Slogging through my poetry manuscript, I discover that Whig has weighed in. . .

  • whig Says:
    June 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 am   editMy needs are to have a way to live together with people in a society which does not sustain itself on the blood of the innocent, which does not sacrifice people on the altar of profit, which acts to benefit humanity and all of us who will have to share this world in the future.
  •  I think this is in response to a comment on a previous post.

    Whig, I doubt that there’s a person reading this that would not agree with you. But I have to ask: What does that society look like? Not the abstract higher aims, but the reality.

     An example of what I mean:

     You wrote: “a  society which does not sustain itself on the blood of the innocent, which does not sacrifice people on the altar of profit.”

    What does that look like? If I’m part of a 10K-employee firm, do I get 1/10,000 of the profits? Who’s shedding blood? Where?

    I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. But I need something a great deal more concrete than what you offered me to even know what we’re discussing. Give me your vision for consideration, please.

    And please don’t forget to identify your standards for what benefits humanity. I suspect this is another area where there might be radical differences of opinion.

    Whig, I’m not trying to put you on the spot, just to point up the places where language, particularly abstract language, gets us into a great deal of trouble as a society/culture.

    This is why I think politics has nothing to really offer us. No one can get elected on anything but an abstract platform.


    11 Responses to “Slogging through my poetry manuscript, I discover that Whig has weighed in. . .”

    1. whig Says:

      I think my comment was in response to this post. It is helpful if you don’t ascribe my comments to the wrong place, because I don’t like having to go hunting for them when you take them out of their own context.

      How about rather than more words, I suggest you take a look at this video on Permaculture.

      If we cannot confront our environmental abuse and return to a sustainable economy we will soon find ourselves living in a desert.

      Why does the corporate structure seem necessary to you at all?

    2. MoskerVenice Says:

      That society would have to find a way to purge or restrict those with the even above average competitive/opportunistic gene, or else you get a society that in some ways goes further backwards than the bloodthirsty state that preceeded it (c.f. the Soviet Union where Lenin and Stalin respectively had about as much chance of becoming leader as Arkansas governors and black-sheep Texans-er Maine people). Such means might be even more brutal than the system they’re trying to avoid.

      And though there’s an argument to be made (I’ll find the book later) that the United States is the end result of the Protestant reformation, the national ethos is individualism.

    3. mklekacz Says:

      Whig, I know where you posted the comment. It just seemed to be a total non sequitur in the discussion there, so I assumed you were responding to this comment in our previous long thread:

      [Marianne] ‘My desire is to live a good life and to help others achieve the same. I have no illusions that others’ definitions of “the good life” would in any way, shape, or form resemble mine. Therein lies the rub in trying to organize and act “politically.”’

      I’ll just cease quoting you. It’s easier for both of us.

      I wasn’t ware I had expressed a burning passion for the corporate structure. There’s one I like a great deal because they’re paying me a pension in exchange for a fair number of years of employment.

      But I worked for mostly large corporations for more than 40 years, and with one very short exception, never felt that I fit there, was happy to abandon them, and miss nothing except some very cool people.

    4. mklekacz Says:

      Dave, it always comes down to human nature and cultural imperatives in the end, doesn’t it?

      There are cultures that stress cooperation rather than competition. We would consider them underachievers, but that’s because of how we define achievement.

      You can thank RW Emerson for our national ethos. But I still admire him, although I must admit I find Thoreau more interesting.

    5. whig Says:

      Marianne, you wrote (in the thread to which I actually replied):

      My needs and interests may be different than yours, but that doesn’t make them any more important. We are both people.

      But none of this happens unless we freely communicate with and listen to each other.

      I then attempted to communicate my needs and interests. It seems you may not always want to listen, but you continue to say that you value other people and so I continue to make the attempt.

    6. whig Says:

      There is no selfish way to work together, we must be understanding that to help ourselves we must help one another.

    7. mklekacz Says:

      Sorry, Whig, put it down to nicotine deprivation. I didn’t make the connection, I think because I was expecting the response on the earlier post. I’m more than slightly spacy right now.

    8. whig Says:

      I quit nicotine a year ago, or so. Once I was able to supply myself with cannabis, I decided I did not require the tobacco. One of these plants is poison, the other is beneficial to health.

    9. whig Says:

      I hope you will not feel I am rude in regards to commenting on your choices when I say that alcohol is also a poison as much as tobacco.

    10. mklekacz Says:

      Whig, you may comment freely. I’m not easily offended, and I’m not averse to others’ opinions.

      I hope you won’t think ME rude when I decline to comment on your choices. I will just say that the choices I make/have made are based in part on close observation over decades (I occasionally exaggerate, but not here) of some people I care a great deal about.

    11. whig Says:

      You may of course say or withhold comment on anything you wish, especially on your own blog. Whatever close observations you have made will not alter the facts.

      Alcohol will remain as poisonous as it always has been, and cannabis will remain non-toxic to humans.

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: