as the rules for living in society that emerge when people try to live together for the greater good. I think that there's more going on, and and I think that the focus on individual morality is a distraction from the deeper problems -- the system that traps us individuals so that we perceive so few choices, and it takes so much work just to make a good, caring, compassionate life. Although individual morality is good, the truth is that we will have to work together, consciously, to change the system so that it nurtures human beings and supports our society for the good of all, instead of exploiting most of us for the good of the few. I wish I knew how to do this better; but I haven't given up on religion as a motivating element.
Sioux Rose
TG: Thank you for your compliment, and you raise a number of evocative points. As to your concluding paragraph, I, too agree as to the power of joint operations. In my view Jesus was indeed a MASTER and a high teacher, and he understood Divine law and tried to convey it. Where the Old Testament and 10 Commandments were punitive-sounding rules, Jesus brought in the idea of compassion and the spiritual fact that every living being shares a connection.
Ideally we would see both individuals striving to become more whole and balanced caring citizens and societies supporting those drives and goals. What we have instead are many vices encouraged by media and then the costs on a variety of levels to society for policing those dark drives, like gun ownership or excessive alcohol consumption. I love sex and I think it's a powerful, beautiful communion; but this past weekend, I can't tell you how many references there were to the colloquial expression for fellatio in so many HBO movies (and on other channels, as well). I was pretty offended. The feminist movement fought to provide women with respect, that women become EQUAL partners with men, not their servants in sex or any other format. There is a lot of degrading dialog at play that's reinforcing sexist notions, and I think media does this to make the little guy feel empowered when his paycheck goes less far. All through Latin America machismo runs rampant because men who feel no power of their own like to feel superior to women. I relate this because when sex is separated from the sacred elements it should possess, one way that human beings can transcend themselves is lost.
It's very true that belief systems have held people hostage to limited conditions and conjecture. For centuries to question religious authority pretty much meant a death sentence. Just the mere accusation of someone could have led to a person being burned as a witch. The intent behind McCarthyism and even today's "homeland security" watch programs generate from this idea of demanding that people follow very narrow rules. This discussion could go on forever... do rules serve mankind or vice versa, and do they emanate from an enlightened source or one there to keep humanity in chains?
When Bush made killing seem nonchalant(his cavalier attitude towards war) I knew it would send a message through a lot of depraved minds to do likewise. I even noticed more road rage in Florida and with 40,000 and up dying a year on the roads, the egoistic bravado that seeks to "bring it on" there practiced hardly becomes inconsequential.
According to the Hebrew concept of Tikkun Olam we are here to repair the world; and I would say the first 30-50 years of life we spend repairing ourselves and if inclined, doing what we can to build a better society. The ideal would be that these efforts work in concert. Perhaps after the current collapse such a possibility will take shape and take on substance. Hedges is like Orpheus who went to Hades and now is learning how to open his heart by living in a world still infused by Light.
What a beautiful and profound conversation between Text Guru and Sioux Rose. Both your thoughts meet my most inner thoughts.
Both you and Text Guru may be interested in following a conference I will be attending this weekend in Albuguerque, NM, sponsored by the Center of Action and Contemplation and led by Franciscan Father Richard Rohr. The conference is titled: The Emerging Church, there will be 1,000 in attendance and it is pretty much non-denominational and speakers from mainstream Christianity.
To me, the conference reflects an emerging global consciousness and I beleive it may well have major ramifications for Christianity in America.
You can follow the results of this conference at the excellent Website of the Center for Action and Contemplation as there will be videos, etc. available in 1-2 months time.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: For the sake of ritual I hereby "anoint" you Commondream's honorary ambassador at that event! I, for one, look forward to any insights you will later bring to the forum. Have a GREAT and ENLIGHTENING time. I would not be surprised if YOU were positioned there to light a few lamps courtesy of the agents of cosmic choreography.
Thanks Sioux Rose.
Yes, I expect to do some feed-back presentations at various churches and Small Faith Groups.
When appropriate I will make reference to this emerging movement. It is not meant to substitute or compete with any denomination but to be an extension of ones faith.
I always apprerciate your kind words and the wisdom you provide on CD.
Zeitgeist: The Movie shows parallels between Christianity and the pagan mysticism that preceded it, astrology, and dualities for Jesus, Moses, Noah and his ark, etc, in older stories from Egypt and elsewhere. The three kings are the stars of Orion's belt, aligning through the "big star" to the point on the horizon where the sun rises at the winter solstice, with Dec 25th being the birth of the new year in terms of the sun's beginning a new annual shift on the horizon. The birth of Christ is actually the birth of the Age of Pisces, while Moses' anger at the worship of the "false idol", the calf, was prodding the shift from the age of Taurus to the age of Pisces. These ages correspond to the period of the earth's dominant wobble. It's nice to know our historic mysticism is grounded in physical reality. The halo behind Jesus' head in the early drawings is the sun. He is the sun god. Fantastic mysticism. With objectivity, we can discover the truth about ourselves, and benefit from that. How can competing views deserve the throne when the throne is reserved for the truth?
Sioux Rose
RTDRURY: I don't believe I've ever seen you speak about mysticism! One correction, however based on the work of astrologer Alan Oken. This idea of the ages definitely lends considerable insight and metaphorical value to humanity's "place in time." Each age lasts about 2300 years, and the age of Taurus related to Ancient Egypt and its emphasis on pyramid building. Taurus, an earth sign is tied to construction and the building of foundations. Alan Oken adds the value of a sign's opposite polarity, and as was the case with Taurus, Scorpio functions as its polarity. Scorpio is the sign of the dead, and as 8th house on the Zodiac dial, it also relates to inheritance and money shared with others.
According to the experts whose material guides viewers through the Egyptian mummies display at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, the sarcophagus and its elaborate hieroglyphics function like something akin to a life-to-life banking system. The Egyptians understood that the soul would be reborn, so they attempted in these writing to direct souls back to where their own booty was buried that it might be retrieved in the next lifetime!
The Age of Aries followed, and Moses was its Avatar. Aries exalts the first born son, is a profoundly masculine sign that also has an affinity for war, competition, and raw displays of brute force. Its polarity is Libra, sign of law, and Moses indeed brought forth the original basis for law: The Ten Commandments.
The correction is that the Age of Taurus led to that of Aries, which THEN gave rise to The Christ, Avatar of the Age of Pisces, its teachings that of the oneness, a state of being that requires empathy and compassion (for others) to be realized. Pisces' polarity is Virgo, hence the need for a Virgin Mother to bring the symbolism fully into balance.
We are now entering Aquarius, its polarity being Leo, sign of children. I believe the next generation will be the torch bearers of a phase where friendship begins to phase out competition, where people learn that their only hope of survival is putting aside self-interest so that together they can form synergistic alignments that bring unexpected solutions into play.
The signs follow a natural succession. You left out a transition point, as in 2300 years!
Ahh yes, thank you. According to the theory then, Moses was trying to usher in the age of Aries, age of monotheism. But there seems to be disagreement on the dates of transition.
Sioux Rose
RT DRURY: Calendars altered from a moon-based to sun-based time reference, and when ages shift every 2200-2400 years, the "starting point" is not easy to ascertain. I think we are IN the full transition of ages RIGHT now. My reason runs as thus:
1. Uranus the "ruler" of Aquarius is passing through Pisces, sign of the fading age. In its 84 year orbit, it requires 7 years' passage through each consecutive sign. Uranus has been in Pisces from 2003-2010.
2. Meanwhile Neptune, the ruler of Pisces is crossing Aquarius, or Uranus' sign. Neptune's orbit is 165 years, and it spends 14 years in each sign crossing Aquarius from l998-2012.
The probability of these particular two planets crossing each other's signs in synch is way out there... I am not sure how to run the math on this as both are cycling, one at a rate of 84 years, the other about double that.
3. This year, Jupiter in fact DID align with Mars in Aquarius as the song from Hair articulated. (Jupiter heads there once every 12 years and Mars once every 2; but it's conceivable that during the time Jupiter next crosses Aquarius, 12 years from now, Mars will NOT cross that sign at all. I'd have to check.)
But notice the uniqueness of these overlaps, added to 3 very strong portents of major change, transition or collapse:
1. The end of oil and problems with climate attributable to the burning of a variety of fossil fuels. Predicted weather events will interrupt harvest cycles.
2. Fiscal implosion, brought on by the love of money, the purported oldest of sins. With markets in free fall everywhere and food prices rising above what the impoverished millions can afford, something is indeed rotten that extends beyond Denmark.
3. War: That the US used its considerable treasure to establish itself as the major deliverer of weapons' systems (and perhaps even private armies for hire), a veritable dealer in arms when so many areas are unsettled, is a dark karmic misuse of substance and resource.
