Log in or register to commondreams.org
Friday, December 26, 2008
HomeHeadlinesViewsNewswireRSSAbout UsDonateSign UpArchives
E-mail this articlePrinter-friendly
ShareDiscuss
Home > Views
Published on Monday, December 22, 2008 by TruthDig.com
Man is a Cruel Animal
by Chris Hedges
It was Joseph Conrad I thought of when I read an article in The Nation magazine this month about white vigilante groups that rose up out of the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans to terrorize and murder blacks. It was Conrad I thought of when I saw the ominous statements by authorities, such as International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, warning of potential civil unrest in the United States as we funnel staggering sums of public funds upward to our bankrupt elites and leave our poor and working class destitute, hungry, without health care and locked out of their foreclosed homes. We fool ourselves into believing we are immune to the savagery and chaos of failed states. Take away the rigid social structure, let society continue to break down, and we become, like anyone else, brutes.
Conrad saw enough of the world as a sea captain to know the irredeemable corruption of humanity. The noble virtues that drove characters like Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" into the jungle veiled abject self-interest, unchecked greed and murder. Conrad was in the Congo in the late 19th century when the Belgian monarch King Leopold, in the name of Western civilization and anti-slavery, was plundering the country. The Belgian occupation resulted in the death by disease, starvation and murder of some 10 million Congolese. Conrad understood what we did to others in the name of civilization and progress. And it is Conrad, as our society unravels internally and plows ahead in the costly, morally repugnant and self-defeating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, whom we do well to heed.
This theme of our corruptibility is central to Conrad. In his short story "An Outpost of Progress" he writes of two white traders, Carlier and Kayerts, who are sent to a remote trading station in the Congo. The mission is endowed with a great moral purpose-to export European "civilization" to Africa. But the boredom and lack of constraints swiftly turn the two men, like our mercenaries and soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, into savages. They trade slaves for ivory. They get into a feud over dwindling food supplies and Kayerts shoots and kills his unarmed companion Carlier.
"They were two perfectly insignificant and incapable individuals," Conrad wrote of Kayerts and Carlier, "whose existence is only rendered possible through high organization of civilized crowds. Few men realize that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings. The courage, the composure, the confidence; the emotions and principles; every great and every insignificant thought belongs not to the individual but to the crowd; to the crowd that believes blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion. But the contact with pure unmitigated savagery, with primitive nature and primitive man, brings sudden and profound trouble into the heart. To the sentiment of being alone of one's kind, to the clear perception of the loneliness of one's thoughts, of one's sensations-to the negation of the habitual, which is safe, there is added the affirmation of the unusual, which is dangerous; a suggestion of things vague, uncontrollable, and repulsive, whose discomposing intrusion excites the imagination and tries the civilized nerves of the foolish and the wise alike."
The Managing Director of the Great Civilizing Company-for as Conrad notes "civilization" follows trade-arrives by steamer at the end of the story. He is not met at the dock by his two agents. He climbs the steep bank to the trading station with the captain and engine driver behind him. The director finds Kayerts, who, after the murder, committed suicide by hanging himself by a leather strap from a cross that marked the grave of the previous station chief. Kayerts' toes are a couple of inches above the ground. His arms hang stiffly down "... and, irreverently, he was putting out a swollen tongue at his Managing Director."
Conrad saw cruelty as an integral part of human nature. This cruelty arrives, however, in different forms. Stable, industrialized societies, awash in wealth and privilege, can construct internal systems that mask this cruelty, although it is nakedly displayed in their imperial outposts. We are lulled into the illusion in these zones of safety that human beings can be rational. The "war on terror," the virtuous rhetoric about saving the women in Afghanistan from the Taliban or the Iraqis from tyranny, is another in a series of long and sordid human campaigns of violence carried out in the name of a moral good.
Those who attempt to mend the flaws in the human species through force embrace a perverted idealism. Those who believe that history is a progressive march toward human perfectibility, and that they have the moral right to force this progress on others, no longer know what it is to be human. In the name of the noblest virtues they sink to the depths of criminality and moral depravity. This self-delusion comes to us in many forms. It can be wrapped in the language of Western civilization, democracy, religion, the master race, Liberté, égalité, fraternité, the worker's paradise, the idyllic agrarian society, the new man or scientific rationalism. The jargon is varied. The dark sentiment is the same.
Conrad understood how Western civilization and technology lend themselves to inhuman exploitation. He had seen in the Congo the barbarity and disdain for human life that resulted from a belief in moral advancement. He knew humankind's violent, primeval lusts. He knew how easily we can all slip into states of extreme depravity.
"Man is a cruel animal," he wrote to a friend. "His cruelty must be organized. Society is essentially criminal,-or it wouldn't exist. It is selfishness that saves everything,-absolutely everything, --everything that we abhor, everything that we love."
Conrad rejected all formulas or schemes for the moral improvement of the human condition. Political institutions, he said, "whether contrived by the wisdom of the few or the ignorance of the many, are incapable of securing the happiness of mankind."
He wrote "international fraternity may be an object to strive for ... but that illusion imposes by its size alone. Franchement, what would you think of an attempt to promote fraternity amongst people living in the same street, I don't even mention two neighboring streets." He bluntly told the pacifist Bertrand Russell, who saw humankind's future in the rise of international socialism, that it was "the sort of thing to which I cannot attach any definite meaning. I have never been able to find in any man's book or any man's talk anything convincing enough to stand up for a moment against my deep-seated sense of fatality governing this man-inhabited world."
Russell said of Conrad: "I felt, though I do not know whether he would have accepted such an image, that he thought of civilized and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths."
Conrad's novel "Heart of Darkness" ripped open the callous heart of civilized Europe. The great institutions of European imperial powers and noble ideals of European enlightenment, as Conrad saw in the Congo, were covers for rapacious greed, exploitation and barbarity. Kurtz is the self-deluded megalomaniac ivory trader in "Heart of Darkness" who ends by planting the shriveled heads of murdered Congolese on pikes outside his remote trading station. But Kurtz is also highly educated and refined. Conrad describes him as an orator, writer, poet, musician and the respected chief agent of the ivory company's Inner Station. He is "an emissary of pity, and science, and progress." Kurtz was a universal genius" and "a very remarkable person." He is a prodigy, at once gifted and multi-talented. He went to Africa fired by noble ideals and virtues. He ended his life as a self-deluded tyrant who thought he was a god.
"His mother was half-English, his father was half-French," Conrad wrote of Kurtz. "All Europe contributed to the making of Kurtz; and by-the-by I learned that, most appropriately, the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs had entrusted him with the making of a report, for its future guidance. ... He began with the argument that we whites, from the point of development we had arrived at, ‘must necessarily appear to them [savages] in the nature of supernatural beings-we approach them with the might as of a deity,' and so on, and so on. ‘By the simple exercise of our will we can exert a power for good practically unbounded,' etc., etc. From that point he soared and took me with him. The peroration was magnificent, though difficult to remember, you know. It gave me the notion of an exotic Immensity ruled by an august Benevolence. It made me tingle with enthusiasm. This was the unbounded power of eloquence-of words-of burning noble words. There were no practical hints to interrupt the magic current of phrases, unless a kind of note at the foot of the last page, scrawled evidently much later, in an unsteady hand, may be regarded as the exposition of a method. It was very simple, and at the end of that moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment it blazed at you, luminous and terrifying, like a flash of lightning in a serene sky: ‘Exterminate all the brutes!' "
© 2008 TruthDig.com
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."
E-mail this articlePrinter-friendlyShareDiscuss
165 Comments so farhide all
Comment viewing options
Peaceman December 26th, 2008 7:37 pm
SERENA, I just replied to you on the Ann Wright article and after reading Hedges piece and then scanning all these comments, I see the same chip on your shoulder and standard attack procedures. Some of these posters have been around since the comment forum opened, and one of the nicest and kindest (and wisest...yeah, it's MY subjective and objective take on her) is Siouxrose. I don't mind you putting me down, but YOU are either envious of her or need some Jungian classes to attend.
What's with all this gringo stuff? The enemy is in Washington DC and if you live in Mexico, Mexico City, not here on CD.
Use your talents for producing the plays you mentioned for the poor among us, Serena. If you have done so already, I salute you!
Adios!
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 7:56 pm
It's depressing and telling to me that on this ostensibly "progressive" forum that the white people are ganging up on the women of color Serena for speaking out loudly, proudly and directly against oppressors. How far have we in the left white community come really? Not far enough apparently... Something things are more important than the "peaceful" equanimity and "serenity" upper middle class white people seek in their pseudo Buddhist meditation rooms, and one of those is winning against empire. Real buddhists BTW understand this as was demonstrated by the red robbed monks protesting in Burma last year:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23413860-details/Burma:+Prote...
Really enlightened people protest against oppression with every fiber of their being and shake their heads sadly at people listening to lobotomizing New Age meditation music on their stereos.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 8:30 pm
And what's really ironic about it is that because on this site we can't SEE the other posters, I receive degrading remarks because I am Native American, and:
Yet, like many Native Americans, I LOOK just as white--if not whiter--than most folks from the US, Canada or Western Europe (that Norwegian back there in the genetic woodpile).
In the "flesh", so to speak--they wouldn't have the nerve to pull that sh*t because they would think I was "one of their own".
Here in virtual space, the dogpack mentality reigns supreme. Who was that poster who dribbled something about "of course we are the superior species"...?
Hedges would be well advised to read this thread: he will see his point proved over and over by hypocritical pollyannas in whose mouths butter would not melt because it can't get past the fangs.
I will not be posting here for awhile, as you folks have disgusted me to the point where "pessimism of the intellect" has taken over from "optimism of the will"--and the intellect tells me that you are just not worth bothering with.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 7:46 pm
1. The chip is going to stay there, non-peaceful man. It's obviously needed.
2. I have also been around since the comment feature was added, and that doesn't mean squat. You think you OWN this forum? You think freedom of speech only applies to you?
3. Don't tell me where the enemy is. I have seen plenty of enemies here on CD--just today, including a zionist shill that lies faster that my horse trots.
4. I will use my talents for whatever I choose to use them for. You are not my owner or my master just because I am Native American. You have some nerve, peaceless. I formed a campesino theater group here, and one in Venezuela. I guess that makes the PLAYERS themselves poor--but not in spirit. The group in Bahrain was a university group.
Your fatuous fascist attitude is not going to create much peace anywhere.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 26th, 2008 6:33 pm
Serena-You keep contradicting yourself, so much so that it gives me a headache. I mean, you claim you never demonized anyone yet you continue to throw the pejorative "gringo" around. I also recall the time you said that America is a toilet waiting to be flushed. That's the tip of the iceberg really, and to tell the truth, I really don't know what to believe when it comes to you, so why bother? For all I know you're just trolling. It's a waste of energy, and this thread is old anyway.
If you are really living in Mexico, it's probably because you can live like a queen down there given the cost of living, not for altruistic reasons.
Also, I find it interesting that this is one of the only threads in which you posted more than a few sentences. Usually, it's just a little jab/cynical remark here and there.
I really have no desire to debate and pick apart every little thing you say. People, do a google search of "serena" and "moonraven" and you'll find enough evidence of her useless, misguided contempt. If you like what she has to say, then you're part of the problem.
I'll just follow Sioux's lead. All I wanted to do was defend my friend, and I consider Sioux as such even though we have never met in person. I learn so much from Sioux and next to nothing from you, serena, moonraven, whoever the hell you are.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 7:16 pm
You have no ABILITY to debate. Nor do you have the courtesy to say THANK YOU.
Gringo is the correct term for white folks from the US. If you had ever been to Mexico you would know that.
AMERICA is not a toilet waiting to be flushed; South America has some good leaders and some good social projects. The US, however IS a toilet waiting to be flushed--how many bailouts are you willing to finance with your piddling income? How many wars? How many natural disasters?
The cost of living in Mexico is approximately 75% of the COL in the US--depending on where, of course. Many basic items such as CARS (your obsession, apparently) and CLOTHES and ELECTRONIC ITEMS are MUCH more expensive here. But you wouldn't know anything about that as you've never been to Mexico. I don't NEED to live here--as I am not an uneducated and unskilled person--so money is obviously not an issue for me. And "altruism" is something you mean-spirited, cheap folks don't even know how to spell.
You'll always follow someone else's lead--you are a follower at a time when leaders are needed--and not phony new age windbags, either.
I fail to see why you bother doing google searches about me, since you learn nothing from me, don't even know how to ask me questions and prefer to spend your time making imaginary friends in internet.
Learning, in my experience as an educator, is not something that dropouts are particularly interested in, anyway.
Go stalk somebody else.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 24th, 2008 4:45 pm
"I notice that you have made no effort to ASK why I am so caustic."
I thought that perhaps I'd get you to reveal that. You didn't come from a vacuum.
"So I can only assume that you are not trying to understand at all--you just don't like my truth."
I think I am trying to understand you because your "truth" is rather skewed, at least much of the time. I am a white male. I am not a dominator or spoiler of humankind nor do I even have that kind of power. You at least at one time were upper-middle class. Being born into a lower-income family, I have never been in your bracket. I've never even owned a car let alone a BMW. I had to drop out of college due to a lack of funds.
Talk of "learning" from ravens could be argued as "new-age psycobabble" also. I'm not saying it is, but it could be. You're living in a glass house and throwing rocks at a person who has displayed far more understanding and compassion than you ever have. Sioux sees the big picture. You on the other hand are as adversarial and as much an identity politico as any right-winger. You're essentially Sam Francis' sister with a fetish for indigenous chic.
"Being NICE (by gringo standards) and politically correct has allowed you folks to murder more than a million Iraquis without blinking an eye."
No. The elites, the 1% are the ones who started the war. The majority of The American people are opposed to the war, have not fought in it, nor have seen any benefits from it or any war. And I don't see anything genteel about war and challenge you to find any CD poster who does.
As for people putting you down, you've done the same thing with entire populations for the entire time you've been posting here. If you're not demonizing men, you're demonizing Americans, whites, etc. That demonization is not truth either. And all the while you tout these vague credentials which leads the board to believe that YOU in fact come from upper-middle class privilege. Most people aren't driving BMW's. Most people can't afford a PHD. Most people don't have the money to the world. God, half of them can't even fill up their car with gas, and that's if they can afford a car to begin with, let alone a reliable one.
I don't see any peace or compassion from you, just bitterness and loathing. All of the people I have known who were bitter and hateful were usually wounded in some way by someone. Did someone hurt you? If so who? I suspect it's something personal to you, and you just use history and current events to justify your view that all of the people who look like or share a background with the ones who hurt you are essentially evil. On the other hand you put Native Americans and Latin peoples on a pedestal which is as ridiculous as doing the same for white males.
You're fighting people with whom you should be siding. It's not as if you're posting on VDARE or Amren or even Sean Hannity's site. Should I as a white American man see you as my mortal enemy? Should I hate everything about my heritage? Should I just gulp down a cyanide capsule? What would you do if we all did? What would you do if all the problems that currently plague the world continue to exist after our demise?
And again, if Sioux has a problem with you, you must be salty.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 26th, 2008 2:47 pm
Sioux Rose
THE GREAT ROCKY: Thank you for supporting me. Nice surprise. I prefer to seek common ground with everyone in this forum, respect the different perspectives we bring to it, and consider other points of reference. I let myself react when I felt undeservedly attacked, and am grateful that someone else validated my preference for intellectual discourse based on harmony and respect, rather than hurling fiery barbs or falling (I was somewhat guilty of this) into retaliation. Many thanks, and happy holidays.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 2:55 pm
SOMEWHAT guilty.
Right.
Like being a little bit pregnant.
Please quote from the thread in which you sought common ground with me.
I will personally print it out, cut it into the shape of a shoe, and have it bronzed.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 1:22 pm
Continuation of post below:
6. I am not fighting with people with whom I SHOULD be siding (who are YOU to tell me what I SHOULD be doing--that's FASCIST). I am not a "sidekick" type. If you want me to side with you, you had better have courage, brains, leadership and you'd better be doing something REAL for this planet and its people. I "side" with Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales--those folks are committed to their people and they are what we used to call "movers and shakers". They are also folks I have met and talked heart to heart with--they are not bullies and hypocrites who call me names on an internet site. With VERY few examples (I can count them on fewer than the fingers of both hands) there are NO progressives posting on this site--posting here are hypocrites, uncritical thinkers, apologists for imperialism, sanctimonious shills for the status quo, cowards, apologists for genocide, racists, classists, self-promoting divas and the ingenuous ones who believed that by voting for a mulatto offered to them by Big Guns and Big Oil they received some kind of plenary indulgence or get-out-of-jail-free card that qualifies them as The Chosen People. So long as you folks are convinced that YOU are the ones with The Way, The Truth and The Light (a la George W. Bush) this planet--and probably everyone at least of our species living on it--is doomed. I see only the level of hypocrisy differentiating this site from, for example, a blatantly right-wing site such as The Miami Herald. There is more hypocrisy here.
7. Should you, as a white male, see me as your mortal enemy? That's your decision, and it APPEARS that you do.
8. Should you hate everything about your heritage? I have absolutely no idea. A fearless self-appraisal (including the heritage that you replicate) probably never hurt anyone.
9. Should you gulp down a cyanide capsule? Unless you are on trial at Nuremberg, that might be seen as an hysterical response. As is asking me what I would do if you ALL (who are YOU ALL; by the way?) did. That's like asking me if I would shop at Wal-Mart on the planet Jupiter--utterly senseless. Who is included in the OUR of our demise that you refer to? I am 64 years old, so my days on this planet are numbered. If you are referring to our species, at this point I would welcome its extinction. We have been a noxious plague.
10. I don't understand your reference to salty. And I don't care if anyone has a problem with me. It's THEIR problem, after all.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 1:26 pm
Show me, sir, WHERE in your post above you are trying to understand my point of view. I see that again you did not ask ME why I am so caustic--and I undoubtedly know more about my point of view than you do, yet you--apparently our of fear? continue to invent me as a character that you have it in for because at one point, ACCORDING TO YOU, I was upper-middle class. How many Native Americans do you know who are upper-middle class? Show us the old Beacon Street mansions on the reservations. Ridiculous assumption!
Just to put things in perspective, I started my university education on a scholarship to a Jesuit university--but as there were ideological strings attached, I changed universities and put it together from student loans and WORKING (ever hear of that word--you who dropped out because you didn't have "funds"?) I also paid for my MA and my PhD by working--although I was offered a fat fellowship from Columbia U for the last degree, the prof I wanted to have as my adviser changed to Univ. of Massachusetts, so I went there. I taught for 3 years at Northern Illinois University between my two graduate degrees--and helped my husband finish his BA and MA degrees there. He also WORKED. Hardly a lifestyle of privilege. My three degrees are from STATE universities, not Harvard or Yale.
I also paid for my own BMW by WORKING (that nasty word, again) for two years in advertising and marketing. I was on salary plus commission the whole time--which means I had to be damned good at my job to afford a car like that. After proving that I was good, I sold the BMW and bought a very old Fiat 124 Spyder convertible and took a job directing a family services agency.
Fast forward from 1980 to 1993: When I moved to Mexico to do educational and community work I drove a 1965 VW Beetle from Santa Fe, NM to the small village where I life in the state of Morelos which is the birthplace of Emiliano Zapata. It has been my base of operations since then. I sold the Beetle 9 or 10 years ago, as I don't really need a car that I need to worry about filling with gas as I am committed to keeping my ecological footprint as small as is feasible.
(No, I no longer own a computer--I use internet cafes.)
Just a few more of your errors that you could contemplate WHY you made them:
1. Parlor psychology--the bizarre habit of folks with no actual arguments or psychological credentials on these internet blogsites who attack other posters by calling them crazy--by someone who admits he didn't even finish "college". Give me a break.
2. Your refusal to accept responsibility for your ELECTED government's actions. YOU are responsible for the war in Iraq because YOU didn't stop it (even I, here in Mexico, at the urging of Poets Against the War, orchestrated a HUGE antiwar event at UMar in Puerto Angel, Oaxaca--that was SRO and in which hundreds of MEXICAN students, professors (and even a handful of gringo profs) made posters, read poems and indictments of US imperialism--and made music--if there had been any kind of PROPORTIONATE response by gringos in the US the war may well not have happened!) and you continue to defend it by your passivity and cowardice.
3. I have never DEMONIZED men on this site--show me the quote. I am not the Men are from Mars pop psych shill. I have called MISOGYNISTS (men who hate women) on their MISOGYNIST behavior--which is very specific. I have never demonized Americans, either--as I live in America (gringolandia is not the only country in America). I have never DEMONIZED whites--but I have pointed out that I am righteously angry that whites committed genocide against 20 million of MY people. (In the words of that icon of the gringo justice system, Robert Blake: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.) I speak for myself and PERHAPS for many other Native Americans when I tell you I am waiting for you, who have been disastrous stewards of Turtle Island, to leave--as you have worn out your welcome.
4. As for not seeing any peace from me, let me point out that only PEACE OF MIND is not a TWO-WAY street. I have peace of mind. But with patently bellicose folks like yourself out there promoting war as a LIFESTYLE, there won't be any two-way peace. Compassion? I have plenty of compassion for folks who are INNOCENT victims of YOUR violence. For you, maybe not a heck of a lot--as you seem to have plenty of self-pity already.
5. I don't put anyone on a pedestal--but I do believe that Native American wisdom and stewardship of the planet to have been far superior to gringo greed, bombs, toxicity and destruction.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 6:03 pm
On point! Vaporous New Age abstractions that are 100% passive disgust me as well.
And I walk the talk as well, I spend a year living under a tarp in Humboldt county in an attempt to stop logging of old growth Redwoods, in that time I was arrested for locking down to a logging company gate and spent days in the Eureka jail, I lived UNDER a logging road for a week in a tunnel, as well as spending years before that fund raising for Greenpeace, and more recently being pepper sprayed at Bush's second inaugural and helping to organize a successful campaign to stop the Coast Guard from engaging in live fire machine gun practice on the Great Lakes.
We are WAY past the time for pretentious blather about archetypes and "universal laws" that mysteriously take care of things while conveniently calling for NO action on the part of spoiled New Gurus other than publishing books and holding 300 dollar "healing" workshops for other upper middle class neurotic New Agers. Hint that does NOTHING for the long suffering poor people or eco-systems of the planet. The ONLY thing that will stop the empire is unceasing protest.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 7:26 pm
Hoot: Keep up the good work!
Those "universal laws"--right. When somebody starts with that you know right off that they are sh-tting you.
Adam Smith's Invisible Hand of the Marketplace was one of those "universal laws". And Milton Freidman's "Chicago Boys" rammed that invible hand down the throats and up the butts of every country they could wedge the hand into.
Friedman kicked the bucket, but professional old fogey Greenspan kept the finger of that invisible hand very active, proctologically speaking.
Ultimately, that finger was given to everybody in gringolandia except for the Bush Gang and Cronies, the puppeteers that were moving the invisible hand and its now visible finger.
And the gringos were so far into denial (searching for the rest of the invisible hand, no doubt) that they didn't even see that big middle finger--nor the sarcastic sneer of the illiterate DD specimen they made Emperor of Ice Cream.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
chessgames56 December 24th, 2008 11:58 am
Here it is folks. These types of forums are really only valuable as a vehicle for exchanging ideas. They are words on a page, if you will. Sometimes we resonate with certain ideas (either negatively or positively), other times are indifferent or bored with them. ALL ELSE IS PROJECTION. Sure, you can detect self-righteousness, smugness, or condemnation of something or other, but you do not know if it's a passing state or more systemic attribute of the poster, correct? Any assumption in that regard is mere projection because it's virtually impossible to determine for certain the 'motive' and especially the character of the poster. That being said, we all have our particular brand of negativity to work through, no? So mostly, personal insults are a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Undeveloped human nature is nothing but destructive, both to itself and all other beings on the planet. This fact is plainly obvious for anyone who cares to look. It is said you will know a tree by its fruit--a society based on an egoic structure MUST BY NATURE be self-destructive. The evidence of this is all around us, and though we may justify it, we cannot escape the cold hand of its reality.
Now, here is how we differ from other animals: their natures are fixed, meaning they behave almost entirely according to instinct, and have no choice for the most part; they do not have the capacity for self-awareness that we do. It does not mean that we are superior to them, only that we here to serve a different purpose. Some mystics say that when we worship ego (as is so prevalent now), and refuse to develop inwardly, we defy our purpose for being and become more base, uglier (with respect our inner self) than any animal could ever be. This defiance of our purpose has the consequence of increased individual suffering and the spreading of misery throughout the world. But rather than using suffering to bring us to this realization, what do we do? Design escapes, entertainments, goals in an attempt to escape the suffering and further promote ego! Shopping, buying things (for example) we don't need is a futile attempt to fill the emptiness and stress we feel, and we get caught in the vicious circle of consumerism, and all the cruelty, greed, and fear that goes along with its maintenance.
The collective is reflective of the individual, whether the individual is aware of his contribution of not. So that is why if you work on yourself, become more aware, you naturally 'help' the collective by helping to transform it. Without awareness we are relegated to being cogs in an 'evil' wheel that picks up--and is picking up--momentum, like a snowball rolling downhill. It becomes a reciprocal perpetuation: the negativity we project feeds back upon us to make us more negative, and plunges our psyches further into darkness. The reverse is also true relating to the positive, beneficial, and good. It is what is meant by Karma.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 7:19 pm
"Now, here is how we differ from other animals: their natures are fixed, meaning they behave almost entirely according to instinct, and have no choice for the most part;"
Bzzzzzt wrong you have never really watched animals closely either domestically or in the wild have you? Animals have tremendous range of behavior from aggressive to meek and different emotional temperament as well.
We are MUCH closer to animals than most religious or New Age "spiritual" people will admit to themselves. It's called denial of our basic mammal nature IMO.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
chessgames56 December 26th, 2008 7:33 pm
I am not at all new age, hootowl, and I certainly do not deny the darkness of human nature. Bzzzzzzzt, I did not say that animals are not capable of different actions, but only that they are incapable of going against their instincts, whatever they may be. Will a zebra ever behave like a lion? Not likely. Ever see a warthog plot revenge against the tiger who slaughtered its mother? It just doesn't work that way with other animals. Additionally, I have never claimed to be 'spiritual,' only a worker along the path. Also, there are many things I am anything but passive about. However, if you go attacking others in ignorance, you'll always do more harm than good. Aggression begets aggression and violence begets violence. That is why turning the other cheek is sometimes the answer. On the other hand, there is enormous strength in saying 'no' at the appropriate time, rather than a weak 'yes,' meaning knowing when NOT to cooperate.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 8:11 pm
No you are wrong animals are capable of problem solving beyond just basic instinctual responses whether it is certain species of apes using sticks as tools to fish for ants or my mothers dogs playing games like get the ball from out behind a tipped ruler without the ruler falling down. I have also seen ravens play with a stick in mid air in northern California. Human are FAR less different than animals then we believe in our arrogance and hubris. Get your head our of books of theory about animal behavior and watch animals to see what I mean. And what you are talking about is not even current science either it's 19th century theory, current science says animal brains are constantly interacting and reorganizing holistic systems in constant contact and response to the environment. See for example
"Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennet:
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 26th, 2008 2:51 pm
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: Good post, well stated points. I agree.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 24th, 2008 1:58 pm
Thanks for offering your ideas. Please help me understand a few points. Your first paragraph is pretty clear to me, except for the statement: "Undeveloped human nature is nothing but destructive..." That sits uneasily with me, because it almost sounds like a restatement of "original sin," which I reject out of hand. I don't think that's what you meant, but something about it (the inevitability of destructiveness?) seems damning when it shouldn't be. It's hard for me to start from a point of view that a little baby's undeveloped human nature is nothing but destructive. I do agree that it takes work and practice to develop into a fully realized human being, that some engage their personal process of growth and some do not, and that we screw up. I dunno. Help me out!
Second paragraph: "Now, here is how we differ from other animals: their natures are fixed, meaning they behave almost entirely according to instinct, and have no choice for the most part; they do not have the capacity for self-awareness that we do."
I offer here a difference of opinion (not claiming to be certain). Primate research has pretty clearly established that many primate troops have what we can only call "culture," which requires both self-awareness and the distinction of self from other. George Lakoff's research into what he calls the cognitive unconscious (that part of our processing that pre-determines what engages higher levels of consciousness) shows that our brains do a tremendous amount of truly cognitive work ("thinking") without our conscious direction. This leads us to what the Danish science writer Tor Norretranders called "the user illusion" (title of his book). What I'm getting at is that I think we overestimate the role of our consciousness; we place too high a premium on cognitive processes over which we think we have control. Put another way, we differ from other animals much less than we think we do, and consequently we sell them short with regard to cognition. (This is also my biophilia shining through.)
