The Direction of Society

We must radically change our way of approaching and thinking about the problems around us. Society is, I contend, too important to leave to the elite at one end of the spectrum and the extremist at the other pole. We, the people, must shape it. But where to start? What is its nature? How can we understand it?

History is only a lead up to the present if the notion of cause is allowed to predominate over material effect, and if continuity is allowed to override the discontinuities that the level of practices reveal. In addition, however, the fact that the present is always in a process of transformation means that the past must be continually re-evaluated, to write a history of the past is to see it anew, just as the analysand sees anew fresh events of his or her individual biography in light of the experience of psychoanalysis.

The past, in short, takes on new meaning in light of new events. This precludes the possibility of any simple relationship of causality being proposed between past and present. The danger of historicism recedes when it is realised that no past era can be understood purely in its own terms, given that history is, in a sense, always a history of the present.

So, where is our society going? I’ll approach this from the present economic situation. Can we describe the very idea of needs, or utility, problematical? Needs, it could be suggested, can only be sustained by an ideologically based anthropology of the subject. Often this takes a psycho logistic or a culturalist form. Once conspicuous consumption is considered, and different social and cultural formations are brought into the equation, the notion that irreducible primary needs govern human activities becomes a myth. Subject and object are not joined. It could be contended that they are indeed joined through the unconscious structure of social relations. Humans do not search for happiness, they do not search to realise equality; consumption does not homogenise - it differentiates through the ‘sign’ (semiotic) system. Life style and values - not economic needs have fuelled the problem.

We cannot address these problems by either left and right rushing in, whose only reaction is to post preconceived defence or attack, regardless of the subject. I have come to see that totem pole political allegiance is both dangerous and counter-productive.

I have to say that all the great thinkers we can evoke - Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, never envisaged a form of democracy that was based on universal suffrage, or certainly not a system that gave people the vote with so little responsibility for the consequences of what they demanded, and the party selected offered.

I will also say that although I admire the writings of Aquinas, Hegel, Kant et al, I see no answer coming from metaphysics. When it comes to Wittgenstein, I am going to confess to being left baffled and cold in mind and rationality.
Let me offer a thought. Making the trains run on time is not necessarily something that should have so much attraction to our sense of well-being. That is in effect a way of saying we might have to accept that the nearer we get to a true democracy, we may have to trade a degree of total efficiency. I almost typed, ‘totalitarian’ efficiency. Such Freudian slips on the keyboard!!

That leads me to the first idea. And straight away I admit that these are tentative, seeking thoughts. I know the posters on here will forgive me for that admission, as I recognise they have also come here to seek, not to fill this thread with the congealed thoughts of their party, more determined to bestow propaganda than true, singular ideas.

So to the first thoughts.

I believe that the growth of corporality in politics is at the heart of our difficulty in applying radical solutions to the important questions. I will go farther and suggest that the over-arching, all-things-to-all-voters approach of Labour, Conservative, Democrats and Republicans is a hindrance to taking a clear view of such problems as postulated on this thread. The all embracing ‘church’ is hiding two responsibilities - those that vote without any, or at least very little, thought as to the consequences, outside of their own vested interests/needs, and lets those party veil the true nature of participatory politics.
I do not decry or dislike cooperation, either for defence, economic well being or some vague notion of ’All is best in the best of possible worlds’ but the impetus must be from responsible smaller units. Candide is comedic, yet in much of politics I see the same delusion that it is reality. And in this cautionary note I place the EU.

Nothing illustrates more the disconnection between the elite and the so-called voter. We seem to have moved toward a way of thinking that eschews empiricism and now accept that what our particular party flavour says is not to be questioned; indeed it is to be revered. It is why I have called it totem pole politics, where the commands are sacrosanct. And commands they are, certainly not ideas based on reality or common perception.

Some of you will now be shouting, ’City State’ and I cannot deny your political catcalls. Yet, I also cannot refute my own nascent ideas are founded in a belief that we must return to far more responsible governance and democratic selection of small units.

So, what now and from where does this come? I do not want to launch into ’a priori’ against ’posteriori’ at this stage. I strongly believe that any augment on actuality and potentiality is salient to politic thoughts. There is a close connection between the antithesis form-matter and the antithesis actuality-potentiality.
Let me leave you with the simple slogan, “Think Small.” Think about building any institution, especially those of a political nature, up from the minutia of reality, with all the foibles of humanity, and not down from the high plateau of the elite. I always try to avoid platitudes, yet I must quote a saying of Lord Acton for its verity. ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ The price of democracy is to remain ever vigilant of those forces that seek to centralise supervision and maintain they know what is best for you.

