|
Human beings, for the most part, no longer live in the jungle. Our problems have changed as has our environment and consequently the variety of resources. Just as the ‘man with a living wife’ had to utilize his environment to create security for himself and others so must we who yearn for progress develop a utilitarian understanding of our environment. When a human being is dissatisfied he/she searches the environment for resources. People who are successful at this endeavor are called resourceful, full of resources. The moment when dissatisfaction turns into active searching a major transition takes place. He/she transforms from a dissatisfied person into one in pursuit of a solution. Intention and passivity are emotional perspectives with two different vanishing points. Intention views reality as an opportunity to satisfy the longing that stems from problems/obstacles whereas passivity sees reality as a chain of events programmed into causality (fate) leading us to an unknown, dark, future. As I’ve said before I am certainly one of those human beings that sees my environment with intention and this chapter represents my opportunistic vision of the modern human setting.
To begin searching for resources to aid in the solving of a problem one is challenged to ignore that great percentage of reality that has no relationship with the solution. This is easier said than done. As I mentioned in the Description of the Problem, reality is teeming with information and material all of which is complex and beautiful and alluring. It is very easy to become distracted by the raw infinitude of reality hence the need for meditating on the object. There is also the tendency we have when searching for a solution to encounter re-enactments of the problem. In the Allegory of the Lion, the ‘man with a living wife’ placed himself in danger when gathering wood for the development of his perimeter. This confrontation with the problem can be frightening and cause us to lose our intention. When a human being loses intention he/she enters hopelessness. For these reasons formulating hypotheses about the problems that face us as a human family requires great courage. We are challenged when formulating hypotheses to look at reality in a way some are very unaccustomed to. Because this type of thinking often brings us closer to the point of confrontation with the problem many distance themselves from this process out of a desire for self-preservation hence we are faced with another form of alienation. There is the external alienation that thinkers experience from the community as they brave the problem alone and there is the internal alienation that men and women experience as they retreat from the problem into passivity. This type of cowardice is a shame that eats away at the kind of self-esteem that one needs to maintain sanity.
Here in the formulation of a hypothesis we will look at our environment for resources for the construction of a progressive life. As I look out at my environment with intention I find two phenomena that make very reasonable the belief in the possibility of progress. Both of these phenomena are relationships of principles springing from technological development.
The Communication Revolution
The modern cultural landscape cannot be described without a profound emphasis being placed upon the information/communication revolution that has taken place culminating presently into a veritable totality of world coverage. At almost the speed of light a human being may directly communicate with individuals at opposite ends of the earth via audio and video connections. Because of this technological advancement and its simultaneous omnipresence we are experiencing a new age. This new age is defined not by the technology itself but rather in how it affects the relationship between trade and the flow of information. In the past the speed of travel for information was comparable to the speed of travel for goods. The bond that was shared between information and goods by virtue of their speed of travel accounted for much of the architecture of society. For instance, representative government springs from the need to have a network of representatives along various places in the trade network in order to assure the meeting of needs. This new age makes the need for this kind of representation obsolete. I would like to dissect this further but there is no need to complicate it. Individuals may now represent themselves and they may do so at a speed almost infinitely faster than the speed of trade. Obviously this new age will bring its own problems but right now our biggest obstacles are those institutions that derive their existence from the past. Representative leaders, needing to validate their positions, are threatened by this new social reality. One way they maintain the need for representation is by cultivating cultural differences and in that way transforming democratic government into symbolic competition for resources. Democracies have been manipulated into tribal consulates whereby government becomes a form of entertainment that constricts this new network of information. This is a regressive reality but we cannot allow this to deter us from the realization that this new network is a vast resource for progressive activity. Because of this new technology, if people were to embrace the previous analysis of cooperation, groups of individuals could fabricate local governmental structures that could easily out-maneuver older representative models. Cooperative utilization of newer forms of communication aimed at social progress excites my belief that social progress is possible.
Another profound side-affect of this technology is the change in cultural velocity. Cultures are social structures that stem from how peoples’ cope with their environments. Because the speed of trade was previously fixed at the same rate as the flow of information cultural sharing was relatively slow. Not only was it slow, it was geographically consecutive. It took place along trade routes. One language or culture bordered another and acted as the interpreter of its neighbors and so forth and so on. Cultural velocity was organic and somewhat easier to understand if looked at as a kind of environmental functionalism. In other words, there was a logic to cultural blending that could be studied. Now, however, we are able to exchange ideas and information and trade with people at any point on the globe. Boundaries have lost their meaning. This is, of course, quite frightening to many human beings who derive their sense of self from their cultural experience. This change in cultural velocity does not represent the end of culture but it doesrepresent the end of the kind of culture that one can witness and understand. Post-modern culture will be difficult to be witness to. We have entered into the age of World Culture and those who work for progress will embrace this because progressive people have a loving relationship with reality and distrust nostalgia.