Given that, I don't think we have any purpose that differs from any other animal or life form. We're NOT here for a purpose; we're just here. As Benjamin and Amy Radcliff wrote in UNDERSTANDING ZEN, "Searching for life's meaning is a very natural and very human endeavor, but it arises from an error in self-understanding. ... (W)e are only awareness, yet we appear to be someone who is aware. As a consequence, we attempt to discover who this person is and why he or she exists. Of course, it is impossible to do this in that awareness cannot be aware of itself. If the true self is primal awareness [putting us exactly on par with other sentient animals], then the entire notion of discovering a meaning is absurd, for we are life and nothing more. Equivalently, you cannot find a meaning or value to your experience because you are exactly and only that experience. Thus, the search for meaning is the result of an imaginary ego mindlessly attempting the impossible, like an ear trying to hear itself hearing."
Ascribing a "purpose" from the outside suggests retrenchment in Cartesian dualism, which I think has also been pretty well relegated to the dust bin (except by theists). This doesn't lead me necessarily to complete moral relativism, but I think it does leave it to us to individually determine our purpose within the collecitve. Further, the quality of our socialization helps determine where we fall on the spectrum from sociopathy to compassionate enlightenment and "right action".
Which all leads me, from a different path I think, to agreement with your final paragraph! Here's hoping these words on a page resonate positively with someone!
Login or register to post comments report this comment
jonabark December 25th, 2008 12:42 am
jonabark
It's all resonating strongly , if not altogether positively with me. This is looking into some painful stuff. Certainly Hedges, Conrad , and perhaps the whole western sense that tragedy is more truthful, weightier etc. than comedy invite us to question the possibility of any meaningful change of course for humans.
For a couple years I have been occasionally working with the Creation and garden of Eden story as a clue to the roots of Abrahamic religions and their outgrowths of isms. So much in politics and religion puts paradise in the past and the future and banishment in the present. We war for a paradise that we destroy with every violent thought and action. I feel fundamentally that the compassionate enlightenment you refer to is a fairly common and accessible experience. I see Jesus, and Buddha, Rosa Parks, Tolstoy, Mother Jones,George Fox, Odetta, John Muir, Julia Butterfly( please add in your mind whom you will to this inadequate list) many artists, poets and individuals of all kinds as examples of those who have experienced this and sought to invite others to share in the community of being, the joy of fearless love. They all differ from most religious visions of Paradise in placing freedom and enlightenment in the now rather than the past or future, in the realm of the real and possible rather than the mythic or imagined. In my life Pete Seeger is a great example of this life of infectious sharing that uses joy, song, pleasure communal happiness and truthtelling as the experience that moment by moment actually brings change. To sing not as a towering individual , shining in his genius, but as the guy with the guitar leading a gathering in to its own history, its humanity, its common treasury of sound and words.
Pete said, Let's build a boat right here by our river that is full of shit . We will sail up and down and sing songs and clean up the river. Ridiculous. that isn't how you clean up rivers or move the wheels of change. but it worked, people pitch in when they see get inspired and see a way to act.
Lets not throw the baby of hope into the river. Lets build boats in our own communities that will carry everyone who wants to get in and start singing again. The songs have to change, but we can't stop singing, or building boats, or seeing the great light that fills the earth. The more people deal with the inner Kurtz, the better we can manage the ones who can't.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
chessgames56 December 24th, 2008 5:26 pm
First, undeveloped potential is not the same as original sin; it only means that a kind of 'inner work' is required. Lack of understanding of ourselves is what leads to suffering--meaning we take the egoic nature as the be all and end all of what we are, which is unnecessary limitation. Additionally, belief in ANY direction (atheistic, theistic, or in between) will inhibit and/or distort present moment awareness when operative; it arises from a background conditioning that we identify with. We are so full of 'he said,' 'she said' (meaning whatever authority or anti-authority our thoughts are focused upon) that it has become difficult to perceive without distortion.
On the subject of purpose: tell me anything you find in nature without purpose, or that does not fulfill the same. Why should you then conclude that your existence has no broader purpose? Rather than argue about whether life has a purpose or not, seek to more fully understand yourself (you will not do this if you think you already do). I'm not making reference to individually created purpose here, but a broader reason for being.
This requires unbiased self-observation (which is true 'meditation'), and is exceedingly difficult. Just try to be aware as you can to what 'is,' both within and without. Logical analysis, as valuable as it is, is not enough by itself to understand the whole of existence; it is merely a fragment of the whole, as is all thinking.
"Equivalently, you cannot find a meaning or value to your experience because you are exactly and only [I question that we are ONLY the sum total of our experience] that experience. Thus, the search for meaning is the result of an imaginary ego mindlessly attempting the impossible, like an ear trying to hear itself hearing."
That is absolutely true IF all there is is the egoic you, and IF that is true, all such pursuits are meaningless and futile. Further, it would mean that Buddha, Christ, and other mystics were/are self-deluded, suggesting that there is no such thing as a 'transcendent nature,' and all morality nothing but a socially imposed set of rules. Fortunately, for us this is not the case, but I cannot prove it to you. What we behold on earth is an outward manifestation of what the majority PRESENTLY reflects. Is it indicative of a deeper 'unseen' Reality that underlies it, much like the surface of the ocean is not the entire ocean? You, and only you can answer this for yourself.
Perhaps this is our purpose for being here. How will you find out?
"Of course, it is impossible to do this in that awareness cannot be aware of itself."
Here, you are starting with a premise/assumption about what awareness can or cannot do, but it may not be so. Again, logic of itself is incapable of resolving this conundrum.
Thanks for this great discussion. :D
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 25th, 2008 11:49 am
OK, I'm awake again (sorry, not like the Buddha, just up and out of bed!). I fear we might each need to produce a manuscript to fully convey our ideas to one another without semantic and other confusions entering in, only to realize what we both already know; that is, we're trying to talk about that place of being beyond the limits of words. We are perhaps taking somewhat different paths toward the same end, so it is fortunate that "enlightenment doesn't care how you get there." Before anything else, I wish you well on your path.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. (I knew you didn't mean "original sin," so that's outta here!) You say "it is difficult to perceive without distortion." Taking perception literally, as in eyes taking in light, ears taking in sound, etc., I think we always perceive without distortion. The distortion enters as we process perception through our cognitive unconscious ("the background distortion we identify with"), which does much of our "thinking" for us before we get to consciously handle the results. The task of meditation, as I practice it, is to let these products arise from the cognitive unconscious and then NOT identify with them, just let 'em go ("difficult" and "unbiased observation," as you put it).
I am a little rueful that I exposed you to the Radcliff's book about 75 pages in. Their book, UNDERSTANDING ZEN, starts with the declaration that Zen is an state of experience beyond words, but, they contend, that doesn't mean we cannot talk about it--reason about it--up to a certain point. Their title is a little misleading, therefore, because their "understanding" is a point of departure, not a conclusion. You won't understand Zen by reading the book; you'll simply be directed to that point of departure. Since it seems you have found that point, the book may not interest you, but I have found it stimulating enought to re-read it three or four times over the past few decades. I think they are good teachers. Anyway, out of all that, I agree that logic and reason only go so far.
I'm a little rueful as well that I conflated "meaning" with "purpose" when I first responded to you. That probably muddied the waters. Let me try again.
You wrote: "...tell me anything you find in nature without purpose, or that does not fulfill the same. Why should you then conclude that your existence has no broader purpose?" My reply is, explain the "purpose" you find in nature! I'm not trying to refute you; I just don't get it. Are you talking about Aristotelian "pure forms"? (Probably not, is my guess.)
When I look into nature, I don't see purpose, I see only life. You believe there is a purpose of some kind, thus you conclude that your life has "some broader purpose." I am very much a naturalist, as opposed to a supernaturalist (and I prefer "naturalist" to "atheist" in this regard). There is more "out there" than we know not because something lies beyond nature that gives it purpose, but because our perceptivity is first limited (e.g., we see only a limited range of wavelengths), then pre-processed in the unconscious before we even get our first change to consciously think about it. To me, life simply "IS". It unfolds moment by moment, and when I get past the distortions, I "get it", and I am most fully alive. This, to me, is what is meant by "transcendent nature." As Jonabark wrote to us in this thread, "I feel fundamentally that the compassionate enlightenment you refer to is a fairly common and accessible experience." I agree! That my own practice is sometimes sloppy is my only impediment (t'ain't nobody's fault but mine!)
Oh, crap! I have been interrupted numerous times while trying to write this, and it's not going where I had hoped it would. My first impulse is to delete it, but instead I'll offer it both incomplete, unrefined and unedited, for what it's worth. My apologies. I wanted to offer more and better, but I must defer for now.
Peace.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 24th, 2008 6:00 pm
Thank you. On first reading, I conclude I have to think about this and then read it again. Pretty filling. I will get back to you!
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 24th, 2008 1:19 am
Fast Eddie-I'm just trying to understand why she's so caustic a lot of the time. There's nothing wrong with that. It's better than getting into flame wars with people. I also don't doubt that she makes a good point from time to time. But, if you rankle Sioux Rose's feathers, you must be really something. I've never known Sioux to call anyone out like that. Not that I want to participate in anyone's feud. That's all I'm gonna say.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 3:18 pm
I notice that you have made no effort to ASK why I am so caustic.
Since I do speak English (even though it is my second language--wedged in between French and Spanish)--at least enough to have a PhD in English Literarure, significant teaching experience in the language as well as consulting experience developing and implementing programs to teach that language, many years as a poet in that language as well as a journalist in the US, I am probably adequately skilled to be able to answer your question.
So I can only assume that you are not trying to understand at all--you just don't like my truth.
Probably Sioux Rose never "called anyone else out" because they just sat back and let her ramble on with new age pschobabble and self-promotion because that was the NICE, poltically correct posture they chose to adopt.
Being NICE (by gringo standards) and politically correct has allowed you folks to murder more than a million Iraquis without blinking an eye.
I am not going to adopt that posture.
That's it for me for this (FELIZ) NAVIDAD.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 7:28 pm
Actually I called SR out on her new age bullshit when CD had the previous comment system as login Mr. Raven and got banned for my efforts, most likely due to people whining to CD management rather than being able to construct counter arguments defending the New Age mishmash "philosophy." Too often self styled bourgeois "progressives" who claim to be against hierarchy appeal to authority when they can't take the heat in the kitchen, it's depressing. :(
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 26th, 2008 7:35 pm
The ones who insist they are liberals and progressives and respectful of differences are the FIRST ones to show their intolerant fascist bellies if you disagree with them--and immediately demand that you be censored.
Freedom of speech is something they use to wipe their butt with.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 24th, 2008 2:25 am
Sorry if I reacted strongly. Surmise is inevitable. We all do it when someone interests us. I don't know any of these people, having just wandered in from the unrelenting snow up here in the Northwest. For six days I've been walking for supplies for my family--no way to get my car off this hill on the ice, so I started chatting on-line to blow off some cabin fever. It's weird for me to communicate this way. Anonymity mixes with intimacy both hostile and caring. I don't even know if believe cybercommunities exist! It's not like any community I've been in. In fact, we could make up any surmise, indeed any fiction, about anyone we encounter in these chats. Truth is, I USED to be fast (and people called me "Fast Eddie", but I'm not so fast anymore! I just like to remember being fast once.
In addition, this much screen time kinda gives me a headache, so I don't know if I'll continue for very long, but overall, the passion I see here is a good thing. Perhaps personal attacks flare up so we can all be reminded that we are humans. Even baboons in Sapolsky's chilled out troop get into spats, but that's far outweighed by the grooming and socialization. If I come back in tomorrow, I hope I fall in with some peaceful primates chatting and cybergrooming. That's all I'm gonna say, too. 'Cept "peace, again."
Login or register to post comments report this comment
NYCartist December 26th, 2008 4:22 pm
FastEddie75:interesting about getting food for family. I have had similar thoughts about things people say with anon. (I'm only on line a year and am older.) I want to say that Bonobo chimpanzees are peaceful. Females have the power.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
readytotransform December 23rd, 2008 11:49 pm
The title says that "man is a cruel animal". But this piece is really an indictment of western civilization (based upon western patriarchal religion, actually). This is not all of humankind.
Also, Chris Hedges, i am sorry to say, believes in original sin. He has written this and said so. I find his writing to be very intellectual and very left brain. And dark. The mixture of seminary and war correspondent would probably lead one toward a sense of hopelessness. I am having trouble reading him at this point. With all due respect for the man and his writing.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 23rd, 2008 9:21 pm
Hey Sioux, I sent you an email. :)
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 23rd, 2008 8:56 pm
I remember Serena as MRaven. She's rubbed me the wrong way at times too and has said things that I disliked also. Nonetheless, regardless of who she really is or where she has been or what she has done with her life (piecing it altogether, she appears to have a life worthy of a best-seller...but who knows?), I think she's just a product of her experiences. That's why I try not to get too angry with her.I suspect that her life has been full of pain, at least early on, and that pain has traumatized her and made her cynical and distrusting.
I just take what she says with a grain of salt and instead do what I can to work against the forces that create people with her mindset.
Hate and resentment creates hate and resentment.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 26th, 2008 6:17 pm
NO! Mr Raven is me a white male poor dude in the rust belt midwest. And yes I am harsh and confrontational and a pro general strike, pro 2nd amendment hard leftist who is tired of people making excuses. My confrontational stance DID get me banned here or I'd still be posting under the MR. Raven moniker. Apparently once CD decided to hide our comments from the squeamish it's no holds barred which is good, censorship sucks!
If some of us are angry it's because we have direct experience with the deadly consequences of oppression. The mountain where I assisted tree sitters had a spot where a Redwood tree was intentionally felled on an activist killing him by literally decapitating him. Many of the activists I worked with had been there that day and yes they were effected, and who can blame them, I expect you'd be effected too by seeing your friends bloody decapitated head laying in the dirt too.
We are angry because we want this sort of thing stopped NOW! And passive liberal whining isn't stopping anything rather it just enables the empire to keep oppressing which IS infuriating if your conscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience
hasn't been totally dulled by consumerism, tee vee, and New Age platitudes.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 23rd, 2008 10:18 pm
I think it's pretty shocking to try to psychoanalyze anyone based on internet chat. You've analyzed her and judged her to be somehow inferior to you, which shows a startling audacity, lack of sensitivity, and near absense of tolerance. How are you qualified to analyze or judge anyone? I haven't been around these chat scenes long, but I've seen a lot worse than some of serena's pointed comments, and, frankly, some of her comments are right on point (e.g., mistaking being at the top of the food chain for human superiority, though I don't think the author that elicited this observation--kennybro, wasn't it?--is a specist).
Sometimes, we all swing and miss. It never becomes an issue unless it's either intended or taken personally, and those of us with good will will try (and sometimes fail) to rise above that. Damn our egos, anyway!
That said, you've all seen in this thread or the Rick Warren thread (both from yesterday) that I, too, "go off" on people, specifically fundamentalists (in all religions) and evangelical christians. I judge them, yes I do! It's a weakness, and I INDULGE it!
In fact, there have been all kinds of spats throughout this long thread among people who are in agreement on things elsewhere in the same thread. It becomes mind-boggling! So many times we can't resist the personal jab. So many times we mistake the intent of a comment and take it personally. Sometimes we just spoil for a fight. We duel with ideas rather than share them. It can all become very competitive, and I suspect many find themselves, as do I, many times wishing I had waited just a little bit longer to hit that "post comment" button.
We all have failings; we have all suffered traumas; we all need to recover. Ain't a-one of us perfect. Push my "fundamentalist" button, and I go pit bull! And that's nothing compared to my "neoliberal free market economics" button. You do NOT want to push that!
Sorry to ramble, but I see value in these exchanges when minds are open (which fundamentalist minds are NOT), and I want to encourage us to keep at it. I dunno why. Dunno if it makes any difference at all, but it keeps some drive alive.
Time for another walk in the snow...
Peace.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 2:53 pm
When one studies to be a psychoanalyst (Freudian or Jungian or Lacanian, at least), one must first submit to being analyzed.
I doubt VERY seriously that the folks on this site who try to put down other posters with their "parlor psychology" in the hopes of making the other person feel bad (cruelty, again) and making themselves feel superior have been analyzed--nor are they analysts. They are just mean-spirited.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 24th, 2008 3:34 pm
That, and there are very few competent analysts to begin with (one-in-ten would be generous, in my opinion), but I put more stock in meditation anyway.
Sounds like you're outta here for a while. Peace be with you.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 3:54 pm
Igualmente.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
kennybro December 23rd, 2008 5:22 pm
I would just like to thank GwNorth, Fast Eddie, Hootowl and especially Sioux Rose I definitely have found your commentaries far more enlightening than the jist of the article. I believe that it is this type of communication and dialogue that may someday shake out the cobwebs and maybe help us find the truth in our own character while we are still the top of the food chain. It kind of reminds me of a Philosophy course many years ago when we studied Hume's "Dialogues concerning natural religion" I think the name calling and bickering is infantile while one attempts to reach a level of constructive thought. Thanks again. So drink up have fun the best is yet to come...I forget where I read that,.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 7:27 pm
Sioux Rose
KENNY BRO: Thank you kindly. I do not like having my character slandered when I have devoted my life to an authentic spiritual search, partly to understand personal matters and also to assist others. Debates are one thing, while direct character assaults something else entirely. I think you understand that difference, and once again, thank you.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 2:56 pm
Right: Only you, in your superior white spirituality have the right to slander and libel.
"When you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha."
(One of the very BASIC koans, but worth a lifetime of meditation.)
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 23rd, 2008 6:05 pm
Wow! I got sort of lost addressing serena's point in the "food chain" response, so I scrolled down through all the postings. Sorry to see the flare-up between serena and Sioux Rose. I've enjoyed this entire thread so far, so thanks to all.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 23rd, 2008 5:31 pm
The central problem, evidenced in your post, is that we have, as a species, confused being at the top of the food chain with being the superior species.
That's where the negative karma comes from and it isn't going to change.
A very wise raven in a small Mexican fishing village told me that....
Login or register to post comments report this comment
kennybro December 24th, 2008 9:47 am
serena, I think its clear we all know that we are both (top of the food chain and superior species) at least as far as we know...its the lack of responsibility for being in that position. There is no question that there is plenty of room for improvement, the question is do we have what it takes. I think "yes" definitely. How will we ever all agree on what that path will be is the question? Perhaps we all must find it ourselves first. What village was that, I aways loved Mexico.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 2:30 pm
kennybro:
I would like you to show me PROOF that WE are the superior species.
That ought to keep you busy for at least this lifetime.
Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, is a small fishing village which also is home to Universidad del Mar.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
serena December 24th, 2008 2:30 pm
kennybro:
I would like you to show me PROOF that WE are the superior species.
That ought to keep you busy for at least tis lifetime.
Puerto Angel, Oaxaca, is a small fishing village which also is home to Universidad del Mar.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 24th, 2008 10:32 am
Wow! Kennybro! Before I retract my comment that I doubted you were a specist, please tell me, in what way is Homo sapiens superior to other species? I'll tell you up front why I disagree with your statement. "Superiority," as I use the word, means a value comparison from which one concludes that one thing is better than another (e.g., wireless broadband is superior to a dial-up modem). Such value comparisons are questionable when made between species. For example, I could argue that humans have superior opposable thumbs compared to gorillas. This is species-centric, however; our thumbs would probably be skinny, weak, and utterly fallible to a gorilla (and in my case, a very annoying and disturbing shade of white!)
