We still have not exhausted the riches of p. 160. Nor will we, certainly not in a single attempt. After spelling out how bad civilization has been and still is for human beings, Rheinbogen (I can't get used to that name and have to check the spelling each time) adds:
"'And yet nowadays we haven't any choice, we can't go back.'" (p. 160)
This remarks takes us in opposite directions simultaneously. On the one hand, it is not only impossible but also undesirable to return to the:
"'...impoverished, frightened, hard-working, short life...'" (ibid.)
- of a savage. On the other hand, it is possible to think about going forward:
"'Civilization does have fantastically wonderful potentialities, if only we can realize them.'" (ibid.)
And psychodynamic research is for this purpose.
But lastly (maybe), what do we make of Rheinbogen's claim that most people as they are now could not live happily in a world with neither war nor crime? Are we happier for hearing about Ukraine and crimes of violence on the TV news? My answer is that we are certainly not.
2 comments:
Poul eventually grew convinced 'psychodynamic' research couldn't be done.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: It's not so much about being happier learning about chaos, wars, violence, etc., elsewhere; because IWHBD, due to us being innately flawed, and prone to strive/violence. Things that can only be managed, not "solved."
Mr. Stirling: For a while, as did Anderson, I used to think John K. Hord had some inklings in that direction. You convinced me that was not the case.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment