Can We Call This Progress?

[coberst]

Can We Call This Progress?

Rugged individualism might be an appropriate expression for all the creatures in the world, with one exception. Humans have, in the last few hundred years, moved from being rugged individuals to our present state in which we have fashioned an alien environment in which we have become chess pieces or ciphers. We have invented the Artificial Kingdom where, as Simone Weil once noted, “it is the thing that thinks and the man who is reduced to the state of the thing”.

I think that we, women and men, have become chess pieces. We have become objects to be manipulated by the market and the corporation. We spend our days like the chess piece; we have a quantified value and are placed on the board and used as desired by some one who may be a real person. The real person has still the human characteristics of creativity, spontaneity, improvisation, spontaneously reactive, discontinuous, a mosaic more than syntax or cipher. Just what we find is missing when using the telephone to contact someone out there.

In an effort to understand where we are now it might help to start back in time and move forward. In frontier days each person was very much an individual. Rugged individualism was a popular expression. Each man and woman was a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. Each husband and wife was a team that together could and had to do everything that was needed.

In early America we were an agricultural economy. Most families were farm families we were all rugged individualist. The farmer was very much the jack-of-all-trades and the master of his or her domain.

As we move forward in time we see this team become a man working in a factory or office and the woman was at home raising the children and maintaining the day to day necessities for all family members. She washed, cleaned, shopped, sewed, and was still much of a rugged individual. Slowly the man became a specialized worker in a clockwork factory or office.

Moving forward in history we arrive at the present moment where not only is the man working in the factory or office but the woman joins him there also.

When we examine the factory or office workspace we find a very different occupation for the man and woman than the rugged individualism of emerging history of human evolution. We no longer are masters of our own domain but are ciphers in a clockwork that functions upon modern economic principles.

A pertinent example of this mode of commodification is how we have converted what was political economics into the modern economics. Political economy is the study of social relations. It is the study of culture. Political economy focuses upon the problem of how to regulate industrialization within the context of a healthy society, it worries about the problems of labor within a context of the laborer as an end and not a commodity—an object of commerce.

Economics, however, in its modern form, has replaced political economics. Economics has removed the pesky concern about labor as being human and has replaced labor as being a commodity—an object of commerce. Modern economics is now the study of scarcity, prices, and resource allocation. Economics has legislated that labor, as an end, is no longer a legitimate domain of knowledge for economic consideration. In doing so, over time, society has become ignorant of such concerns. Our culture has replaced concern about humans as ends with humans as means to some other end.

In the rugged individualist mode of living the individual was creative and master even though the domain of mastery was small. An individual’s personality is dramatically affected. Labor has become an abstract quantity and calculated into the commodity produced. We are the only creatures who have completely removed our self from what we were evolved to be. We are the only creatures removed from our grounding in an organic world. We came from a long ancestry of rugged individualist and now reside in the Artificial Kingdom. To what end only time will tell.

Do you feel like a cipher in our culture?

[Lauxa]

I don't know about the "long ancestry" part. Most of our ancestors were probably peasants, not so long ago.

As societies become more complex and more dense, specialization of labor occurs. This allows the arts and the sciences to flourish, but it also relegates people -- lots of people -- into jobs that are somewhat less desirable. The rugged individualist concept worked because people were spread out enough. Farmers today still have some of that mindset, at least the ones I have met at farmers' markets and such. In the city there is less room for individualism and more need for order.

But there are still entrepreneurs in cities. Does that count?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I don't know about the "long ancestry" part. Most of our ancestors were probably peasants, not so long ago.

As societies become more complex and more dense, specialization of labor occurs. This allows the arts and the sciences to flourish, but it also relegates people -- lots of people -- into jobs that are somewhat less desirable. The rugged individualist concept worked because people were spread out enough. Farmers today still have some of that mindset, at least the ones I have met at farmers' markets and such. In the city there is less room for individualism and more need for order.

But there are still entrepreneurs in cities. Does that count?

I think that there is a great deal of difference between the farmers of yesterday and the entrepreneurs of today.

I am going to deal with numbers and ratios not that I think my numbers are accurate but I think they may be useful for comprehending certain things.

Suppose we establish a knowledge-to-understanding ratio, i.e. the amount we know divided by the amount we understand (i.e. need to create).

I would say that a frontier family might have K/U ratio of 20/1. As time passes and there is less need for understanding (creativity) and more need for knowing because the demands of the frontier diminish and ‘civilization’ encroaches I would say the K/U ratio might go to 50/1.

After one hundred years I suspect the ratio might easily move to 100/1; after leaving the farm and moving to town and going to work in the factory the ratio might very well go to 1000/1.

Today’s modern man or woman may very well have a ratio of 10,000/1. The person with a PhD might very well have a ratio 100,000/1.

I have heard college professors say that you never really understand a subject until you try to teach it. I suspect a PhD who is also a long time teacher might have developed an understanding of many things and thus dropped the ratio back to 10,000/1.

[Lauxa]

I don't understand your definitions of "knowledge" and "understanding", could you give some more concrete examples?

Is it like you know how to use a computer but you don't understand how it works? Is it a bad thing to use techonologies you don't understand? Does it diminish your creativity in some way?

[Fullcrum]

I do not think that is his point.

He's saying that there was a tendency, and in fact it did happen that people lost their humanity, creativity, and other qualities that were perhaps in better abundance in our early days, like creativity. For example, we no longer exercise the creativity required in helping us survive because that is no longer required in our civilization. Many people in survival situations remark that they've never felt so alive or had to act in such an instinctual way in their lives. It's an element we mostly lost as we moved into civilization.

But I think, that's one of the reasons we're here. To get in touch with that core of ourselves.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by coberst

Do you feel like a cipher in our culture?

I found that to be a surprising question to end up your post with. Are you suggesting that the way society has evolved as you see it -- from rugged individualism to an "Artificial Kingdom" -- is likely to have us feeling valueless?

My answer is no. Society's view of who I am has nothing to do with my own. Maybe that makes me an evolutionary throwback.

[Fullcrum]

That was probably a rhetorical question aimed at the general masses. If someone did feel like a pawn, this would probably connect with them and set them on a path of self-discovery. If you're already internally centered, it might seem like a funny question. Like "Oh no, I'm not part of the masses; I have values."

[Angela]

Oh. I guess that makes me a rugged individualist! And here I always thought of myself as a delicate flower.

[pianoperformer]

So, we've changed from having to fight to survive, to having the luxury to pursue what we like? I don't see the problem. We can specialize in one thing that we really enjoy, instead of having to do everything. If one is stuck in a meaningless job, one has to take responsibility for that and change it. In no way is society responsible for that. There is plenty of room for people to pursue their interests according to their skills.

Of course it's not perfect, but I much prefer it to your rugged individualism model.

[Fullcrum]

Society not responsible? Haha, I wish...

Many people lack that option of ultimate change becuase they do not realize it exists. Their reference experiences throughout their life do not point to people radically changing circumstances they do not like - instead they see everyone else doing the same thing they're doing, being discontented and not truly happy or alive. I bet most people rarely if ever question where they're going.

This is not a rhetorical question, but do you ever spend any sizeable amount of time with people America might consider "normal"? Do you ever talk to the average person not involved in the growth of their consciousness, lives, hell, even finances? These people generally don't know what they're doing, or they think they do and are just conditioned not to question their assumptions. They might think they're trapped, or they may feel "What I'm doing is fine," or "Well, that sounds really good or idealistic or whatnot...anyway, we're ordering pizza for dinner tonight..."

It's awesome that we have this option to persue this because we realize it. If other people realize it, they too could persue this. But do not think for a second that society has nothing to do with how people live or what options they think they have and do not have.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

I don't understand your definitions of "knowledge" and "understanding", could you give some more concrete examples?

Is it like you know how to use a computer but you don't understand how it works? Is it a bad thing to use techonologies you don't understand? Does it diminish your creativity in some way?

Comprehension is a hierarchy, resembling a pyramid, with awareness at the base followed by consciousness, succeeded by knowing, with understanding at the pinnacle.

I have concocted a metaphor set that might relay my comprehension of the difference between knowing and understanding.

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.


I am a retired engineer and my experience in the natural sciences leads me to conclude that these natural sciences are far more concerned with knowing than with understanding.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Angela

I found that to be a surprising question to end up your post with. Are you suggesting that the way society has evolved as you see it -- from rugged individualism to an "Artificial Kingdom" -- is likely to have us feeling valueless?

My answer is no. Society's view of who I am has nothing to do with my own. Maybe that makes me an evolutionary throwback.

My view was much like yours before I began my journey of what I call self-actualizating self-learning. I began this hobby about 25 years ago at mid-life.

The books of Ernest Becker were very helpful in developing my understanding.

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for the comprehension of why humans do as they do.

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

The only disagreement I have with Becker’s tapestry is in this solution he offers. I am convinced that he has failed to elaborate on an important step that is implied in his work but not given sufficient emphasis. That step is one wherein the general adult population takes up the responsibility that citizens of a democracy must take on; adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities.

[pianoperformer]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Society not responsible? Haha, I wish...

Many people lack that option of ultimate change becuase they do not realize it exists. Their reference experiences throughout their life do not point to people radically changing circumstances they do not like - instead they see everyone else doing the same thing they're doing, being discontented and not truly happy or alive. I bet most people rarely if ever question where they're going.

This is not a rhetorical question, but do you ever spend any sizeable amount of time with people America might consider "normal"? Do you ever talk to the average person not involved in the growth of their consciousness, lives, hell, even finances? These people generally don't know what they're doing, or they think they do and are just conditioned not to question their assumptions. They might think they're trapped, or they may feel "What I'm doing is fine," or "Well, that sounds really good or idealistic or whatnot...anyway, we're ordering pizza for dinner tonight..."

Seriously? Don't we all know people like that? How about my whole family, and most of my friends.

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

It's awesome that we have this option to persue this because we realize it. If other people realize it, they too could persue this. But do not think for a second that society has nothing to do with how people live or what options they think they have and do not have.

I see your point, but at least in this society, you have the opportunity. It is true that most never take that opportunity, but it exists, nevertheless. I am saying one needs to take responsibility and not blame it on society, because that's not going to get one anywhere. Just because few see the freedom, doesn't mean the freedom does not exist for everyone.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by coberst

My view was much like yours before I began my journey of what I call self-actualizating self-learning....We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death.

...adults must develop a hobby “get a life—get an intellectual life”. In other words, it will be necessary that a significant share of the general population first comprehend these matters sufficiently to recognize the need for the proposed changes to our colleges and universities.

Coberst, 25 years of self-actualizing self-learning has led you to the conclusion that we are victims of an evil world we have ourselves created out of fear of death?

And your solution is that more people need to wise up?

I don't mean to be flippant; I'm trying to boil down what you are saying so I can get it. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds very disempowering to me, because it sounds like you are saying things should be other than what they are, and people should do other than what they do. Am I misunderstanding?

[schola]

Rugged individualism FTW

[Doku]

Personally, I think that things are going exactly as planned. Back in the day (1900 - 1910ish), Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller were great philanthropists, and giving lots of money to establish schools, and pushing for major educational reform. Why is this? If they wanted to process steel in a new place, or run more trains, or ... they had to get people off the street, take the time, money, and effort to teach them the skills that they needed, etc. And they didn't even have a common starting point, so they didn't know what skills they would need to teach. If, however, everyone in all corners of the nation had the same exact skillset at a given age, then they could open a new factory anywhere in the US where the average wage was lowest, or shipping costs were lowest, or ... and could do so knowing exactly how long it would take to finish training the people. Furthermore, they would have to pay to teach less skills because the people paid taxes for public schools, and therefore paid for their own education. ie: free training as far as Morgan/Carnegie/... were concerned.

My opinion is this: Things are the way that they are because that's how the people with money want them to be. A nice happy consumer nation that has to "keep up with the Joneses", and will do as they are told on the job. They show up on time, eat on time, leave on time, etc. All in the name of ruthless efficiency, and profit. When they found that the shipping costs were much less than the labor costs, they started outsourcing jobs where the education+shipping+labor was cheaper than the labor in the US. When they found that the education in India was fairly good, they started outsourcing more high-tech things there, etc. All is going according to the master plan.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Doku

All is going according to the master plan.

No master plan. Just human nature. Everyone will act in their own self interest.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Angela

Coberst, 25 years of self-actualizing self-learning has led you to the conclusion that we are victims of an evil world we have ourselves created out of fear of death?

And your solution is that more people need to wise up?

I don't mean to be flippant; I'm trying to boil down what you are saying so I can get it. If I am understanding correctly, it sounds very disempowering to me, because it sounds like you are saying things should be other than what they are, and people should do other than what they do. Am I misunderstanding?

The independent Critical Thinker attempts to understand why humans do what they do and can they do it better.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by coberst

The independent Critical Thinker attempts to understand why humans do what they do and can they do it better.

I get that about you -- you are a philosopher. It looks like you think that understanding humans as "victims," and considering solutions that require others to be as they are not, is a viable pathway to doing it better, right? Does that help or inspire you, specifically, to do it better? Do you reckon that telling people they are victims and need to take on the "intellectual life" that you describe will help them (or society in general) to do it better?

Speaking for myself, understanding myself as a victim, or considering that others must be or do other than what they be and do, doesn't help me to do ti better -- that is, to be in love with my life. Am I so unusual, do you think?

[SomeRandomGuy]

This thread really resonated with me. I have spent a great deal of time lately thinking about how society of today compares to that of the past. There was a time when we were a self-sufficient people willing to endure many hardships to improve the life of our family (or simply for the sake of adventure). We have "progressed" into a society where very few (if any) people could survive on their own for any length of time. Furthermore, society in this country seems to have embraced the victim mentality, to the point that few people are willing to truly take responsibility for their actions and/or situations. There was a time when people were willing to do whatever they felt was necessary to improve their situation, even if that meant packing their belongings in a pack and heading into an unknown territory on foot, based on the rumor of a better life. Imagine the same situation today; a family has no money, no mode of transportation and the area in which they live has no available jobs. How many people do you think would be willing to walk 100 miles for even a guaranteed job. How about 1,000 miles for the possibility of a job? No, I suspect most would feel like a victim, and expect the government to bail them out.

I am sure there are individuals who have truly progressed. But I feel that overall, as a society, people are weaker now than ever. I know I am weaker in most regards than my ancestors. I am not self-sufficient, and seriously doubt I ever will be. I don't think I would be willing to walk halfway across the country in hopes of a better situation for me and my family. I would like to think I would, but realistically I don't think I would.

I find it difficult to see progress in a society were the majority of citizens could not survive without a car or electricity. People survived for thousands of years without those things. The panic over $4.00 gas doesn't seem very progressive to me. The ability to say, "I'm not going to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, I'll find an alternative.", now that is progressive.

[Fullcrum]

I'm with that random guy (lol ) ^^

Angela, I don't really see the problem with this post. Most people in our society act like victims and think of themselves as victims. Is that not obvious to you? If we weren't, the vast majority of people would be much happier and living the lives of their dreams. How do I know this is not so? Go walk down the street and look in their faces. I do not see the faces of conscious individuals, but zombies. I also see a great deal of potential in each of them, but most do not even know it exists.

Would you not rather hear something not pretty that nonetheless reflects the truth for the vast majority of people? Or do you just want to live in the bubble of positivty? When the bad is acknowledged, the positivity possesses a kind of depth to it. It's something Eckhart Tolle describes well.

[Angela]

Fullcrum, you are misunderstanding. There is no problem, and there is no good or bad about what either you are saying or what coberst said -- two entirely different things, by the way. You say that people think and act like victim zombies and that they don't realize they have potential (presumably if they woke up); coberst says we actually are victims of an evil world we create to flee our fear of