The state is my friend when it is my servant. The state is my enemy when it becomes my master.

So, has anybody got any thoughts on these matters?

Misty

The state is always your master Misty. I've given a lot of thought to politics over the years and after much soul searching i've come to the conclusion that the present system we have is so corrupt that it needs overthrowing. Mind you that was many years ago now and my views have not changed a single jot since then.

Our so called democracy is nothing but a sham and we are all treated like fecking sheep basically because the powers that be know that's how most of us are. Democracy in its present form doesn't work as is blatantly obvious as we have a government who won with only 22% of the vote. Nearly 50% of the electorate didn't even bother voting. In short nu-Labour had the support of about 1 in 10 of the population at the last election. We are at the mercy of the bankers as we have been for centuries. It is the City that controls Britain and in reality the whole world. The City is like the Vatican of finnance. Then there are the Bilderbergers and the EU and their vision of One World government. We are ruled by crooks and sickos just as we were a 100 years ago and in many cases their descendants. Big business along with the banks have more say in the running of the country than the electorate ever do and they achieve this by the lying media who operate as a mouthpiece for capitalism.

I'll have to finish this later Misty as I have to pop out now.

Bring back the barricades with you, Truthy. We might need them. Oh, and invite the Chartists to join the debate. Take care.

Misty

--

Truthy/Acid,

I have only just got in and have to get dinner for mum and my daughter. Later I will study both replies and get back to you.

Regards, Misty

Misty, I'm not neglecting the post, but will post anon, if that's okay? I have something to sort out first.

Truthy,

Are these ‘conspiracies?’

1. A deliberate act by those involved
2. A natural progression towards what is inevitable in any society - call that end result greed or power, or whatever
3. A transitory stage between evolution of society (or anything) and we just happen to be observing it in this time or epoch

The reason I ask is that it is essential to know the phase of any perceived problem in order to know how to tackle it. This is not an obtuse speculation but I believe, firmly, that we cannot answer many questions, even if we attempted to do so, until we understand the nature of their antecedence. Further, many problems are seen, in my opinion, in simplistic terms, as if they occurred like spontaneous combustion, instead of the complexity of their appearance, which is nearer the truth. Is it endemic or is it systemic?

Can I challenge the assumption that this, or indeed any problem, can be reduced to single facts, opinions or statistics? I realise this approach is anti-Cartesian.
Descartes argued that to progress, thought had to start from a point of clear and simple ideas. I suggest there are no simple ideas, only complexities, this being particularly in evidence when ideas are applied.

Application is complexion is a maxim I, contend, is closer to reality. Initially explaining reality in the simplest form appears to have clarity. However, reality is never simple. Investigation, scientific or as study of ethics has invariably shown that to be an over-simplification of actuality. As a notion derived from Descartes, simplicity does not adequately cope with the fact that every phenomenon is a fabric of relations, and not a simple substance.

As such, phenomena can only be grasped through a form of synthesis through what Structuralism calls Surrationionalism - being an enrichment and revitalisation of rationalism through reference to the material world.

To uncouple events, facts and conceptions is to reduce both questions and answers to simplistic nonsense. Complexity may not give comfortable results but, I contend, is grounded in the reality of human existence.”

Acid

- The nature of man? I wouldn’t know where to start lol Depends if I pick up Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, or John Stuart Mill - to mention just a few.

Are we social or anti-social?

Just a thought, illustrated, not too humorously. For the sake of the discussion we will take the Old Testament, but I’m sure the same applies ecumenically. We were given ten laws brought down from the mountain. So many seem to think (or perhaps non-thinking might be more accurate) that we have ’rules’ and laws’ for every ethical and social situation. Of course it’s untrue. Society is a construct. A compromise, and maybe as unknowing and uncaring in its progression as ’Chaos’ theory. The only law being - there are no laws.

So to see some evil or good in society we should admit that we, the human beings, have those attributes and they are neither bestowed nor withheld - they just are.

If you will allow me, I will express that prosaically.

It does not matter if we are alone, not just in the universe, in the galaxy, in the solar system, but it is here on earth, within our soul that this insularity is so pernicious. We can guess, postulate, philosophise, but we don’t know, and don’t want to know, what suffering, what love, what desires, what fears, other humans have. The word empathy has no meaning beyond its sound. What we cannot see within our minds is the fact that others are like us. Do we not cry; do we not feel pain; do we not have emotions? Then why can we not understand the fragility of humanity in those we see as others?