Furthermore, culture is natural and sub-conscious. It is the result of time and change and the relationship of a people’s history to their ability to cope with the problems of existence. When a culture attempts to preserve itself it is no longer really a culture, it is a notion of a culture. If there is anything that describes this new World Culture it is this desire we have to preserve our old illusions. What will define tomorrow’s culture is that part of us that is willing to part with those minor distinctions that we have used to divide ourselves from our neighbors. It is important to remember that cultural diversity has been used to murder, to marginalize and to enslave. Cultural diversity has served nothing consciously. It is only purposeful when it is an accident of hard-work and cooperation.
Culture springs from asking ourselves the following questions: What are our needs as a people? What do we believe in as a people? How do the answers to these two questions relate to our actions? Assuming we are experiencing the birth of the first true World Culture we are brought by these questions to the second phenomena that I wish to discuss.
Nutritional Resources
It is difficult to accept the value of cultural pride concurrent with a belief in tolerance and generosity since both ideas are so rooted in material things. Namely, food is the language of love that is restricted from some countries while being stockpiled in others. This imbalance, this inability to meet the needs of our human family, is an affront to the idea of morality, to the idea of sensibility, and to the idea of humanity. But here again, we have in this imbalance a cause for hope because this imbalance is not an imbalance of nature. It is not nature that is failing to provide us with adequate resources. We have as a species mastered the cultivation of the earth. There really is enough food for everyone. I see this as the primary point of extrapolation for the construction of that new World Culture, taking this as the resource for fellowship and cooperation. It should be understood in this discussion that medicine be included as nutritional support.
Anybody who has ever flown in an airplane will tell you that there is much green earth out there that can be farmed, not that any more needs to be. It is my firm belief that we need not change anything in our farming practice to meet the nutritional needs of every human being; it is absolutely a problem of distribution. Here again, old institutions representing cultural interests are standing in the way of progress. Governments standing protectively at the border defending the stockpiling of resources in the face of starvation and suffering justify their greed with cultural distinctions and political rationalizations. Obesity is a shameful thing. It is not that I lack compassion for those lost to their overindulgence but I wish not to treat it lightly. Obese people are eating out of the mouths of the starving. Their love of food would be better served feeding others. The active lifestyle demanded of them in this pursuit would so stimulate their self-esteem that their desire for comfort would be lost. I will not digress too much here in a discussion of self-destruction but understand that all forms of it are the result of cultural stagnation, a people lacking a connection to the threats that face us. It is not that we are facing a true lack of resources. Rather, it inspires the spirit to accept with gratitude the factual bounty of nature by affirming that we have enough for everyone, that the only thing we lack is a science of distribution. Cultural distinctions are often drawn out of a fear of constructing this science, out of a fear of helping our neighbor, out of selfishness and greed. We find in culture a reason to abstain from lending a helping hand. Our stockpiling is a form of cultural obesity and we mistake our largeness for largesse. If we look at the world without cultural distinctions, without borders and without fear we see that this imbalance of material distribution is an opportunity for progress.
In summary, our modern cultural landscape is quite plastic. We have access to direct communication with human beings all over the planet as well as the opportunity for the cooperative elimination of world hunger. If that is not a cause for hope, if that is not a structural definition of progress, then I do not know what else to say. As I have mentioned there are many obstacles that stand in the way of human beings who are interested in building this new way of life and a science of living is one that would help individuals experience victory over the enemies of progress. Here, however, we have merely followed the formation of a hypothesis, asking ourselves if we have the resources to embark on such a journey, if we have cause for hope. As I have looked at my world with the utmost intention for progress I see no real threat to human beings who are interested in organized development of this idea provided that these individuals are willing to suspend the outward affiliations and dependencies.
Summary
This work is an example of the progress that it is aimed at developing. It is the object. It is worthy of meditation and cooperation. It is hopeful and it rests not on the problem but in the solution. Progress is possible.
Why is progress possible? Because we are capable of cooperation, that choice is available to every human being, and because there is enough food and resources to meet our needs as a human family.
What will drive this process? Dissatisfaction. Human beings will need to nurture their desires for higher levels of equality and social justice, they will need to allow themselves the feeling of discontent.
What is culture? Culture is the set of notions about groups of human beings that holds us back from unity. It is a cold way of looking at ourselves that lacks genuine spirituality. Culture may be assigned to us in the future pages of history but we should never take it on ourselves as a source of pride. Culture is to be laughed at as an illusion.
These are the hypotheses that can be extracted from this section. They represent a system of thought that is aimed at the primary point that we are not governed by fate, that our choices matter.
There would be no forces of opposition to progress if it was not possible. Confrontation with destructive social forces is a certainty for men and women of progress. The abundance of nutrition and the anonymity of modern forms of communication are survival tools for the underground progressive thinker; they represent the contemporary form of the providential constant that thoughtful human beings expect as a result of their exercise of faith. In other words, confrontation is getting safer; there is progress behind us. We face no lions, we face human beings bound by social assumptions of goodness and freedom. The next section, The Science of Living, will address intentional confrontation with reality, experimentation under hypothesis, living with progressivedesire. We have seen the problem. We have posed some speculations about its nature. Now we will be given tools to test the hypothesis.
|
|
|
