|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 13:21:41 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). There's no human system - economic or otherwise - that's perfect, and economic systems in particular have many facets that directly express the existential error of mistaken identity. But the flip side is that human beings aren't really equipped to survive in the wild on our own, and to be generally anti-business is to (ultimately) be anti-human-life. Well, I think there's a level at which we could say that to be 'anti' anything is to be anti-human-life....anti rape, anti murder, anti theft....those things all happen as part of human life. I wouldn't put 'business' anywhere near the level of rape and murder, or even theft, but I would still say that if we simplify the universe into 2 categories...that which expresses universal principles, and that which goes against universal principles (i.e is underpinned by false understandings)....then I would have to put business in the category of goes against, along with rape and murder and theft. But reducing the situation down to just those 2 categories generally isn't useful, the reality of 'falsity' is much more nuanced. Business can be fun and playful, it has arguably brought a lot of good things to the world. Not sure the same can be said for rape, murder and theft, though arguably some murders have brought good to the world. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 13:25:26 GMT -5
In regard to transhumanism, transhumanism is materalism on steroids. It expresses an absolute disconnect from who we are as organic and spiritual beings, in a relationship of giving and receiving with the world around us. Transhumanism is about conquest and control, it's about getting an edge over....and colonizing.... the human body. It's actually an inevitable extension of capitalism (really quite close to Marx' predictions) The video quite strongly addresses some of these themes imo. My current critical view on Marx is that he became what he was railing against and he ultimately reduces the human condition to the mechanics of it. Yes I think I see what you mean here...and there's a lot to criticize. I had friends at university that would answer every sociology question from a Marxist point of view, and they'd get a decent grade, and it would annoy me a bit, because I found their answer to be lacking nuance and complexity. It's such an easy answer in a sense. On the other hand, you could never get an EXCELLENT grade by offering a Marxist view for that same reason. In his analysis of how capitalism works, and the direction it would take, I think he was pretty spot on though. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 13:30:15 GMT -5
In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. The Buddha said that "the world is on fire". Consumption, you see, is a fact of life. A fact of time, and change. The toxic and violent aspects of the way people relate are because of the prelude in Genesis to the fratricide: the garden, the snake and the apple. An even bigger picture is available though. One that doesn't dismiss all the collateral damage and suffering of the people-peep, but that sees it clearly, and impersonally, for what it is .. just .. "the world on fire" ... What is your definition of 'consumption' here? It sort of implies to me a 'limited supply', but I could be misinterpreting, If so, I would say 'consumption' has been a fact of our world, but I don't see it as a fact of 'life' itself. If LOA is true, then there cannot be a limited supply. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 13:47:51 GMT -5
That's not what the dictionary says: See, no mention of lack. What I don't like about their message is that they (knowingly or unknowingly) want to make you feel guilty about your own state of abundance. And that's counterproductive if the goal is to make everyone live in abundance. Ever seen someone who felt unworthy and powerless teaching others successfully how to become rich and famous? It doesn't work like that. So in that sense, since you mentioned communism, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sorting things out (aka ask and it is given) than communism. Wouldn't you agree? We can't reasonably expect to find a dictionary definition that explains capitalism and also says ''and it's born out of a belief in lack''. Maybe if I should begin a spiritual dictionary project  Yep, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sort things out. But, because of the structures of capitalism and, actually, LOA....the logical end result of capitalism HAS to be basically as Marx described, and it's what we are seeing today i.e wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority, a corporate coup so powerful that it basically IS communism. The commodification and colonization of every aspect of life, including the air that we breath, the space we inhabit, and even our bodies. Communism was meant to be the 'solution' to capitalism (a terrible solution in my view), but actually, it's more that capitalism has been morphing itself into communism. Capitalism always seeks 'an edge'. 'An advantage'. It's a competitive system, so it requires 'attack' and 'defence'. What aspect of the human being does this system reflect, express and speak to? The ego aspect that seeks separation and control. To reiterate though, I do see good in it....we can bring play, fun and joy into the system, and I believe that it has brought a lot of good things. But it also inevitably invokes ego...or 'the separate self'. And the 'separate self' by its nature always seeks separation and control. I can understand your perspective in regard to their message. In an ideal world, I would wholly agree with you. But I think there's something to be said for wisely responding to the context we find ourselves in. What I mean is, that in a system that is underpinned by false belief....a system that I function and participate in....I'm actually okay to experience a bit of guilt. I can even say I find the guilt a bit useful, it's a good bit of contrast that returns me to my true desires. I don't just throw trash on the ground, I guess you don't to. I am also sure you wouldn't throw plastic in the ocean. As spiritual folks, we probably have an even stronger love for the planet than most people, a deeper connection to the trees, oceans, mountains. Commodification of the planet goes against our nature as human beings. Turning animals, plants, water, air...into 'things' to be 'used' and 'sold'. I believe we can do better, and that we are moving into something better. (The weird capitalist-communism thing will fail at some point). For me there's three ways to look at your "capitalism". (1) One is by the nihilistic, oppressive and unjust conditions we see happening. That's a focus on the negative, which isn't to deny those negative aspects, but it is to acknowledge a certain myopia. (2) Is by the positive products of the economic systems that have been arguably based on "capitalism". Pose this question: how is population growth related to "capitalism"? How is life different in "capitalistic" societies in terms of what you're calling "abundance"? Which economic systems resulted in the innovation that support the current population levels? (3) Is to just acknowledge that it's just people being people. Much of (1) isn't really about "capitalism". There's this natural tendency toward systems to consolidate. The way we think solar systems form, for example. The planets we see in orbit today aggregated and sucked-in smaller bodies in their path over time. Cities and countries follow the same pattern, it's just that their cycles are faster, so we see the end of it in the inevitable dissolution and destruction of the artifice. In terms of "capitalism", The British East India Company, The Union Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil, GM and AT&T were each the google/amazon/apple/facebook's of their days. Once the centralized powers are established it's no longer a "free market" system, especially when you factor in the dynamics of governments. Unfortunately, the simplified analyses like Marx - dressed up in incredibly tortured pretzel logic, if you read him, it's like he deliberately obfuscated what he meant as a way of establishing his intellectual superiority - these are attractive, as are the "capitalistic" counter-points to Marx. But there is a myopic distraction here, one that's designed to appeal to emotion in a context where emotion most often misleads. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 14:00:06 GMT -5
We can't reasonably expect to find a dictionary definition that explains capitalism and also says ''and it's born out of a belief in lack''. Maybe if I should begin a spiritual dictionary project Yep, I'd say capitalism is much closer to just letting LOA sort things out. But, because of the structures of capitalism and, actually, LOA....the logical end result of capitalism HAS to be basically as Marx described, and it's what we are seeing today i.e wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority, a corporate coup so powerful that it basically IS communism. The commodification and colonization of every aspect of life, including the air that we breath, the space we inhabit, and even our bodies. Communism was meant to be the 'solution' to capitalism (a terrible solution in my view), but actually, it's more that capitalism has been morphing itself into communism. Capitalism always seeks 'an edge'. 'An advantage'. It's a competitive system, so it requires 'attack' and 'defence'. What aspect of the human being does this system reflect, express and speak to? The ego aspect that seeks separation and control. To reiterate though, I do see good in it....we can bring play, fun and joy into the system, and I believe that it has brought a lot of good things. But it also inevitably invokes ego...or 'the separate self'. And the 'separate self' by its nature always seeks separation and control. I can understand your perspective in regard to their message. In an ideal world, I would wholly agree with you. But I think there's something to be said for wisely responding to the context we find ourselves in. What I mean is, that in a system that is underpinned by false belief....a system that I function and participate in....I'm actually okay to experience a bit of guilt. I can even say I find the guilt a bit useful, it's a good bit of contrast that returns me to my true desires. I don't just throw trash on the ground, I guess you don't to. I am also sure you wouldn't throw plastic in the ocean. As spiritual folks, we probably have an even stronger love for the planet than most people, a deeper connection to the trees, oceans, mountains. Commodification of the planet goes against our nature as human beings. Turning animals, plants, water, air...into 'things' to be 'used' and 'sold'. I believe we can do better, and that we are moving into something better. (The weird capitalist-communism thing will fail at some point). For me there's three ways to look at your "capitalism". (1) One is by the nihilistic, oppressive and unjust conditions we see happening. That's a focus on the negative, which isn't to deny those negative aspects, but it is to acknowledge a certain myopia. (2) Is by the positive products of the economic systems that have been arguably based on "capitalism". Pose this question: how is population growth related to "capitalism"? How is life different in "capitalistic" societies in terms of what you're calling "abundance"? Which economic systems resulted in the innovation that support the current population levels? (3) Is to just acknowledge that it's just people being people. Much of (1) isn't really about "capitalism". There's this natural tendency toward systems to consolidate. The way we think solar systems form, for example. The planets we see in orbit today aggregated and sucked-in smaller bodies in their path over time. Cities and countries follow the same pattern, it's just that their cycles are faster, so we see the end of it in the inevitable dissolution and destruction of the artifice. In terms of "capitalism", The British East India Company, The Union Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil, GM and AT&T were each the google/amazon/apple/facebook's of their days. Once the centralized powers are established it's no longer a "free market" system, especially when you factor in the dynamics of governments. Unfortunately, the simplified analyses like Marx - dressed up in incredibly tortured pretzel logic, if you read him, it's like he deliberately obfuscated what he meant as a way of establishing his intellectual superiority - these are attractive, as are the "capitalistic" counter-points to Marx. But there is a myopic distraction here, one that's designed to appeal to emotion in a context where emotion most often misleads. Well, I just want to be clear that in criticizing capitalism, I'm not defending or supporting ANY other model. In a sense, I think every model is inherently flawed. The way I am defining capitalism is extremely basic. It's the idea of weighing up what I have to offer (whether it's a thing, a skill, or anything else), in relation to what I want, and then offering what I have, to get what I want. It requires us to think in terms of 'having an edge'. From an LOA perspective, there are false assumptions within this approach. According to LOA, you never have to weigh up, or measure, what you have, in order to 'trade' it. You just have to 'ask' (focus) and 'it is given' (allow). If I accept LOA as true, which I do, I have to see capitalism as untrue, and I think the effects of this 'untrueness' are easy to observe. As capitalism has intensified, the exploitation, colonization and commodification of every aspect of life has intensified. I see it as an intensification of falsity. Nevertheless, of course I engage with this myself. And I can freely admit, there are times when I find it fun, especially when we bring creativity and play into it. In a sense, it's probably better that I do find it fun than constantly experience being at war with it. But by the same token that I allow it to be fun, I also allow myself to experience 'shame' or 'guilt' if I buy something which I know was made in a sweat shop. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:36:02 GMT -5
There's no human system - economic or otherwise - that's perfect, and economic systems in particular have many facets that directly express the existential error of mistaken identity. But the flip side is that human beings aren't really equipped to survive in the wild on our own, and to be generally anti-business is to (ultimately) be anti-human-life. Well, I think there's a level at which we could say that to be 'anti' anything is to be anti-human-life....anti rape, anti murder, anti theft....those things all happen as part of human life. I wouldn't put 'business' anywhere near the level of rape and murder, or even theft, but I would still say that if we simplify the universe into 2 categories...that which expresses universal principles, and that which goes against universal principles (i.e is underpinned by false understandings)....then I would have to put business in the category of goes against, along with rape and murder and theft. But reducing the situation down to just those 2 categories generally isn't useful, the reality of 'falsity' is much more nuanced. Business can be fun and playful, it has arguably brought a lot of good things to the world. Not sure the same can be said for rape, murder and theft, though arguably some murders have brought good to the world. How many people did the world support before the agricultural revolution, and how many after? How many people did the world support under a feudal agricultural system that suppressed commerce, and how many after that changed? How many people would die within a year if we suddenly somehow eliminated all commerce? How many people could the world support without some form of it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:40:39 GMT -5
My current critical view on Marx is that he became what he was railing against and he ultimately reduces the human condition to the mechanics of it. Yes I think I see what you mean here...and there's a lot to criticize. I had friends at university that would answer every sociology question from a Marxist point of view, and they'd get a decent grade, and it would annoy me a bit, because I found their answer to be lacking nuance and complexity. It's such an easy answer in a sense. On the other hand, you could never get an EXCELLENT grade by offering a Marxist view for that same reason. In his analysis of how capitalism works, and the direction it would take, I think he was pretty spot on though. WIBIGO here seems to me that the professors resent and fear people who succeeded in business, and I'm sure many of them reconciled their choice by imagining that it was the noble one. It's even an entire culture for decades now already. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 14:43:24 GMT -5
Well, I think there's a level at which we could say that to be 'anti' anything is to be anti-human-life....anti rape, anti murder, anti theft....those things all happen as part of human life. I wouldn't put 'business' anywhere near the level of rape and murder, or even theft, but I would still say that if we simplify the universe into 2 categories...that which expresses universal principles, and that which goes against universal principles (i.e is underpinned by false understandings)....then I would have to put business in the category of goes against, along with rape and murder and theft. But reducing the situation down to just those 2 categories generally isn't useful, the reality of 'falsity' is much more nuanced. Business can be fun and playful, it has arguably brought a lot of good things to the world. Not sure the same can be said for rape, murder and theft, though arguably some murders have brought good to the world. How many people did the world support before the agricultural revolution, and how many after? How many people did the world support under a feudal agricultural system that suppressed commerce, and how many after that changed? How many people would die within a year if we suddenly somehow eliminated all commerce? How many people could the world support without some form of it? Well, at no point since humans have begun trading...even in its most basic form....have we ever lived in alignment with universal principles. We have been bound to work 'by the sweat of our brow, to eat our bread'. Capitalism has been inevitable, necessary and useful for our evolution, and I'm definitely not suggesting we should suddenly stop, or suppress commerce. What I do believe is that a 'quantum leap' of some sort is possible...perhaps even inevitable...at some point. At which point we stop valuing and measuring what we have to offer, instead we begin a period of synchronistic giving and receiving. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 14:45:45 GMT -5
Yes I think I see what you mean here...and there's a lot to criticize. I had friends at university that would answer every sociology question from a Marxist point of view, and they'd get a decent grade, and it would annoy me a bit, because I found their answer to be lacking nuance and complexity. It's such an easy answer in a sense. On the other hand, you could never get an EXCELLENT grade by offering a Marxist view for that same reason. In his analysis of how capitalism works, and the direction it would take, I think he was pretty spot on though. WIBIGO here seems to me that the professors resent and fear people who succeeded in business, and I'm sure many of them reconciled their choice by imagining that it was the noble one. It's even an entire culture for decades now already. yeah might be a bit of truth to that, and in this regard, I think the situation has gotten worse since I was at university (mid 90s). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:47:19 GMT -5
The Buddha said that "the world is on fire". Consumption, you see, is a fact of life. A fact of time, and change. The toxic and violent aspects of the way people relate are because of the prelude in Genesis to the fratricide: the garden, the snake and the apple. An even bigger picture is available though. One that doesn't dismiss all the collateral damage and suffering of the people-peep, but that sees it clearly, and impersonally, for what it is .. just .. "the world on fire" ... What is your definition of 'consumption' here? It sort of implies to me a 'limited supply', but I could be misinterpreting, If so, I would say 'consumption' has been a fact of our world, but I don't see it as a fact of 'life' itself. If LOA is true, then there cannot be a limited supply. Breathing can be thought of as an act of consumption. But then again, that's ultimately the view through the eyes of a people-peep. There was a catchy line that was making the rounds of TV scripts a few years back: "oxygen thief".  .. (used to describe a jobsworth just taking up space and not producing anything, so, just in the way) .. Metabolism is an act of combustion ("the world is on fire") .. the process needs oxygen as fuel. Your metabolism "consumes" oxygen.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 24, 2021 14:53:04 GMT -5
What is your definition of 'consumption' here? It sort of implies to me a 'limited supply', but I could be misinterpreting, If so, I would say 'consumption' has been a fact of our world, but I don't see it as a fact of 'life' itself. If LOA is true, then there cannot be a limited supply. Breathing can be thought of as an act of consumption. But then again, that's ultimately the view through the eyes of a people-peep. There was a catchy line that was making the rounds of TV scripts a few years back: "oxygen thief". .. (used to describe a jobsworth just taking up space and not producing anything, so, just in the way) .. Metabolism is an act of combustion ("the world is on fire") .. the process needs oxygen as fuel. Your metabolism "consumes" oxygen. Oh okay, yes that definition works fine with me. Just want to add to something I said in previous message....although I don't believe any human cultures have been in a position to live fully in alignment with true universal principles, I DO think some have probably been much closer than others. I really shouldn't start naming them because I'm no anthropologist and so to an extent I'd been making them up, but I'm thinking in terms of Aboriginal culture for example. Cultures with deeper spiritual connection (which is very similar to how I perceive Russell Brand and what he wants). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:54:03 GMT -5
For me there's three ways to look at your "capitalism". (1) One is by the nihilistic, oppressive and unjust conditions we see happening. That's a focus on the negative, which isn't to deny those negative aspects, but it is to acknowledge a certain myopia. (2) Is by the positive products of the economic systems that have been arguably based on "capitalism". Pose this question: how is population growth related to "capitalism"? How is life different in "capitalistic" societies in terms of what you're calling "abundance"? Which economic systems resulted in the innovation that support the current population levels? (3) Is to just acknowledge that it's just people being people. Much of (1) isn't really about "capitalism". There's this natural tendency toward systems to consolidate. The way we think solar systems form, for example. The planets we see in orbit today aggregated and sucked-in smaller bodies in their path over time. Cities and countries follow the same pattern, it's just that their cycles are faster, so we see the end of it in the inevitable dissolution and destruction of the artifice. In terms of "capitalism", The British East India Company, The