What most sets us apart from other species is the extraordinary forebrain that enables us to do so many things impossible for other species, but that makes us different, not superior. Gorillas cannot play the piano or type on a keyboard, but they are also not driving us to extinction. I think the evolutionary "jury" is out on our species, meaning our big cerebrums may turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end. Many, many philosophers call out our cerebrums or use of language and conclude we are superior, but until we can demonstrate that we can live sustainably within the limits of the global ecosystem, I just cannot agree. Your thoughts?
Login or register to post comments report this comment
rush limbaughs taint December 23rd, 2008 12:35 pm
hedges has written a lot of great stuff, and this essay is worth considering, but one must also consider that hedges, despite his 'american fascists' and all that, is a christian.
so this is an expose of the 'sin nature.' a strong, and quite harsh view of human nature.
on the one hand, humanity needs a hobbesian leviathan to control everybody.
on the other hand, it's a grand exercise in hypocrisy, as cruelty and evil are simply exported to those outside 'civilization.'
and as brilliant a writer as conrad is, he's also full of crap. you don't have to romanticize 'the native' to say that the crimes of the congolese cannot be compared to the crimes of the Belgians. and many people who 'went native' did not do so kurtz-style. they 'went native' b/c they found 'the primitives' to be kinder, gentler, more egalitarian, less repressed, and generally more enlightened, even if they didn't have gunpowder and whiskey.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
lpenek December 23rd, 2008 7:36 pm
Thank you. I was hoping someone was going to say something like this re: Hedges and Conrad. Hedges strikes me as one of the new crop of crypto misanthropes who ardently worships at the shrine of the Imperfectability of Man. That leaves any attempt to improve our lot doomed to failure -- or worse, actively evil. Hence Enlightenment value, the betterment of Man through reason, was yet another foolish miscalculation, or perhaps even Satan's ruse. That's a pretty dismal view, essentially that we are trapped in moral and circumstantial quicksand and any attempt to free ourselves from our "fallen nature" is futile.
Not only is it counterproductive, it's just plain wrong.
(Read Heart of Darkness anyway, of course, Conrad's work is pure genius. If I'd met him, though, my prognosis would no doubt be similar to Russel's.)
Login or register to post comments report this comment
AndChomskyMakesThree December 23rd, 2008 6:44 pm
"hedges has written a lot of great stuff, and this essay is worth considering, but one must also consider that hedges, despite his 'american fascists' and all that, is a christian."
Even further, he's a Protestant. There's A LOT of the very worst of Augustine and Luther in his work.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
katfish December 23rd, 2008 11:18 am
Read the teachings of the Buddha, people. Suffering is indeed the nature of unenlightened life. (And yes, cruelty is a symptom as well as a cause of suffering) However, there are paths to enlightenment, documented by those who have ascended them. There is no good reason to be busy with anything less or other than the business of enlightenment, and there are teachers.
Namaste.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
chessgames56 December 23rd, 2008 12:19 pm
That is true katfish, and an excellent post. You will find, though, that it is the elephant in the room that most cannot or do not want to see. A spiritual awakening is the ONLY lasting and meaningful answer to man's problems, but most think it can be wrought by imposing outward reform, not by 'awakening' inwardly. The insistence upon living within this illusion is the cause of so much unnecessary pain and cruelty so, as you write:
"There is no good reason to be busy with anything less or other than the business of enlightenment, and there are teachers."
One caveat here though:
There are many more 'false' teachings and teachers than there are true.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 12:24 pm
Sioux Rose
CHESSGAME: I agree, except that it's a lot easier if the society also welcomes this growth. Otherwise you can end up with a lot of evolved monks meditating in a real or virtual prison. John Dean's work on the nature of authoritarian-type persons and the influence their megachurches wield scare me; for in these troubling times, many try to revert to a belief that if they "just follow the rules," they will be fine. Jesus will save them. But what rules are they serving, when they're taught NOT to question (church/presidential) authority? Scary, indeed.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 22nd, 2008 11:43 pm
Hootowl-Part of me would love to go guerilla, become V if you will. I have a feeling I'd just end up dead though. I think I'm more useful alive using peaceful tactics. Not that I don't wanna shoot all the clowns...
"Just scapegoating white European men as 'dominators' is every bit as much of a simplification as horrible overt bigotry against people of color, gays, women, etc."
I agree. I've never wanted to dominate and plunder. Only a handful have, and the majority never benefitted from it.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
old goat December 22nd, 2008 11:18 pm
How do we adapt to the reality that my difference is probably not the same as your difference and put one foot in front of the other and walk together? How do we learn to love what is different rather than what is the the same between us? I
Until we love ourselves for our shortcomings as being a spiritually and practically integrative asset, we will have the perspective of insecurity (violence / exploitation) generated by the delusional notions of individualistic perfectionism and exceptionalism. The sad aspect is that perfectionsim, because it is essentially delusional - will always seek a scapegoat when it encounters its own shortcomings. It will first go after what it perceives as less perfect than itself. Ends justify means... a neurotic twist on unification otherwise known as monoculture. In the mean time we have all of the tools for making the journey as the multiplistic organism that we are. The wisdom of the Tao te Ching comes to mind.
Avatars of all ages address 'as above so below'. the christ spoke of the 'least amongst you'. The least within myself also applies if you eliminate cartesian boundaries - probably apprpriate for Christ's times. all arguments for the elegant practicality of humility. I may have amazing skills in some areas and have gaping voids in others.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
chessgames56 December 23rd, 2008 1:12 pm
Do we not settle for believing in our 'limitations' and excuse 'shortcomings' as something we cannot change or transcend, thus ensuring that we will never do so? If so, then we may be cutting ourselves off from realizing our full potential, not that which resides within egoic difference, but in unity with a Broader Relationship where those 'differences' do not matter.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 11:49 am
Sioux Rose
OLD GOAT: Wise posting.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
rebelnow December 23rd, 2008 3:42 am
Another good book, for those who like Conrad, is J.M. Coetzee's, "Waiting For the Barbarians". It's also about the brutality of a supposedly civilized empire but has a more optimistic outlook on humanity than "Heart Of Darkness".
Login or register to post comments report this comment
catherine December 22nd, 2008 10:04 pm
Goes to show that "civilization" should be confined to one's own neighborhood ONLY, and then with caution.
All peoples are within their own definitions of civilization. It appears that exporting ones own to another is not only presumptious but shows serious signs of ignorance. To think that a tribe in the Amazon is "uncivilized" and therefore needs our "enlightenment" is rather sad to say the least. These Tribesman look upon themselves with dignity and pride and surely consider themselves civilized. Another group is the North American Indians, who had lived uninterrupted for thousands of years, until "civilization" came. There would be nothing wrong with Western Civilization if that is what it intended only for itself...but there has always been a phoneyness about it....the little do-gooders out to save with one hand and take with the other at the same time.
Really really good article.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 22nd, 2008 10:05 pm
Great story GW North. Do you have a link to that. I want to send it to someone.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
GwNorth December 22nd, 2008 11:54 pm
Sorry it was in todays copy of "the Province". I can not find a link on the internet.
PK
Login or register to post comments report this comment
thegreatrockyhill December 22nd, 2008 9:38 pm
"Exterminate all the brutes!"
I agree, but the brutes are at the very top. Ice those bastards and things will be a lot easier.
"ONLY A VERY FEW OF THE GREAT NUMBER OF MEN ARE CRUEL."
I agree, and find this article to be rather misanthropic.
But again, it's a call to arms also. I want to prove the misanthropes wrong, the ones on the right as well as those on the left. The ones on the right, the ones way up on high are the ones who sentence humanity to poisoned air and water, to visit destruction upon each other. The ones on the left, not all but enough, tell the rest of us that we deserve it for some reason, as if we have no right to exist because of what a few powerful schemers have wrought. The misanthropy of the right is a slow, gradual holocaust that benefits them alone. The misanthropy of the left is a form of surrender and suicide.
Don't misinterpret Sioux Rose either. She is as great a friend to Man as she is to Woman by pointing out the truths that she does.
Man is not evil and Woman is not weak. Together WE can root out all the rogues among us and either teach them a different way or just let them fall to the wayside. And we can learn from each other too, sharing our strength and compassion instead of using and misusing our brothers and sisters. If we don't there is horror ahead, but say what you want, I truly believe that we can and will prevent it from coming to pass. Despite what is thrown my way, I won't give up on humanity.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 11:54 am
Sioux Rose
THE GREAT: Thank you. My favorite example of how to root it out was published on CD a few years ago in the illustration of a tribe of baboons, a very strict Alpha male top-down hierarchy. Since the dominant males ate first, and happened to come upon some tainted food; they died off. That left the less aggressive males to take their place and INSTEAD OF acting like their newly-deceasted peers, these males created a more egalitarian society with the females! Mars need not rule! And when HE does, we all suffer... Mercury, the principle of intelligence and the capacity to read, cull data, and form ideas is a gender-neutral cosmic principle. Plenty of women act out Mars and plenty of men act out Venus. Again, these are archetypal energies. My point is how societies utilize these and form dangerous governing structures, aided and abeted by other socializing institutions like family/church which instill a belief in privilege versus "the less-thans." This of course foments conflict, and that in turn fires up Mars.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 23rd, 2008 12:28 pm
Marvelous point! Robert Sapolsky of Stanford did all the work on this baboon troop, which he documents in a beautiful book called "A Primate's Memoire." The book ends with the epidemic in the troop, caused by bovine TB being fed to tourists at a game ranch (bovine TB isn't transmissible to humans, but kills baboons). The baboons ate tainted meat from the dump, and the alpha males died. Sapolsky's work is on stress-related disease, and the alphas died when others didn't not simply because they ate first and ate most, but because the stress of being alpha suppressed their immune response. At any rate, the alphas died of, as you say.