So the ostensible data conforms to a set of prophecies slated for the period around 2012: these prophecies overlap and yet derive from widely differing sources. What was once taken for a flat earth, a horizon that ended, can find its modern advocates in the present as those who believe in an End/final time for mankind, as opposed to those who recognize the earth turns, and new phases are given rise to. I do NOT see this transition as an easy time for many, and I think it's fair to say the numbers (population) may go down; nor can we know with certainty what is next as it will become the product of our collective actions, beliefs, and interactions.
Long answer... hope you read it.
I think that Chris is right about the necessity of living the moral life. I also think that Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion is important to living that moral life, whether you consider yourself to be religious or not.
There is a problem when Capitalism is unregulated, unfettered and has no oversight? Duh! Many words to explain something quite simple.
We need a new morality based on ecological sustainability. Religion has failed.
I agree that no religion is likely to serve well as a basis for morality as we go into the future. However, I do worry about the corporatists co-opting the environmental movement (ganging up on the minority of powerful corporations on the other side like those in the oil industry), and possibly creating a new set of moral rules which make the lives of non-elite humans expendable. Of course the rules would not explicity express that, but it would follow from the rules. They certainly would pay no attention to any notions of equality or quality of life for non-elites.
Progressives are not likely to universally agree on these issues, but I believe the first principle needs to be the equality of the value of life of every individual human being.
First principle: Value of all life on earth---not just human life.
That is the crux of the disagreement, I am afraid. The corporatists will almost certainly push that point to devalue the lives of non-elite humans (who could prove to be obstacles in their profit-maximization plans), with the assent and possibly even the active participation of "progressives."
Personally, I would identify with, and feel more connected to, robots more than I would with bacteria (part of that life on earth). But by far the bigger problem with placing a value on non-human life is that it leads to a situation of out-of-control complexity where any argument about the ultimate benefit to life would be virtually impossible to evaluate because of the unbounded number of variables and the lack of knowledge by the general public of the specifics involved. That would make it all the easier for corporatist sophists to create specious arguments that support policies that on the surface support life, but actually merely support corporatist goals, with such arguments possessing a veneer of plausibility.
Furthermore, we need a moral system with a basis that humans can universally agree on. We interact with humans, communicate with humans, and cooperate with humans. We participate in innumerable strong feedback loops that connect with others in the human community, that require participation in and agreement with those others, and that we depend on for our survival and quality of life. Our connections with, and mutual dependence on, non-humans is several orders of magnitude weaker. So if we are going to determine a line at which our group ends and the outside begins, it seems a reasonable place to put that line is at the boundary of the human species.
It probably should also be said that if we do not cooperate with other humans, not only do we miss an opportunity to improve our lives, those other humans are powerful and dangerous and can disrupt our plans severely or even kill us.
And if one does not wish to draw the line at the boundary of the human species, then where draw it? If not at humans, then why at primates, and if not there, then why at mammals, and if not there, then why at vertebrates, and if not there, then why at animals, and if not there, then why at plants, as robots of the future may in some sense have more consciousness than the plants? Also, all the animals are eating each other and eating plants, and all human activities affect those events directly or indirectly, and so are humans supposed to determine which are to survive and which are to die and to alter their activities accordingly? Wouldn't that be playing "god"? And wouldn't it entail a completely unmanageable level of complexity, particularly if consequences to evolution of human interference were considered, that would require a supercomputer the size of the sun running full-time to even begin to work out? Wouldn't it make more sense if humans just focus on the human group and let other species focus on their groups, especially when knowledgable and careful humans are going to support the maintenance of existing ecosystems because that is good for humans in the long run?
That is why I always end up back at the first point I stated, that the first principle should be that all human life is of equal value.
"Wouldn't it make more sense if humans just focus on the human group and let other species focus on their groups, especially when knowledgable and careful humans are going to support the maintenance of existing ecosystems because that is good for humans in the long run?"
** Your view doesnt work because of human nature(and concepts of fairness and justice).
The answers to your points are all here:
http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com/qandalist.html
Throughout history human societies have considered members of their group (defined by race, gender, wealth, religion, language, etc) more important than those regarded as outsiders, and discriminated according to various standards of value conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination.