Union Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil, GM and AT&T were each the google/amazon/apple/facebook's of their days. Once the centralized powers are established it's no longer a "free market" system, especially when you factor in the dynamics of governments. Unfortunately, the simplified analyses like Marx - dressed up in incredibly tortured pretzel logic, if you read him, it's like he deliberately obfuscated what he meant as a way of establishing his intellectual superiority - these are attractive, as are the "capitalistic" counter-points to Marx. But there is a myopic distraction here, one that's designed to appeal to emotion in a context where emotion most often misleads. Well, I just want to be clear that in criticizing capitalism, I'm not defending or supporting ANY other model. In a sense, I think every model is inherently flawed. The way I am defining capitalism is extremely basic. It's the idea of weighing up what I have to offer (whether it's a thing, a skill, or anything else), in relation to what I want, and then offering what I have, to get what I want. It requires us to think in terms of 'having an edge'. From an LOA perspective, there are false assumptions within this approach. According to LOA, you never have to weigh up, or measure, what you have, in order to 'trade' it. You just have to 'ask' (focus) and 'it is given' (allow). If I accept LOA as true, which I do, I have to see capitalism as untrue, and I think the effects of this 'untrueness' are easy to observe. As capitalism has intensified, the exploitation, colonization and commodification of every aspect of life has intensified. I see it as an intensification of falsity. Nevertheless, of course I engage with this myself. And I can freely admit, there are times when I find it fun, especially when we bring creativity and play into it. In a sense, it's probably better that I do find it fun than constantly experience being at war with it. But by the same token that I allow it to be fun, I also allow myself to experience 'shame' or 'guilt' if I buy something which I know was made in a sweat shop. I'm reminded of "God helps those who help themselves". Perhaps one way to think of profit-seeking is simply a way that people attract. But this is beyond what my initial interest was here, which was to draw a distinction between the destructive effects of commercial/socio-economic systems, and the potentially positive effects of genuinely free-market action. It's all quite abstract, and, of course, any genuinely free markets never stay that way for long. Conversely, as every communist experiment seems to have demonstrated, there's no way of completely suppressing the emergence of markets, especially by brute force. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:56:32 GMT -5
How many people did the world support before the agricultural revolution, and how many after? How many people did the world support under a feudal agricultural system that suppressed commerce, and how many after that changed? How many people would die within a year if we suddenly somehow eliminated all commerce? How many people could the world support without some form of it? Well, at no point since humans have begun trading...even in its most basic form....have we ever lived in alignment with universal principles. We have been bound to work 'by the sweat of our brow, to eat our bread'. Capitalism has been inevitable, necessary and useful for our evolution, and I'm definitely not suggesting we should suddenly stop, or suppress commerce. What I do believe is that a 'quantum leap' of some sort is possible...perhaps even inevitable...at some point. At which point we stop valuing and measuring what we have to offer, instead we begin a period of synchronistic giving and receiving. Yes, well, I do admire your optimism in this regard and always have, even when I was mocking it. .. (** hangs head in shame **)  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 14:58:32 GMT -5
WIBIGO here seems to me that the professors resent and fear people who succeeded in business, and I'm sure many of them reconciled their choice by imagining that it was the noble one. It's even an entire culture for decades now already. yeah might be a bit of truth to that, and in this regard, I think the situation has gotten worse since I was at university (mid 90s). .. and I also have to admit that the truth value here is abstract, and obviously doesn't apply to everyone in that culture. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2021 15:01:25 GMT -5
Breathing can be thought of as an act of consumption. But then again, that's ultimately the view through the eyes of a people-peep. There was a catchy line that was making the rounds of TV scripts a few years back: "oxygen thief". .. (used to describe a jobsworth just taking up space and not producing anything, so, just in the way) .. Metabolism is an act of combustion ("the world is on fire") .. the process needs oxygen as fuel. Your metabolism "consumes" oxygen. Oh okay, yes that definition works fine with me. Just want to add to something I said in previous message....although I don't believe any human cultures have been in a position to live fully in alignment with true universal principles, I DO think some have probably been much closer than others. I really shouldn't start naming them because I'm no anthropologist and so to an extent I'd been making them up, but I'm thinking in terms of Aboriginal culture for example. Cultures with deeper spiritual connection (which is very similar to how I perceive Russell Brand and what he wants). Yes, I see your point here and don't dispute it - although I can imagine some of the criticisms and can see the validity in some of them as well. But, it brings us back to the notion of how big a population an aboriginal life can support. So then, we have to imagine something different .. something ... "next" .. |
|
.. (used to describe a jobsworth just taking up space and not producing anything, so, just in the way) ..