However, the less aggressive males did not simply take the place of the deceased alphas and "create" an egalitarian society. Rather, their established, less aggressive, more social natures continued harmoniously within the troop, among all the females and young. When new, young males entered the troop (the young males among baboons usually leave their troop-of-birth to join other troops), they expected to be thrashed into their "place" in the hierarchy. They were edgy, anxious, even belligerent. Over time, the chill and groom "philosophy" that was left when the alphas died off rubbed off on the new males, and they, too, began to chill. Sapolsky noted that measures of stress (blood samples for cortisol, etc.)declined throughout the troop.
My point is that it wasn't a decision or deliberate action by the lower ranking males that produced this shift, it was an serendipitous result of the loss of the alpha males. Non-dominant males in baboon troops always socialize well with females and young and, in this case, it simply continued. I just love the fact that new males entering the troop, bracing for a fight, eventually adapt to the new culture. It would be interesting to see what might happen if a fully mature, alpha-built male entered the troop and very aggressively attempted to re-start the old hierarchy. (You know, what if the Dick Cheney of the baboon world tried to enter the troop?) Would the troop devolve?
We humans, of course, have a choice of social structures. Would that we would learn from baboons!
Peace would be nice!
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 12:33 pm
Sioux Rose
FAST EDDIE: I fully agree, and thank you for extrapolating on the point I wished to raise, and providing the details. It is a very significant finding... one that Hedges might wish to study, but I suspect he'd still cling to the notion that humans MUST have war, since it gave HIS life meaning.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 23rd, 2008 1:02 pm
THAT'S what I've been trying to pin down about Hedges! War gave HIS life meaning! Could not the Dalai Lama write a book called "Compassion is a Force that Gives Us Meaning"?
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 3:19 pm
Sioux Rose
FAST FREDDIE: That would be the way I would view it!
Login or register to post comments report this comment
GwNorth December 22nd, 2008 9:25 pm
Today I read a story in our local paper. It was about a place Called Mcbride BC.
Apparently , during the fall, a hunter had left two horses up in the mountains. Rather then taking them back down he just left them there.
These two horses were recently found all but starved to death and isolated due to a massive snowfall.
The people of mcbride rallied to help the horses out. It was determined the Horses would not survive being hauled out by slings and helicopters.
Volunteers went up into the Moutnains to take two hour shifts keeping the Horses company while others hauled in hay.
Meanwhile men are working 6 hour shifts trying to shovel, by hand, a pathway up the mountainside to where the horses are so that they can be led out and rescued.
I do not believe man is "cruel". I believe they can be and I believe our economic system overly rewards cruel.
But there are tens of thousands of Human kindnesses that happen each day that we never hear about.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 22nd, 2008 10:33 pm
Would those townspeople have necessarily done the same for a homeless person? Sometimes I think it's easier for people to be nicer to animals than our fellow humans. And no I'm not saying we should be cruel to animals, but rather questioning if this story necessarily equates to some universal humanistic impulse.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
GwNorth December 23rd, 2008 12:10 am
I am going to only offer my own reasons for why this MIGHT seem the case.
That is fear. It is the fear of showing weakness or empathy.
One knows for a fact that helping the horses will not lead to one of them robbing you, killing you in your sleep. One knows for a fact the horse will not perceive you as weak thus take advantage of your good nature.
In other words it MY belief that people might seem less willing to help a fellow human NOT because they are inately cruel , but because they fear in doing so they expose themselves to danger.
Homeless people have attacked others. They have beaten priests and robbed old ladies. This is not to label all people that are homeless as dangerous. The vast majority are not. It only to show that people who wish to help might feel a reluctance because of that fear.
(The press certainly sensationalizes such incidents. But they do happen and people are aware of them)
There is also that second guessing of oneself. Again not cruelty but asking oneself "will i be doing more harm then good if I help this homeless person with 20 bucks"
I do this a lot when I see a young kid in the streets. The cops and homeless advocates tell us that while many have indeed fled abuse at home, a good number have not been abused at all and would GO HOME to their families if they were not receiving those kindnesses from strangers.
You feed a horse you know it will eat food. You can not know what a Homeless person will do if you give them 20 bucks. Do they go and get a last fix and die in some street corner and does THAT then become your fault?
Showing alturism to an animal is easier. It does not mean that Humans are therefore cruel to other humans.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
sherman r lafollette December 23rd, 2008 11:50 am
you stupid mf; go ahead and let fear rule your life while your fellow human being suffers. you don't have what it takes to be human.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
GwNorth December 23rd, 2008 12:27 pm
>>you stupid mf; go ahead and let fear rule your life while your fellow human being suffers. you don't have what it takes to be human
This is an inately stupid comment and one that demonstrates the profound ignorance of the poster.
FEAR is a natural response. It must be UNDERSTOOD if we are to control it. One can not just deny it. Fear is part of being human. It is listed as one of our core emotions from which many others derive.
Take an example of two people coming across animals in leghold traps.
One comes across a Grizzly bear in a leghold trap, said bear suffering.
One comes across a Horse caught in the same trap , said horse suffering.
Are we to suggest that if one person rushes to the aid of the horse, and the other is reluctant to rush to the aid of the bear it because the latter CRUEL?
The simple fact is rushing to aid a grizzly bear caught in a leghold trap is not something a normal person would do and there a very good reason for it,and not because the would be rescuer cruel or stupid.
If people are firing on you in a trench you keep your head down. You dont stand up and procalim "I fear nothing!". You end of dead if you do so. You had better fear those people in the other trench firing on you and those bullets or you will not have any time in this world to "grow ethically".
Finally this poster shows an inability to comprehend. I did not state why *I* would or would not help the homeless. I stated my beliefs as to why many people would NOT so willingly rush to help a homeless man as they would a horse.
I am stating that this does not mean they are cruel or even evil. I am stating it does not mean they lack compassion. I am saying man can be dangerous and people can and will be fearful of strangers.
I recently adopted an abandoned cat. The thing was starving and hiding under my car everymorning. When it saw me it ran in FEAR. This was a natural response. I was a stranger and it knows humans can be dangerous. It took over a week of leaving food and water for it before I could approach him.
It took a few more days before he trusted me enought to pick him up and take him into my home. He now sleeps on my bed at night and is contented and fat.
When he first avoided me and ran it was not because he was cruel. It was because he was fearful.
There is a homeless man that frequents the downtown streets. He is also mentally ill. I have seen him there for years . Yesterday he was standing on the street , waiting as people walked by then shouting profanities at them in a very loud voice.
The first time he approached me in such a manner and yelled, yes I was fearful. Now I am used to him.
Is it a persons assertion that a person who has never seen this homeless one before has NO RIGHT to fear him and or that if they just walk past they are being cruel?
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 23rd, 2008 12:23 am
"Showing alturism to an animal is easier. It does not mean that Humans are therefore cruel to other humans."
I couldn't disagree more, your statement literally contradicts itself. From your rhetoric above the homeless are along with Muslims unfortunately among the last people is OK to be blatantly hateful and bigoted towards in western socities. If you had said:
"Black people have attacked others. They have beaten priests and robbed old ladies. This is not to label all people that are black as dangerous. The vast majority are not. It only to show that people who wish to help might feel a reluctance because of that fear."
I would sincerely hope you'd be called out here as an overt racist bigot and KKK supporter yet to express that sort of hate towards the homeless and the response thus far is a big yawn. And yes this personal to me, when I was a tree sitter fighting to save old growth Redwoods in Humboldt county in 2004 many of the most dedicated direct action activists were homeless. They were the kindest people I have EVER know selfless, dedicated to making the world a better place, many of them vegans, in short far more ethically evolved than those comfortably housed yuppies who cast spite at homeless people.
If we are going to be truly ethically evolved then like Buddhists we will have to show kindness towards ALL people including the homeless and all animals as well. Clearly very few of us are that enlightened yet, in fact people that enlightened like Ghandi are talked about for decades because they are so rare.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
GwNorth December 23rd, 2008 1:07 am
>>couldn't disagree more, your statement literally contradicts itself. From your rhetoric above the homeless are along with Muslims unfortunately among the last people is OK to be blatantly hateful and bigoted towards in western socities. If you had said:
I think you missed the point. I am speaking as to what motivates a person to act in certain ways.
There is no contradiction. People fall prey to their own fears.
To be cruel a person would refuse to help another because they want That other to feel pain and to suffer. That is the motivation. I suggest there are far fewer of people of this type then is being suggested.
Point of example. I myself feel little in the way of fear when a homeless person approaches me for money. I have bought a good many a burger or dropped them a few toonies. Now when I see an older woman walk by the same clutching her purse...her much smaller and frailer then I is it your contention she is CRUEL and should i judge her to be a crueler person then I or is it that as I believe, she simply fearful and has her own reasons for being so that I can not deem myself the JUDGE of?
Am i to believe that old lady WANTS that person to suffer and go hungry? I will never subscribe to that .
>>Black people have attacked others. They have beaten priests and robbed old ladies. This is not to label all people that are black as dangerous. The vast majority are not. It only to show that people who wish to help might feel a reluctance because of that fear."
There is no contradiction here. The fact is that black people HAVE robbed old ladies. It is not racist at all to say such.
So then have white people...Oriental people and Christains and Muslims. This is an absolute fact. It not the least bit racist or bigoted.
Again there is no contradiction.
It my belief that the underlying catylyst of racism, bigotry and indeed all of our religous differences is FEAR.
Rather then saying humans are "Inately" cruel, I would say humans are inately fearful and especially of other humans,
I would also add that this does not make "fear" good or evil. It simply is . It part and parcel of our makeup. It a survival mechanism without which we could never have evolved.
Once we recognize our our fears are used against us, or how we irationally fall prey to our fears, we can better come to grips with all those things the truly CRUEL use to divide us.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
rebelnow December 22nd, 2008 9:49 pm
Human kindness does happen each day, no doubt, as well as cruelty, it's the strange hypocrisy of life as a human. Of those people who were hauling hay and sitting in the cold to try and save the horses, how many had their bellies full of beef? Were those same people also trying to save whatever animal the hunter was hunting?