If you believe that humans can discriminate against and exploit other life because they are superior in value as a species to all others you have to be able to show this supremacy to be true as an absolute, objective fact, or anyone can use similar non absolute, subjective criteria from religion to gender to skin colour to justify discriminating against anyone else (human or not). The fact that these standards of moral worth that favor humans ("reason", "free will," "immortal soul," "moral comprehension," "evolutionary selection." "Divine blessing," etc) can be doubted and questioned (i.e. what makes "reason" or free will" or a "Divine blessing" important?) suggests that they are no more objective or absolute than the standards of value used by racial and religious supremacists (what makes" skin colour" or a specific interpretation of " Scripture" important?). The only other choice one has, in order to have a consistent belief in human rights that closes the loopholes for racists, bigots etc., is to extend this circle of compassion and ethical justice to include non-human living beings. At the most basic level, it isnt about love, or emotion, but ethical consistency and common sense and trying to be as fair and as compassionate as possible to others, as opposed to the alternative.
The issue is not about avoiding all killing but avoiding it as much as possible. No ethical view--no matter how consistent--can take into account the interests of everyone at all times. One can certainly say the line of moral regard is not drawn at animals--that it is wrong to exploit trees and other plants (an argument found in the philosophy of Fruitarianism). If there are problems in implementing such a policy, then it is true of all potential beneficiaries of moral conduct (i.e. you may live on land that was once occupied by others who were driven off or killed due to colonial aggression; or pay taxes to a government that uses the money to finance wars, or use drugs that were tested on unwilling human patients in Africa etc.). No one can be perfect, either in compassion or cruelty BUT the failure to be morally perfect does not then mean one has to fall back to some safe line like species to focus one's discrimination practices. If you argue for that--then there is no reason why someone else cannot draw the line at race, or religion, or intelligence instead of, or, in addition to species. Thus, the need to prove human supremacy still exists. The human supremacist is shackled to it.
All you can do as a compassionate person is to try your best according to each situation, following a moral standard that endeavors to be fair and just--allowing you to be as compassionate as possible, as opposed to the alternative.
Now, if you claim its survival of the fittest, and not human supremacy(it is, but for the sake of argument)then you have another problem.
Other species need to kill other species to survive. It is impossible as far as we know to stop lions from eating gazelles, birds from eating worms, and spiders from eating flies, and microorganisms from eating other microbes. Anyone who doubts this is welcome to try to police the rest of the Natural world and prevent violence and killing. It may be better to focus on the one species that we can (at least in the principle)--influence to change its behavior: human. Only humans as far as we know, have considered a concept of ethics and rights--which they endeavor to communicate to others. This is a practical matter. Other species function and survive in relative harmony--and have no need to employ ethicists. Humans on the other hand, have decided that the conduct of human beings needs to be controlled to ensure a civilized existence.
And for the issue of reciprocal ethical conduct--who says caring for others has to be reciprocal? We don't expect children, or the mentally retarded to be able to grasp concepts of law and morality to be granted protection and respect--so why expect the same from non humans who are similarly incapable of understanding human morality concepts? If it is unfair and unreasonable to expect a blind man to be able to read road signs just as well as a seeing man is able to, then the same should be true for a lion who cannot think like a human.
And morality isnt about perfection.
Its simply a matter of trying to do the best you can
For you to try and limit moral regard to humans is naive about human history I think.
I dont think the idea that Hedges is a disappointed christian fundamentalist holds up. He has attacked Christianity and secular fundamentalism equally. He is a disappointed idealist perhaps, but you would expect that. People who dont care or feel arent going to be thinking about problems in the world. Or be disappointed.
You wrote:
"If you believe that humans can discriminate against and exploit other life because they are superior in value as a species to all others you have to be able to show this supremacy to be true as an absolute, objective fact, or anyone can use similar non absolute, subjective criteria from religion to gender to skin colour to justify discriminating against anyone else (human or not)."
Assumptions of superiority has absolutely nothing to do with it. Actually, even thinking about it in terms of superiority shows a sort of quasi-religious approach to the issue. I approach it totally from the atheistic/agnostic point of view. To me, it is about groups, feedback loops, and sustainable systems. Lions do not protect other lions against hyenas because they believe lions are "superior" to hyenas, but because they value lions more than they value hyenas. Their connection is what some would label as "instinctual," but it nevertheless is based on what is sustainable for lions. The group only survives if members of the group value the group more than what is outside the group.