Shine

- This is a free thread to be dipped in if wanted. I can understand many will not want to join it. I fully appreciate that. I did warn you I was trouble lol


Regards, Misty

If I answer the 3rd question first Misty it's because its pretty straight forward. We do indeed live in a transistory period of time. The fact that we are perhaps more aware of it is almost certainly down to the fact that we live in an age of mass media, telecomunications and the internet. We get our news, views and opinions at the touch of a button and we are bombarded with information on a daily basis.

On your 1st and 2nd questions I certainly do believe that what is taking place within society is partly conspiratorial and also partly a natural progression of things and also in some cases the fact that certain trends seem to come and go in cycles. As you say many problems are seen in simplistic terms and that is often a mistake as many issues such as teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, petty crime and racism are often far more complex than they appear and are often deeply rooted within our culture.
No problem can be merely reduced to facts, opinions or statistics as one person's problem is different to the next's and in many cases are often multi-faceted. Many of society's problems appear to be economic but as is often the case throwing money at a problem is not always the answer. In many cases throwing money at a problem such as teenage pregnancy is an irelevance and often only encourages the problem. In other cases such as petty crime amongst young offenders we have thrown money at the problem and it has been seen as rewarding bad behaviour. Sometimes the ammount of money thrown at a problem has not been enough or it has been used unwisely but I do believe many of society's problems to be economic and many of them, although having their roots in an era long gone have been exasperated since the 1980's and the seismic shift in society's direction during the age of Mrs Thatcher.

I will reply some more later.

I think it's best I answer each point made in each paragraph, Misty.

Misty wrote:

We must radically change our way of approaching and thinking about the problems around us. Society is, I contend, too important to leave to the elite at one end of the spectrum and the extremist at the other pole. We, the people, must shape it. But where to start? What is its nature? How can we understand it?

You suggest there are tree types of people: the elite, the extremists, and the 'we' in the middle, Star. Before understanding '..where to start,' it is first necessary to describe each class or station these three types of people represent. Only then can the question of 'where to start' be started.

Your two question following the first hopefully will address this point, Misty.


History is only a lead up to the present if the notion of cause is allowed to predominate over material effect, and if continuity is allowed to override the discontinuities that the level of practices reveal. In addition, however, the fact that the present is always in a process of transformation means that the past must be continually re-evaluated, to write a history of the past is to see it anew, just as the analysand sees anew fresh events of his or her individual biography in light of the experience of psychoanalysis.

The past is shaped by the future in empiricist thought, but as with all thought, what 'truth' is gained by one, can so easily be contended by another as supposition and lacking in predicates. The history is shaped by the necessities of the present and not by the dictates and understanding of the future. The present can be understand and acted upon by the past, but that past is generally determined by whoever holds power to act and be successful in what deeds have been enacted. The future will then ensure, but we never never know that that future is the right future for our acts, because with future come new environments and new decisions, just like a young ardent revolutionary believes they have the knowledge is brought to his knees more the universal truths of live and death in later years.

The past, in short, takes on new meaning in light of new events. This precludes the possibility of any simple relationship of causality being proposed between past and present. The danger of historicism recedes when it is realised that no past era can be understood purely in its own terms, given that history is, in a sense, always a history of the present.

I think my previous agrees to an extent with this, Misty.

So, where is our society going? I’ll approach this from the present economic situation. Can we describe the very idea of needs, or utility, problematical? Needs, it could be suggested, can only be sustained by an ideologically based anthropology of the subject. Often this takes a psycho logistic or a culturalist form. Once conspicuous consumption is considered, and different social and cultural formations are brought into the equation, the notion that irreducible primary needs govern human activities becomes a myth. Subject and object are not joined. It could be contended that they are indeed joined through the unconscious structure of social relations. Humans do not search for happiness, they do not search to realise equality; consumption does not homogenise - it differentiates through the ‘sign’ (semiotic) system. Life style and values - not economic needs have fuelled the problem.

I would disagree entirely with you last post, Misty: 'Humans do not search for happiness.' Every act by humans is a quest for happiness. Even those seeking death quest for everlasting happiness.

We cannot address these problems by either left and right rushing in, whose only reaction is to post preconceived defence or attack, regardless of the subject. I have come to see that totem pole political allegiance is both dangerous and counter-productive.

Political alliance, maybe not allegiance, is sometimes necessary.

I have to say that all the great thinkers we can evoke - Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Jefferson, never envisaged a form of democracy that was based on universal suffrage, or certainly not a system that gave people the vote with so little responsibility for the consequences of what they demanded, and the party selected offered.

Aristotle was concerned with universal concepts, and by universal concepts of thought I mean the qualities like virtue that each person does or does not possess, whereas the others were thinkers in social and political thought. I'm not clear what you mean by 'universal suffrage,' Misty?