It may sound like I'm being flippant, but, it's that same hypocrisy that allows a nation to galvanize around their war lords (Bush?Cheney) to go and murder the innocents "over there" while mourning the loss of "our" people.
I don't think humans are any more cruel than they are kind, however, we are blind to our hypocrisy.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
empirePie December 22nd, 2008 8:35 pm
Sleep tight sweet Aphrodite
Oh Homo erectus ...he wrecked us ...
he wrecked us
So why did he leave us
small brain should have been a select us
Oh Homo erectus ...he wrecked us ...
he wrecked us...
should have left that fire alone...
stuck with the raw ...and left dark matter in the dark...
oh pine for Homo erectus
when fight or flight didn't need to check a manifest
and destiny was timeless
but hush
Sleep tight sweet Aphrodite
the post human era will be even better than before!
for nature will nurture even more
except for the odd meteorite
The biggest sound won't be a bite
though that may seem a little trite
for finite is just time that said good night
Login or register to post comments report this comment
realwealth December 22nd, 2008 8:33 pm
Actually....humans are hard-wired to care more than to be cruel. Our socialization/civilization is based on a 'dominator' story that's been pervasive for 5,000 plus years (which means,we were all indoctrinated in it) and leads us to believe/learn that cruelty/every man for himself is the way of the world. But it isn't....
While we see the cruel reinforced daily on TV, newspapers, blogs...what we don't see is the TREMENDOUS amounts of caring happening every day--that is not reported, but it is there. We need to stop perpetuating the myth that humans are cruel---oh, yes, they can be--but if that was our strong suit--we would have 'cruelly' taken ourselves off this planet by now....
Read Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade"...a 30,000 year history of how we got into this mess...and then Real Wealth of nations...creating a caring economics--a story of how we could get out of it.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
hootowl December 22nd, 2008 10:20 pm
Sorry but I think that's a little naive, it isn't just white male people in the west it is everywhere, how does your theory explain Robert Mugabe an African who oppresses his own people? How does it explain female dominators like Margaret Thatcher, Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Condalezza Rice? How does it explain the ecological collapse of Easter Island so well documented in Jared Diamonds collapse? People of all genders and colors screw up on a regular basis that is reality.
I did read the Chalice and the Blade in the early 90s BTW and I believed it then, and now with a broader reading of history, not so much. Just scapegoating white European men as "dominators" is every bit as much of a simplification as horrible overt bigotry against people of color, gays, women, etc.
And no I am not saying give up, we should still work for a less racist society, with gay marriage and women's rights that is more fair and sustainable, but Chris Hedges is right to remind us it's an uphill battle and that victory is always fragile, for example a U.S. that was full of groovy hippies in 1968 turned to Reagnism and greed a mere 12 years later. So we should savor any local victories we make like opening a food co-op and cherish the moment in the realization it may not last forever IMO.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 23rd, 2008 12:00 pm
Sioux Rose
HOOTOWL: I will hazard an answer. Some people believe each new born enters this world as a blank slate. (I do not.) We come imprinted by our past, and the past of our planet IS inordinately cruel because of societal structures that have long pitted tribe/person against person. In the process of growing up, before the mind creates its own filters, a great number of mechanisms play significant roles in socializing each individual. The child born to a fundamentalist family of ANY SECT is conditioned to see outsiders are dangerous or even evil, to be shunned if not worse. Some children grow up into adults strong enough to question their earlier conditioning, but many do not. Therefore once again, any conjecture we make about human nature is crippled by the crippling facts of past conditioning along with the insidious mechanisms (our pro-war MSM) of current socialization.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Siouxrose December 22nd, 2008 8:35 pm
Sioux Rose
REAL WEALTH: Thank you! You said what I tried to say. Much appreciated!
And by the way, there's an article on truth-out mentioning that thus far only women in the banking community have come forward to try to change the system of insider graft going on.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
DougD December 22nd, 2008 8:18 pm
Hedges really oversimplifies human nature in this one. Some posters have already noted the basic problem, but I'll try to provide a scientific basis for it. Years of psychological research shows tremendous diversity in human personalities. At least five separate dimensions are needed to explain this diversity. When applied to a trait such as cruelty, this means that people will differ along a dimension running from extreme kindness to extreme cruelty (with most of us falling in the middle of this bell-shaped distribution). So it just doesn't make any sense to describe all humans as cruel (or as kind).
Another point is that people on the kind and cruel ends of the dimension will naturally gravitate toward different occupations. Unfortunately, in most case those toward the cruel end, who also tend to be high in dominance and disagreeableness, are most likely to become leaders. So from this perspective, we humans may have a history of continuous cruelty, but this is not due to some underlying cruelty in our nature. Rather, it results from the fact that our leaders tend to be dominant, disagreeable, and cruel.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 22nd, 2008 8:25 pm
VERY interesting idea! So, it seems the gist of the problem is to find those few leaders who can lead us away from the many leaders who are cruel.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Humbaba December 22nd, 2008 8:06 pm
Herbert George Wells wrote that the powerful in the War of the Worlds succomed to microbes.
In George Herbert Walker's War on the World the powerful succomed to it's own dishonisty.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Cee Miracles December 22nd, 2008 8:04 pm
Homo sapien sapiens, we, the allegedly more evolved species of homo sapiens/early humans, despite our moments of ecstatic understandings and connection with each other, and our created artifacts and technologies celebrated as glorious achievements, we are but a link in the chain of evolvement of species.
Some believe that Homo noeticus is or homo noetici [pl.]) have been and are among us as sophisticated versions and fledgling versions of the species that is becoming and hopefully will eventually predominate.
Homo sapien sapiens has five senses; Homo noeticus, six or perhaps more.
It seems, at this point, given all the givens of a burgeoning population that the earth cannot long support; the fact that for most of us, love has not done away with viciousness and brutality, rapacious greed, chicanery, gluttony, dishonesty and all the other seven deadly sins of the flawed ego mind. We seem not to be able to learn and act on the simplest of benevolent teachings without twisting them all out of shape, and as a result, at this point likely we can expect great calamities that will reduce our numbers considerably.
And the question is whether the red-hot anvil on which ore is pounded enough to separate and yield the pure gold will be the equivalent of the purifying fire of
pain and suffering that becomes the new human of deep and universal spiritual understandings or the human relic survivor--dark, bitter, primitive, wary, etcetera, and here we go again ...
I don't know since I, nor anyone else, can control what others do as knee-jerk responses or as deliberate actions for ill or for good.
All I can do is correct myself as I go along, as best I can, and pay attention to the state of my own integrity, honesty, lovingness, compassion, courage, etcetera, or lack of same ... and go from there. A life's work ... with awareness. A life's work.
Chris Hedges peers into the darkness as Joseph Conrad did. But I'm quite certain that both men look(ed) into the light also.
As Alduous Huxley said either in or about "Brave New World," at this time, "It's up for grabs."
Login or register to post comments report this comment
madlib December 22nd, 2008 7:57 pm
So please correct me if the ultimate message here is that we should give up trying to improve society and just accept it the way it is. Is it saying this or is it saying that civilization is a "thin veneer" which we have often heard?
It seems to me that the founding fathers tried to create a society that controlled some of these abuses by limiting power EXACTLY because they took human nature as a given. But then there is other evidence we cannot ignore, that a generation of anti-racist public mores has brought real change to America (I see this every day)
Clearly, there is a bad side that isn't going away and the beast has to be kept caged. But clearly, also, there is such a thing as enlightenment, as positive socialization that brings happier, more fair human relations. I'm not ready to accept the idea that society can't improve over time.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Boyd R. Collins December 22nd, 2008 8:16 pm
I have long been an admirer of Chris Hedges, having read his book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, which I consider a classic. I also admire this article, but like Kurtz's burning noble words, I find its eloquent despair contradicted by the life of one who so clearly means to change this world. What he and Conrad see as the inherent corruptibility of human nature I see as a nature capable of transformation through the power of the Spirit. Moreover, I do not see this Spirit as healing only personal corruption, but capable of healing entire societies. However, in the current society nothing seems more convincing than despair in our inherent corruptibility. But, surprising though it may be, human liberation is the will of God, and the imperative of our liberation from economic oppression, racial domination, and enslavement to violence points toward that will.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 22nd, 2008 8:23 pm
"Human liberation is the will of God..." What? Through war, disease, evil, genocide, willful ignorance, and faith that abdicates reason? What a strange process of liberation that is! Then again, I expect I'll miss the rapture.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Boyd R. Collins December 25th, 2008 11:43 am
Human liberation is the will of God. It is we who commit war, genocide, willful ignorance, and faith that abdicates reason.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
FastEddie75 December 25th, 2008 11:55 am
God is made in our image. The first step toward escaping war, genocide, etc. is to dispense with gods invented to justify abhorrent acts and then forgive them.
Login or register to post comments report this comment
blackbird666 December 22nd, 2008 4:24 pm
The Latin phrase oft used by Hunter S Thompson, "res ipsa loquitur" [the thing speaks for itself], applies here, I believe.
Need we any more proof than the last 800 [or so] years of recorded history to bear out Hedges' assertions?
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion." - Edward Abbey
Hedges' herein has delivered the 'cruel truth', yet how many among us continue to nurse at the teat of 'comfortable delusion'?
Login or register to post comments report this comment
Nietzsche December 22nd, 2008 7:19 pm
"Uplifting illusion is dearer to us than a host of truths."---Pushkin
Login or register to post comments report this comment
12next ›last »
Join the discussion:
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)
CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
About Us | Donate | Contact Us | Sign-Up | Archives
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org
Friday, December 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment