Thread: What is wrong with Western Society?

Originally Posted by daisym

would the 'external' focus of capitalist consumption have developed in a non christian society? (or at least one that did not have the 'external' focus of protestant christianity?)

I think the answer is quite obviously 'yes' because this 'malaise' of modern society, or this 'dissatisfaction' with our material plenty transcends the strictly protestant nations. Italy and France are affected just as much as Netherlands or England. It may be interesting to see some comparative data on the European nations on a variety of indicators to see if there is a relative distinction between the North-West and the Mediterranean cultures - perhaps a distinction of degree might be discerned... I don't know, I'm just speculating.

Originally Posted by daisym

This thread is really interesting - I just wanted to go back to poverty ... absolute poverty (ie a lack of food and other essentials) is different to relative poverty - which is more often than not the poverty we see in the west. And being relatively poor doesn't have to mean going without. The latter can be more difficult to deal with than the former - the psychological dissonance can be greater.

Indeed, another excellent point. Though our material plenty has reduced absolute poverty in our modern western nations, it has created more relative poverty...

Originally Posted by daisym

...more I can say ... a lot of people I know who have spent considerable time among the poor of this world prefer to be in those places ... because somehow the people are more REAL ... its hard to describe, the human element is stronger, and I have spoken to a number of people who say that with all that we have, we have lost something.

Indeed, the reason I started this thread...

Originally Posted by daisym

This is something really hard to describe - because it doesn't make sense, but a number of people say things like, because we define who we are by what we have, we begin to lose our essential humanity, we have no sense of community (this from someone who spent seven years in PNG where people were macheting each other and tribal bloodshed occured on a regular basis). The thing is I know what he means. There is something essentially quite different in the relationships you form within traditional cultures if you are immersed in them, and the bonds between people seem to be quite different from what we experience, and despite a harsher existence and poverty which can be extreme by our standards, there is a sense of something intangible.

I may sound like I'm idealizing traditional and/or third world societies - but in actual fact I'm not. I am certainly not blind to the fact that those societies can also be brutal and repressive, especially for women ... but somehow there is something there that is missing here. And I guess in all honesty one of the reasons I work with refugees is because I'm homesick for something I discovered there ...

Yes, this is why it looks like the problem is not 'genetic' at all but must be some product or outcome of our modern systems.

I've studied quite a bit of history and one doesn't detect any kind of malaise of this type in ancient Rome at all and we do have a huge volume of material, including personal diaries and stuff like that from that period.

Originally Posted by daisym

...but I still like my creature comforts and can not give those up

Yes, there's the rub. How do we maintain our creature comforts of our modern system yet recapture the sence of connectedness that our modern system seems to destroy?

Which is why I'm so interested in what it is about our modern society that seems to 'produce' this effect. Without knowing the 'cause' of the problem, it is impossible to address. Thus, we are exploring all the sources of this 'malaise' in hopes of identifying the pattern. Once we have it identified, then it may be possible to look for solutions or approaches that might 'solve' the problem.

I have to have more time to discuss these points and time is short this morning!

oh dear, well, what I will say is that from what I can tell, as we live in such a highly individualized society, the first step to solution lies within the individual.

This is because we have externalization, and transcience/change being dominant within our society. you have to find a constant, and the only thing you have that you can have any degree of control over is the self. so 'know thyself.'

the individual has to change their internal behaviour to the point where they can begin to realize that they can take charge, to some extent, of their own life - even in a small way. This includes taking responsibility and making real choices about what we want.

I say even in a small way, because, lets face it, Rome wasn't built in a day.

Then you move from the individual to the social level. Once you know who you are, you can start looking for, or maybe even creating, your own niche within the social structure you live in. This doesn't mean creating us/them scenarios, which is actually about fear of other rather than connectedness, but finding a network of other like minded people who you feel comfortable with.

This does NOT have to be those who who are similar to you - you need a common thread to join, but if your niche is made up of people who are a mirror of who you are, then its really quite infantile. I see this time and again with those who don't mix with people from outside their ethnic/religious communities, or 'alternative types' who reject anyone from 'mainstream' because ... well, what would they know?... and of course there are others as well. I'm a lefty so therefore what I say has no value ... or should it be that people should listen to what I say before deciding whether there may be something in it or not?

Anyway, if your network becomes wider and more inclusive of varying points of view, it reduces isolation and provides opportunities for learning...and I know several of the great religions value learning (in its broadest sense I assume).

Taking these steps attempts to address the issue of participation and engagement - which is something we also have lacking in our society as modern technology and political life reduces us to the level of observers from the sidelines.

when we die, what lives on is other's memories of us ... this is what makes us immortal - so good relationships with others is what we need to invest in if we want to achieve immortality. In the meantime we can have more fulfilling lives as well.

this all sounds a bit trite - its far more detailed than that but I need to cogitate on this for a while before I can come up with something more comprehensive.

Greetings and Felicitations,

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Men need an outlet for their build-up of testosterone? And killing each other just happens to be the most satisfying way of relieving ourselves?
Andrew

I don't know. Personally, I prefer the vertical method of testosterone release : orgasm.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,



I don't know. Personally, I prefer the vertical method of testosterone release : orgasm.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Greetings and Salutations,

Your personal preference is irrelevant if a majority of human beings feel otherwise.

And I am not willing to accept biological determinist arguments. Violence is driven not by our genes or body chemistry - it is driven by our social structure that thrives upon it and rewards it.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Why? Please elaborate.

I'm not ignoring this, just trying to figure out how to answer. Talk about sounding trite! daisym has nothing on what I'm about to say.

Not every monkey learns to wash his sweet potatos at the same time. This is, of course, an allusion to 'the hundredth monkey' (http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/monkey.html).

I'm playing with the idea that there are a certain number of humans who, by chance or design, dicover what brings satisfaction to the soul (or order to the spritual malaise). No matter what is said or prophecied or what revolutions are brought about, this secret is only learned generationally in small groups. The critical mass has not been reached.

Possibly the signs of malaise are merely evidence of the impending '100th' monkey and there is no reason for this discussion at all.

What d'ya think a that Michael? Pretty far out, I know.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Greetings and Salutations,

Your personal preference is irrelevant if a majority of human beings feel otherwise.

And I am not willing to accept biological determinist arguments. Violence is driven not by our genes or body chemistry - it is driven by our social structure that thrives upon it and rewards it.

and dna, chimpanzees and bonobos illustrate that very well.

Originally Posted by JHC

I'm not ignoring this, just trying to figure out how to answer. Talk about sounding trite! daisym has nothing on what I'm about to say.

Not every monkey learns to wash his sweet potatos at the same time. This is, of course, an allusion to 'the hundredth monkey' (http://www.worldtrans.org/pos/monkey.html).

I'm playing with the idea that there are a certain number of humans who, by chance or design, dicover what brings satisfaction to the soul (or order to the spritual malaise). No matter what is said or prophecied or what revolutions are brought about, this secret is only learned generationally in small groups. The critical mass has not been reached.

Possibly the signs of malaise are merely evidence of the impending '100th' monkey and there is no reason for this discussion at all.

What d'ya think a that Michael? Pretty far out, I know.

I just wanted to look at the

' idea that there are a certain number of humans who, by chance or design, dicover what brings satisfaction to the soul (or order to the spritual malaise). No matter what is said or prophecied or what revolutions are brought about, this secret is only learned generationally in small groups. The critical mass has not been reached.'

If we look at Maslowe and the hierarchy of needs, we see that 'self actualization' is only addressed when lower order needs have been addressed. If we look at the situation historically, we find that the majority of people have spent most of their lives attending to 'lower order needs' and therefore self actualization isn't part of their agenda.

For myself, and most of those I know who do think about these issues - they do have, or at least have had, time to do so, and lower needs are satisfied - even if by the labour expended by others. In our society a lot of people have the time and the lifestyle that SHOULD enable exploration of these ideas, however our minds, and leisure time are often crowded with 'busyness' - whether it be media or personal choices related to what we think we 'need' from life.(and 'busyness' can also include overwhelming desire for power, control and/or material gain).

So all of this 'busyness' prevents many otherwise capable and intelligent people from learning to think about deeper issues.

well, maybe not - I guess we would have to define 'self actualization' - and another thing I have noticed is that thinking too deeply is frowned upon by many people ... at least in public ... because it doesn't fit the image of how we are supposed to be?

oh - image versus substance ... another tangent ...

well, I'll leave it today except to say that life is like a hall of mirrors in a fairground. its how others, and society, reflect ourselves back to us that determines a lot of who we believe ourselves to be - and sometimes those mirrors are quite ... distorted. Once you understand that, you can have a clearer picture of who you really are, and you can be more focussed on learning what works - and I mean - REALLY works - for you in order to experience contentment/whatever in life.

just a thought.

I've used Maslowe's hierarchy of needs to analyze many situations throughout my life and only in the last year have begun to wonder why it doesn't work.
Maslowe doesn't address 'busyness'. I've checked that hierarchy many times and it does not address busyness. He does give a sort of synthesis of self actualization and it doesn't fit many people.

Once all the needs have been met, right up at the top of the pyramid, what is it that prevents so many from reaching 'self actualization'? It should happen naturally according to Maslowe.

Looking back through history, I don't see that there has been much change in the percentage of 'self actualized' people on the planet. (Pretty friggin hard to calculate so obviously, this is just one persons observation and feeling).

Why have we not evolved in this particular arena? It must be by nature/design because we are apparently incapable of changing it.

Originally Posted by JHC

I've used Maslowe's hierarchy of needs to analyze many situations throughout my life and only in the last year have begun to wonder why it doesn't work.
Maslowe doesn't address 'busyness'. I've checked that hierarchy many times and it does not address busyness. He does give a sort of synthesis of self actualization and it doesn't fit many people.

Once all the needs have been met, right up at the top of the pyramid, what is it that prevents so many from reaching 'self actualization'? It should happen naturally according to Maslowe.

Looking back through history, I don't see that there has been much change in the percentage of 'self actualized' people on the planet. (Pretty friggin hard to calculate so obviously, this is just one persons observation and feeling).

Why have we not evolved in this particular arena? It must be by nature/design because we are apparently incapable of changing it.

I also think its exposure to different ways of looking at things - I mean, most of us don't really step out of our 'boxes' one way or another ... and its only when we do that we can have that kind of 'aha' experience.

they say travel broadens the mind, so we should see, with the amount of globe trotting that goes on in this day and age, a higher percentage of the population that have developed, through travel, the capacity to look at the world in a slightly different way ....not so - because you need to JOURNEY, and many travellers don't really do that - its just skimming the surface of pretty places with others who see the world the same as them.


you're right though - there are a lot of shortcomings in maslowe, and I know I had a lot of criticisms of him in general ... but I still think the hierarchy of needs is an interesting model ... what we need to understand is what prevents people from seeking self actualization ...maybe if we get lower order needs met too well we get too comfortable .... but I guess that in our world those SOCIAL needs are not really met - God only knows how many times I have had people talk about needing to 'belong' feeling as if they are 'ousiders' etc ... at some deep level those basic social needs are not being met. maybe exploring some of this is worthwhile....

history ...ummm ... yeah, well I guess even when we have the chance to learn, we are still constrained by world views that are often more narrow than we like to believe. maybe .... I've got a feeling there is a link to the social representation of self here somewhere - but can't quite get what it is

Originally Posted by JHC

Looking back through history, I don't see that there has been much change in the percentage of 'self actualized' people on the planet. (Pretty friggin hard to calculate so obviously, this is just one persons observation and feeling).

Why have we not evolved in this particular arena? It must be by nature/design because we are apparently incapable of changing it.

I think there's a lot of room to dispute this..

I mean, I am arguing from a very shallow pool of knowledge, but I've been told that Europeans only started thinking of children as anything other than mini-adults in the last two centuries (hence all these problems with child labour), and valuing them and loving them in a sense that they never would have when there were good odds that your child would not reach its first birthday.

There are constant allusions today to a 'mideval mindset,' be it on the part of Islamic terrorists cutting off people's heads, or on the part of the American justice system executing children and the mentally handicapped.

Perhaps self-actualization is not widespread in a strict sense of humans being "enlightened." But sexual equality, anti-racism, the belief in human equality in general and in the various rights guaranteed to citizens of modern states has to represent at least some degree of enlightenment.

But just to bring it all back home, it's not terribly surprising that a in society like ours, with material prosperity enough that many people are free to pursue self-actualization, we still lag. I would argue that again this is due to external focus - why worry about yourself, life is busy. We seem to be devoted to the practice of passing the time in our lives away..