There is no reason to value life unless one is part of life. Why would non-life value life? Living things value life because they are part of it and connected to it, as it serves as the ultimate group that one belongs to. But there are subgroups that one is much more closely connected with, and if one does not favor those subgroups, one risks not getting the positive feedback and rewards necessary to continue, to survive. One values more what one is more closely connected to, what one is more dependent on, and that is consistent with the programming done by evolution to make lions, and people, more sensitive to feedback from others in their species, and more likely to develop strong emotional connections to others of their species. Not only do we recognize similarities with ourselves in other members of our species, but we can form close bonds through cooperation and communication with such individuals. And these can be easily made to be mutually beneficial to a high degree, and have been to the point that humans have been able to increase their population to the billions.
Through increases in technology humans have been able to connect more and more with other humans around the world, and this has led for many human individuals to a change in conception of what one's group is, based on their own assessments of the cost/benefit analysis of such. The group has expanded rapidly from the tribe, to the nation, to the human race. This is a tough transition period and as many have struggled with it popular beliefs have arisen that group expansions are always good and no group is too big. However, such beliefs are faulty and self-destructive. It does appear to be advisable to expand the group to include the entire human race, but dangers arise of non-sustainability and abuse from manipulation and confusion when it is expanded beyond that point, as I argued earlier in the thread. We are not powerful enough or wise enough to protect all life. We will be doing good just to survive ourselves. And whether we survive or not, myriads of other species will come and go, as they have for billions of years.
Yeah, you're right. I didn't really think it through...
the 10 commandments? i'll admit there's a great deal of wisdom there (& elsewhere), but one MAJOR problem w/the decalogue is the final 6 commandments (not to lie, kill, steal, etc.) are all given thru the prism of PROPERTY RIGHTS.
to violate these commands is, in essence, to steal someone else's property. is, e.g., the conception of "wife" in the adultery commandment something we want to accept? is the feudal understanding of property in these commands something we want to accept? do these commands address state-sanctioned murder?
despite those caveats, these commands (& those of i daresay all other more "primitive" wisdom/religion traditions) condemn the GREED necessary for capitalism to thrive.
and embodied in these commands is respect for LEISURE: keeping the sabbath. (i know our rabbinic/puritan tradition is that sabbath-keeping means synagogue, church, pious activity, but the commandment is DON'T WORK, not the additions of the super-zealous). a very wise idea.
let me tread carefully...I, too, upon reading this, was struck anew by how property-oriented the commandments are...
without appearing to endorse murder, rules or laws are frequently laid down by those in power, backed up with force to deal with 'exceptions', to self-control the masses, while those in power ignore or break the rules or laws to their own advantage...a commandment to not kill, for example, sounds great in general, which gets it the buy-off and complicity of the constituency, but really pays off if you're secretly a powerful, wealthy killer who wishes to avoid reprisal, and comes in handy if you're caught, too: 'I'm bad, but you're good, so you can't kill me'...couple this type of thinking with the invention of a system of corrupt courts and dungeons, and you can go a long way...
the other thing is this notion that's been floating about lately that the thinking that gets you into a situation may not be the thinking to get you out...it strikes me that the commandments may represent the most concise summary of the thinking that has gotten us where we are as a species: destroying the planet...is it radical to suggest the commandments might be responsible? what if a little killing or theft were okay? would that not bring individuals quickly back to center on issues like property ownership or resource management? very difficult to doubt what one holds most holy, but good to be always aware that perhaps one has been deceived...
It is true, and regrettable, that the tenth commandment seems to embody a conception of a man's wife and servants as his property. And the eighth deals explicitly with property. Sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that any of the others are infected with property-based notions. Honoring your parents, killing, and bearing false witness have no essential connection with property. (If you think your life is your property, then it's you who are infected with property-based conceptions, not the commandments.) Although the prohibition against adultery may have been associated in the past with the idea of a wife as property, there is no "conception of 'wife' in the adultery commandment." All it says is don't commit adultery. This is fully justifiable in terms that have nothing to do with property. It can simply be read as an expression of the importance of fidelity to the marriage vows, binding equally on men and women.
to lie is to steal someone's right to truth
to kill is to steal a person's most precious possession, their self.
adultery is stealing your neighbor's right to possess his wife (oh so clearly implied in the 10th commandment: "your neighbor's wife")
i stand by my comments.
It is always a pleasure to read the writings of Chris Hedges. Good posts by Malcolm Martin and SiouxRose.
In more simple terms, I would like to say, and I think Chris Hedges would agree, is humankind is finally recognizing that chaos in the world is not really rooted in a clash between Christianity and Islam, nor a clash between civilizations, but a clash between the forces of materialism and the forces of spirituality. There is emerging in the world a powerful spiritual force, the spirituality of liberation from oppression.
Well after the post enlightenment period, spirituality is finally being recognized again as a real force in itself and it is a force that cannot be destroyed by military power. The survival of the human species depends upon wisdom. The power of spirituality gives birth to wisdom.
Because of a lack of understanding or faith in the powerful dynamics of democracy, the greed of capitalism has been allowed to rule in America. Americans have become too materialistic, too preoccupied, too selfish and intellectually lazy to make democracy work for the common good. Thus, the chickens have come home to roost. More than anything, America needs a change in values. Values are all about spirituality.
What America has failed to recognize is that the practice of democracy is as much an exercise of the human spirit as in the practice of religion, but without the threat of theocracy. There is very little written about this aspect of democracy.
True national wisdom can only come from a healthy democracy. The world needs wisdom for the survival of the human species. Modern technology, unlimited knowledge, unlimited economic growth, and unlimited military power will never lead to wisdom.
A national wisdom can only come from the spiritual dynamics of democracy that is meant to embrace opposing viewpoints and to synthesize a fair solution for the common good. It is all about the spiritual nature of humankind, the ability for spiritual discernment to compel a never ending national introspection. For humankind, this is the natural path to peace, truth and wisdom.
In summary, to transcend the dominate culture of capitalism, there needs to be political freedom to think great democratic thoughts. This requires freedom from corporate domination and the power of wealth.
This is America’s challenge for the 21st Century.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: Profound assessment and "healing words." I very much agree with your well-stated points. Thank you for sharing them. You add grace to this forum.
There's a fatal flaw in the monetary system that drives greed and excess materialism. Remove the flaw, and the symptoms will subside. Easily said, more difficult to implement.
Legal Tender is a legal contrivance, and when issued in the form of debt is nothing more than a pyramid/ponzi scheme. The quantification of debt wrongfully applies the algebraic concept of exponential growth - compounding interest - upon money. The distinction between usury and interest is an arbitrary legal determination with no basis in mathematics. Nothing can grow forever at an ever-increasing rate. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth.
Economic systems of capitalism, communism, socialism, imperialism, colonialism, totalitarianism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, corporatism, and all other centralist monetary-isms maintain the monopolized control of money, and hence the control of society itself, through their own brand of Legal Tender that excludes other forms of money from the Market.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/9/18/1236759.html
Link that should be read:
Uplift, Deep Cheating, and the CEO Cartel
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2009/03/13/uplift_deep_cheating_and_the_ceo_cartel
David Brin nails the downside Chrie refers to.
It is a reminder that all of us find God not in what we know, but in what we cannot comprehend.
Thank you for that.
seems very appropriate that this article should appear on march 16th, the 6th anniversary of when rachel corrie was killed by that bulldozer attempting to prevent another demolition of a palestinian home...within a week of and between tristan anderston's horrific injury on friday and the anniversary of the iraq war's official beginning in '03.
thank you mr. hedges for your thoughtful words here:
It is fealty to community that frees us from the dictates of our idols, idols that promise us fulfillment through self-gratification. These moral laws are about freedom. They call us to reject and defy powerful forces that rule our lives and to live instead for others, even if this costs us status and prestige and wealth.
free market capitalism as a religion... because it has supplanted for many the spirituality IN religion... is being recognized by more and more people as the idol-worshipping neurosis (or maybe psychosis?) it is. the transition to something saner.... less dependent on the violent impulses of the reptilian brain... more in keeping with the basic kindness and gratitude for life exhibited by people like rachel and tristan-----i suppose has been ongoing throughout human history. shall we evolve our consciousness individually and collectively to recognize what thich nhat hahn would term our 'interbeing'? this morning with thoughts of those two remarkable young people, tristan anderson and rachel corrie in mind, i skipped ahead in a terrific book i found on the social justice concerns of a variety of the world's spiritual traditions to the chapter on judaism... (actually each chapter in miguel de la torre's book, "the hope of liberation in world religions", is very worthwhile!) and this is what the writer of that chapter, marc ellis, has to say about what is shaking down between religious camps that live by the letter as opposed to the spirit of the law:
The central question - perhaps the central religious question throughout history - is whether we as individuals and as communities move toward empire or toward community. Constantinianism moves toward empire and carries the certainty of empire; conscience moves toward community with the vulnerability and the constant search for a broader inclusion this entails. Thus the relationship between and among the various Constantinian establishments of our day is defined by various orthodoxies; the relationship between various communities of conscience is defined by action and compassion with those marginalized and the violated.
