Ydwyr to Djana:
"'The Old Way is not for you to tread to the end - nor me, I confess. We have the real world to cope with, and we will not do so by abandonment of reason.'" (p. 302)
What Old Way? Djana says:
"'The Old Way to the One...'" (p. 303)
There must be two "Old Ways": one that abandons reason and leads away from reality; another that transcends but incorporates reason and leads to oneness with reality. While we are listening to music or sitting in meditation, we are not then exercising our reason but neither are we abandoning our ability afterwards to reason about the music or the meditation. Later in the Technic History, the Gwydiona talk about "God" (supra-rational) but turn out to be referring to insanity (sub-rational). When I mentioned Zen to an English writer, he expressed horror at anything that involved abandoning reason... People have their assumptions about what certain words mean. Discussions in which a fundamental term like that is used without any examination of its meaning begin, continue and end at cross-purposes.
I think that, among the orthodox Hindu philosophical systems, the Yoga, not the Vedanta, Sutras are the closest approach to a formulation of the Old Way, not away from but beyond reason. "Yoga is control of thoughts..."
In Poul Anderson's Psychotechnic History, I agree with the dual aims of the Psychotechnic Institute, to address the problems of human beings both as individual psychophysical organisms and as global society. However, these two aspects of humanity are so dissimilar that they surely require a simultaneous approach from both directions. We will neither end war by meditating nor end inner "greed, hate and delusion" (Buddhist technical terms) by reorganizing society. Years ago in Britain, there was a Christian Nationalist Party. People said that they were "too church for politics and too political for church." They were right.
Addendum: Of course, to continue this line of thought, the two aspects of humanity converge. Individuals brought up in a qualitatively different economy and culture should have different psychologies but this will not happen overnight with the implementation of new social policies. Equally, if everyone changed themselves by meditation, then that would change society, but that is like saying that if everyone bought and read poetry, then a school leaver could confidently embark on a career as a full time, professional poet or, if it rained beer, then a lot of people would be very happy. It's not going to happen.
9 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe one bit that what you hope for in the last paragraph will ever happen. I don't believe there will be "...a qualitatively different economy and culture..." somehow different/"better" from what we have now, in the real world. All the problems, defects, flaws, vices, follies, etc., we see see now springs from inside us, our very nature. Any attempt to eliminate those flaws, etc., such as by genetic engineering, are far more likely to turn humans into either the empty, soulless automatons of Anderson's Zolotoyans in "The High Ones" or the homines Servii of Stirling's DRAKON, humans bred to be unable to rebel against the Draka.
Enough with Utopianism! Short of the second coming of Christ, there's never going to be a wholly perfect or satisfactory society. Simply not having something too intolerably bad is a huge achievement!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Human beings are differentiated as a species by the fact that they have cooperatively changed their environment with hands and brains and have changed themselves in the process, bringing themselves into existence as rational beings by the creation of language. Thus, our essence is cooperation and change, not individual selfishness or an unchanging "human nature." Cultures have differed radically and can change further, especially with advanced technology and with lessons learned from past experience. Many people now deplore state violence and mass slaughter instead of cheering them on.
I am concerned about SM Stirling's points that, in the past, inner-group cooperation has been a means to inter-group conflict and that our motivations remain unchanged since hunter-gatherer times but we are looking to the future and we seem to face an immediate future in which the choice is between some drastic changes or extinction.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
All that you have said in your first paragraph is true, but besides the point. Human beings are still very prone to being quarrelsome, aggressive, and competitive. And people are more than willing to fight over anything.
Your second paragraph, I absolutely expect people to fight in the very face of any kind of catastrophe. The only drastic change to be realistically expected, at the most, is some Napoleon type conquering the world. Or, if luckier, something like the Solar Commonwealth arising and enforcing unity.
Again, no more Utopian un-realism!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
How can it be beside the point that we are differentiated as a species by the fact that we have actively changed our environment and ourselves? Remember I am replying to the claim that we cannot fundamentally change ourselves.
There are many social contexts in which people do not quarrel. We can reproduce and extend the social conditions in which they do not quarrel. People are not willing to fight over anything. When fighting does happen, there are very powerful reasons for it. It does not just happen in a vacuum. People do not fight for food if they have enough food and so on. Every other cause of conflict can be eliminated.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Humans can only change how they live, via technology, but not themselves. We remain as quarrelsome, aggressive, competitive, etc., now as our forebears were 60,000--80,000--or 100,000 years ago.
I still disagree with your second paragraph. Humans can and will fight over anything, no matter how trivial. People have fought over poker or chess games!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Have fought over poker or chess but it is absurd to insist that significant numbers will continue to do so in any conditions into an indefinite future.
Everything in the universe changes. Our condition has changed from nonexistence to existence. How could there possibly be anything fundamentally unchanging anywhere inside us? In many circumstances, we are not quarrelsome. Those circumstances can be extended. Football hooliganism expresses alienation in society. It certainly doesn't come from nowhere just because people are like that. Most people most of the time do not become violent because of a football match.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, it is not absurd, not when I recall how so many have been exactly as I described over so many tens of thousands of years. I've seen no reason to expect that to change any time soon over an equally long distance of time in the future. You are merely projecting what you hope for into that future--a hope I believe to be unrealistic.
Of course not all of us are quarrelsome and violent! But, that ultimately is because of the existence of the State, which uses its monopoly of violence to enforce the peace and imposes penalties and punishments on those who break that peace.
Again, no, we are all of us potentially likely to be quarrelsome and violent. And any of us, if the provocation or necessity is severe enough, can and will be violent.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I give reasons for what I say.
Yes, if the provocation or necessity is severe, then anyone (or I suppose almost anyone) will be violent. I think I've said this? I am talking about removing all those provocations and necessities. Most people most of the time interact without violence because that is what they want to do, not because they know that they will be arrested if they attack anyone. This preference for civilized behaviour without violence can increase until the force of the state becomes redundant. That certainly will not happen as long as the present world system is maintained at all costs but that system is now recklessly threatening to destroy itself.
What has happened for so long in the past is no guarantor of what can happen in the future, certainly not in the more remote future, and many things are changing rapidly (for good or ill) now.
I feel we are floundering around in a massive misunderstanding. If I have given the impression that I think that people can change in such a way that they will never respond with violence to any provocation, however severe, then I have completely failed to communicate.
Paul.
I have previously presented the argument that we do not fight for the air that we breathe (don't need to) but many (most?) of us would fight to the death for the last oxygen cylinder if we were trapped in a space station with a diminishing air supply. That reasoning surely shows an understanding that there are conditions in which people will be violent and that it is also possible to create conditions in which no one even thinks of violence.
Post a Comment