I will also say that although I admire the writings of Aquinas, Hegel, Kant et al, I see no answer coming from metaphysics. When it comes to Wittgenstein, I am going to confess to being left baffled and cold in mind and rationality.
Let me offer a thought. Making the trains run on time is not necessarily something that should have so much attraction to our sense of well-being. That is in effect a way of saying we might have to accept that the nearer we get to a true democracy, we may have to trade a degree of total efficiency. I almost typed, ‘totalitarian’ efficiency. Such Freudian slips on the keyboard!!

There is a danger with drifting into amorphic thought and idealism. To reject arguably, the natural state of the world today, is to imagine another world based upon other concept of thought, have the danger of drifting into the realm of one's own ideas. (I will have to leave the other bits, Misty, but will come back them.)

That leads me to the first idea. And straight away I admit that these are tentative, seeking thoughts. I know the posters on here will forgive me for that admission, as I recognise they have also come here to seek, not to fill this thread with the congealed thoughts of their party, more determined to bestow propaganda than true, singular ideas.

So to the first thoughts.

I believe that the growth of corporality in politics is at the heart of our difficulty in applying radical solutions to the important questions. I will go farther and suggest that the over-arching, all-things-to-all-voters approach of Labour, Conservative, Democrats and Republicans is a hindrance to taking a clear view of such problems as postulated on this thread. The all embracing ‘church’ is hiding two responsibilities - those that vote without any, or at least very little, thought as to the consequences, outside of their own vested interests/needs, and lets those party veil the true nature of participatory politics.
I do not decry or dislike cooperation, either for defence, economic well being or some vague notion of ’All is best in the best of possible worlds’ but the impetus must be from responsible smaller units. Candide is comedic, yet in much of politics I see the same delusion that it is reality. And in this cautionary note I place the EU.

Nothing illustrates more the disconnection between the elite and the so-called voter. We seem to have moved toward a way of thinking that eschews empiricism and now accept that what our particular party flavour says is not to be questioned; indeed it is to be revered. It is why I have called it totem pole politics, where the commands are sacrosanct. And commands they are, certainly not ideas based on reality or common perception.

Some of you will now be shouting, ’City State’ and I cannot deny your political catcalls. Yet, I also cannot refute my own nascent ideas are founded in a belief that we must return to far more responsible governance and democratic selection of small units.

So, what now and from where does this come? I do not want to launch into ’a priori’ against ’posteriori’ at this stage. I strongly believe that any augment on actuality and potentiality is salient to politic thoughts. There is a close connection between the antithesis form-matter and the antithesis actuality-potentiality.
Let me leave you with the simple slogan, “Think Small.” Think about building any institution, especially those of a political nature, up from the minutia of reality, with all the foibles of humanity, and not down from the high plateau of the elite. I always try to avoid platitudes, yet I must quote a saying of Lord Acton for its verity. ‘Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ The price of democracy is to remain ever vigilant of those forces that seek to centralise supervision and maintain they know what is best for you.

The state is my friend when it is my servant. The state is my enemy when it becomes my master.

So, has anybody got any thoughts on these matters?

Misty

When you look at the direction that society is moving in you have to take the past into consideration as it is obvious that the present is just a product of all that has gone before. Society is planned wether people like it or not. Every government that comes to power has an impact on society for either good or bad and all make mistakes. One also has to contend with the fact that politicians are mere human beings and are thus open to all manner of corruption and temptation like the rest of us but because of their wealth and position even more so.

You ask me if things are the result of a conspiracy and I am inclined to believe that many are. I believe that the west's modern day drug culture for an example is a conspiracy. Regardless of who is behind it you have a conspiracy as it is an illegal activity but that conspiracy is far greater than you realise and not merely the result of criminal enterprises. Modern day drug culture was first made fashionable by the music industry so knowingly or unknowingly they took part in a conspiracy of thoughts. The sexualisation of society is another example of this. Sex sells everything from clothes to cars and add to this the Sex industry itself and the tv, media and advertising onslaught on the minds and hormones of the young is it any wonder that we have a huge problem with teenage pregnancy.

There are numerous examples of new laws that have affected society to such an extent that they have changed attitudes if not over night then certainly with future generations and other laws or events that have affected us as well, many of which were planned. Some I believe have a hidden agenda to them. Many of the laws to do with marriage, divorce, children and the role of women over the last 50 years have helped to destroy the traditional nuclear family and there's no denying it wether we agree with those particular laws or not. Was there a conspiracy involved in that or not?
Other events such as mass immigration have also changed society and its character as has Britain's transistion from an industrial based economy to a service based economy. Both of these last two events were both conspiratorial in nature on the part of capitalism for cheaper labour and higher profits. That is why many of Britain's traditional industries are now a fraction of what they were or have disapeared altogether.
Science is also another factor new gadgets have revolutionised the way we live. Very few people had television before the 1950's but by the 1960's everybody had it even if it was only 2 or 3 channels. No one can underestimate the effect that tv has had on society in particular the family. Labour saving devices have freed us of many long arduos tasks we would once have had to perform. However the more the advances in scientific materialism the more miserable we have become and the more un-glued society has become.

Society is being run today for the benefit of big business and the whims of the ruling elites and not foror by the people. Much of it I believe is conspiratorial. We shold ask the Bilderbergers.

Anyone heard from Misty lately ?

Acid wrote:

Anyone heard from Misty lately ?

__________________________________________________

Not for a couple of weeks.

Acid wrote:

Anyone heard from Misty lately ?

Can Admin please e-mail Misty to see she is ok?

I'll ask Bella to, as she knew Misty better than me, Nora.

This a good post, Truthy, but here is another slant to your argument. You speak much of those holding power, and what they do with that power to those tha haven't the power. I believe Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky's Legend of the Grand Inquisitor's assertion that the vast bulk of the population seek a life of subservience, and would rather live in the security of that than dwell in the uncertainty of freedom. For with freedom comes great uncertainty of the future, but with subservience in life such as employment upholding laws etc, they are guarenteed a life of surety.

Truthy wrote:

When you look at the direction that society is moving in you have to take the past into consideration as it is obvious that the present is just a product of all that has gone before. Society is planned wether people like it or not. Every government that comes to power has an impact on society for either good or bad and all make mistakes. One also has to contend with the fact that politicians are mere human beings and are thus open to all manner of corruption and temptation like the rest of us but because of their wealth and position even more so.

These people you have mentioned as being in power have been voted into that power, first by the people within their party, and then by the people voting for them in public and national elections. In both cases people have given them the power that they themselves don't want. They would rather others had power, and they had the chains of subservience. They have abandoned their freedom and chosen a form of slavery.

As for the 'abuse' of power, could it not be that the powerful have merely taken advantage of the power given to them by the great mass of people? They are not merely demonstrating a weakness because they are human, since they have chosen the freedom of power given by others; they are merely indulging a little too much the gift of freedom, which the masses have given them?


You ask me if things are the result of a conspiracy and I am inclined to believe that many are. I believe that the west's modern day drug culture for an example is a conspiracy. Regardless of who is behind it you have a conspiracy as it is an illegal activity but that conspiracy is far greater than you realise and not merely the result of criminal enterprises. Modern day drug culture was first made fashionable by the music industry so knowingly or unknowingly they took part in a conspiracy of thoughts. The sexualisation of society is another example of this. Sex sells everything from clothes to cars and add to this the Sex industry itself and the tv, media and advertising onslaught on the minds and hormones of the young is it any wonder that we have a huge problem with teenage pregnancy.

All these previous faults in life are down to the loss of 'freedom' and the acceptance of social slavery. The enslavement of drugs and sex are merely the external showings of an abandonment of inner slavery, and a manifestation of their loss of freedom, which they themselves have given away.

There are numerous examples of new laws that have affected society to such an extent that they have changed attitudes if not over night then certainly with future generations and other laws or events that have affected us as well, many of which were planned. Some I believe have a hidden agenda to them. Many of the laws to do with marriage, divorce, children and the role of women over the last 50 years have helped to destroy the traditional nuclear family and there's no denying it wether we agree with those particular laws or not. Was there a conspiracy involved in that or not?
Other events such as mass immigration have also changed society and its character as has Britain's transistion from an industrial based economy to a service based economy. Both of these last two events were both conspiratorial in nature on the part of capitalism for cheaper labour and higher profits. That is why many of Britain's traditional industries are now a fraction of what they were or have disapeared altogether.
Science is also another factor new gadgets have revolutionised the way we live. Very few people had television before the 1950's but by the 1960's everybody had it even if it was only 2 or 3 channels. No one can underestimate the effect that tv has had on society in particular the family. Labour saving devices have freed us of many long arduos tasks we would once have had to perform. However the more the advances in scientific materialism the more miserable we have become and the more un-glued society has become.

Society is being run today for the benefit of big business and the whims of the ruling elites and not foror by the people. Much of it I believe is conspiratorial. We shold ask the Bilderbergers.

Society today is a two process of giving and acceptance: The gift of peoples' f'reedom' and the acceptance of that freedom by those who have chosen 'freedom'.