After the last 8 years marked by the 'dominant paradigm' strutting about like an exaggerated caricature of the moral bankruptcy of which our species is capable, looks like it's time to settle down with our slice of humble pie and reflect.
Another thing that's amazing besides the human supremacy myth is how infantile scientists can be at moral processing.
If you debate vivisection and ask them: how can you justify torturing an innocent party in the hope of healing someone?
they will usually say: well we think its justified because of the benefits.
But benefits is the hope. You hope to benefit right?
So its not a moral defense. Life scientists tend to be narrow minded thinkers. So they think the way to help a homeless person is to kill a family and steal the home, and then say: I am altruistic, i helped this person.
The irony is that the same kind of moral perversion that was used to justify vivisection is now used to justify human vivisection. I.e. taking stem cells in the hope of curing human illness.
Oh its so going to open the door to other things. You'll see.
Just as in vitro fertilization made adoption less attractive.
I bet even the most ardent pro abortionist of the 1920s would have been shocked to learn that in the 2000s they cannibalize aborted humans for medical research(and the idea that it isnt human ties into the concept of human supremacy-that if it isnt human, you can do what you want to it). Or that there are people on organ patient lists that have to wish that someone dies so they can get the organs to live. Complete bastardization of morality.
I think because people tend to equate ethics with theism, they dont really look into how practical ethical systems can be deduced without any adherence to a deity based religious dogma.
I have debated with both secular humanists and spiritual ones and never had to address issues of religious belief except when they were used to cause harm(the chosen people concept, which is another way of looking at the human supremacy myth).
Another error is Peter Singer's concept of speciesism. Any human might be a racist, but no other species can believe it is better as a group to others based upon a set of criteria it determines and falsely believes is absolute. Only humans do that. So the problem is human concepts of supremacy. To misquote Orwell, if you want to say that only humans matter then: "all humans are created equal, but some humans are more equal than others." You invariably get more tribalism and discrimination.
Singer's criteria of sentience for moral value doesnt work either(its not absolute so anyone can choose their own criteria since Nature cant be shown to care whether one is a socialist or a dictator).
Attacking a belief in human supremacy (whether defined as species, race, gender, age, wealth, etc) is the best way to get a practical ethics code with the least problems. Implementing it is another thing entirely. Because humans are flawed and have behavioral problems compared to other species, its hard to say whether even the most fair and consistent ethical policy would work for long. The 10 Commandments is pretty infantile in the final scrutiny of it.We can certainly do much better.
I'm sorry, but abortion - and even infanticide - is a perfectly normal function of animal societies. And man IS still an animal. Trying to apply 'ethics' to counter instinct and evolution is a moral hazard in itself. Believing that humans are some sort of super-animal is a flawed idea. The cockroaches will probably outlast us.
Primitive societies often practice both of these 'natural' behaviors to limit their population to what the environment can sustainably carry. Those societies that refuse to follow natural laws will fail, over time, because they defy nature and evolution. We cannot escape what we are - animals. It has always been preferable to limmit population at the beginning of life, rather than destroy the entire social group by putting the entire population at risk. Elders, who usually have the greatest experience, are the ones that must be protected - they have the most to offer. This is just reality.
If I agreed with your position I would also believe in survival of the fittest in regards to the free market. If you can't feed yourself--starve. Don't help others, that is just adding to an already unsustainable population. Etc.
Sorry, but there are better approaches to morality than the tradition we inherited from the animals. We are rational animals and thus are capable of a more sophisticated approach to the questions of a moral nature.
The culture we are taught to love presents us with the moral code "you should", then requires us to adopt the amoral code "you could". Is the protestant work ethic not driving prostitution, theft, and plunder? When is the church going to finally divorce its devious spouse, the corporation? Ahh, united they stand!
And just how many people actually consider 'living a moral life' to be important? Those who attempt to live a moral life are the subjects of jokes and ridicule - accused of being unrealistic 'idealists' - with no concept of how the 'real world' actually operates. If living a moral life is so denigrated, how can anyone expect their children to aspire to such a daunting task?
How is it that so many millions of Americans are unable to curb their addiction to TV? It's much easier to quit smoking - but are we really ready to admit that TV - and its insidious advertising - are both and addiction and inately EVIL, because of the effects on the populace? I don't think so.
I've watched people who never saw TV before - it's an awesome experience to see them so engrossed, enraptured as if in a trance. Then it is obvious that this addiction is so powerful that it is almost impossible to resist. Part of that is because of our evolutionary history - movement could mean either food or peril throughout most of man's evolution - our very survival depended on it. Instinct is indeed a powerful seductive force - and instinct tells us, subconsciously, that we should pay attention. Even when the real peril is paying attention to such drivel while the 'real' world crumbles around us. Where will we find the strength to condemn those 'moving pictures' and ALL advertisement as the anti-social factors they really represent? It is all too easy to flick on the TV - and the addiction is so rampant that even poor people seem to find the wherewithal to acquire at least ONE TV. What does that say about any hope for the future? And please don't tell me that the internet is a viable alternative - how many people really bother to research important subjects on the web? I'll bet more people use it for propaganda, advertising, and pornography than use it for education and enlightenment...
Personally, I don't think that our current woes are a recession, the great depression 2.0, the end of neoliberalism of Bretton Woods II. Rather its a slow-motion collapse of the entire 5,000-10,000 urban sedentary agriculture based civilization with its emphasis on technology, top-down command and control, and sky god religions (xianity, judaism and islam) with their emphasis on obedience to authority and denigration of empirical observation and critical rationality. An old paradigm has died but a new one has yet to take its place. Indeed, it has yet to even really achieve clear formulation . I think, however, it will be some kind of fusion of sense of relation with mother earth (through deep ecology, aldo leopold's land ethic, daoism, and indigenous insights), a prophetical concern for social justice in the human world (drawing inspiration from liberation theology in christianity, engaged buddhism, and similar thought-praxis patterns from other religious traditions), and a fuller grasp of the profoundly mystical implication of cutting edge science, especially quantum physics - all leading up to a not merely a new conception of morality or even a new philosophy, but a radically new-old sense of the spiritual.
There is a chance that this may even occur suddenly - 100 monkey style - as recognition of the the incredible damage and moral filth of the dying paradigm finally hits a critical mass.
stonefruit.blogspot.com
Correction: Wittgenstein was Austrian, not German.
I'm sure he'd be the first to admit it - Woody Allen
Thank you Chris Hedges for another article that is demanding of its readers and that exposes the all too often amoral or morally corrupt world in which we find ouselves!
Many thanks also go to my fellow Common Dreamers for their thoughtful comments in this thread.
This thread has some interesting twists.
Slavik and Webber have a nice interchange regarding the "superior/inferior" dynamic, and finally appear to coalesce around a "non-interference as freedom" perspective even if slavik signs off with a snippet that at first glance may belie the concept:
It does appear to be advisable to expand the group to include the entire human race, but dangers arise of non-sustainability and abuse from manipulation and confusion when it is expanded beyond that point, as I argued earlier in the thread. We are not powerful enough or wise enough to protect all life. We will be doing good just to survive ourselves. And whether we survive or not, myriads of other species will come and go, as they have for billions of years.
BTW Slavik, one can argue that the entire human species itself is too large to adhere to a common collection of morals. This simply leaves us to focus on the weaker, but likely more attainable, constructs of "protocols of engagement and non-interference."
Here's an interesting observation by TextGuru:
"So I'm not so sure it's a failure of individuals to adhere to the ten commandments, even to the ten commandments as the rules for living in society that emerge when people try to live together for the greater good. I think that there's more going on, and and I think that the focus on individual morality is a distraction from the deeper problems --"
The italics above are mine. It is indeed disappointing that Hedges talks of morality that can easily be explained via emergent behavior as something that is "received" ostensibly from a "higher" entity.
rush limbaughs taint's take on the last 6 of the 10 commandments as property rights is interesting. It does fit the Jewish cultural expression of Leviticus.
The biggest surprise I found is the general agreement that "we ought to not be tempted to be God" theme. Surprising because for those who believe in a deity it is actually worthwhile for such individuals to actually "play God" -- not God as an external "controller deity," or a "king" which seems to be a dominant theme. Instead, it is worthwhile to focus on the "God within" and actually try to "be it," as a philosopher, as a creator, as a friend, as a healer, as a counselor, etc.
It is unlikely that the human civilization will progress from its current internecine and explotative state until people destroy the dominance of notion of the "controller deity." In other words, and using a Christian theme, here is a paradoxical expression "The kingdom of God is within you; however, remember that the throne is empty."