Better Way To Live?

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

If you read the third paragraph down from the top they advocate moving beyond civilization

What definition of "civilization" are you using, and why?

I'm happy to discuss any civilization from past or present and how each one might contain positive or negative characteristics we can learn from, but I'm especially concerned about Western Civilization because I think its objectives which have been building for centuries are the primary cause of the destruction we see around us today (infinite growth on a finite planet causing climate disruption, patriarchal notions of those at the top hoarding too much and not considering those with less, among others).

I'm pretty sure Western Civilization was what the author was considering when he wrote the fable I opened with. I'm only just beginning the book by Daniel Quinn it was taken from, named 'Beyond Civilization:Humanity's Next Great Adventure'. He's also the author of Ishmael, an entertaining book I read some years ago.

Not sure where how getting the Soylent Green overpopulation stuff out of his book -- maybe you should read it or at least some quality reviews?
About tribes....tribes, just like people, are not bad in and of themselves....it's what those tribes or people do that makes the difference.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, sirhc DeSantis said:

Thank you OP for confirming that this 'general' section serves no useful purpose for LL or the vast majority of users. And yet some proportion of what we pay still must flow towards it.

We have a vast virtual world here - use it.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to pick on me when there is and always has been a smattering of real life topics in the General section. Looking now I see threads with concerns about being "soulless", what makes a person happy, and the constant presence of pet peeves from both RL & SL. Whatever, the only comment you've ever made to me has been one of criticism, so carry on.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Porphyry Kimono said:

What exactly was so wonderful about these imaginary tribes?

First, let me say I am not speaking for all tribes, but only some I've studied, and I'm certainly not an anthropologist, but I have read and experienced some amazing ways of relating to the world these tribes embody which is markedly absent from Western Civilization.
 
Probably the best way to describe the unusual ways of relating some tribes express is evident in the unusual connection to nature so profound that the word 'sacred' doesn't even do it justice -- nature is seen as a gift one gives thanks for when one's needs are supplied from it. Nature is also appreciated for what it is in and of itself instead of viewed in the spirit of entitlement where one feels they have a god-given right to conquer it in any way they please. We tend not to care for what we feel automatically entitled to, what we only consider as existing for our selfish concerns. And this lack of caring for nature, of feeling we are separate from and superior to it, will likely be our downfall as a species.

Some may say that 'sacred' is an old-fashioned notion, or a concept that belongs to the realm of poets and so not practical for our material reality. But if we had been relating to nature with such appreciation all along we would have cared and tended to it in an appropriate manner and attempted to live in balance with it in the ways Native Americans were so good at. We would have limited the destruction visited upon it. We would not be facing the 6th great extinction, which includes the destruction of humans as well. The global temperature is rising along with the seas, the storms are increasing in intensity, the fires are burning larger and in more places each year.

So I think I've answered what's so great about some of these tribes.

[Rowan Amore]

23 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's a Luna thread, if we tell left, she'll come with right, if we tell right it will be left.. so all answers and replies are OK, true or not, right and wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Luna Bliss]

It was a pink post that went through.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Nick0678]

Talking about tribes.. these folks are cool.

 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Nick0678

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

Modern tribalism exists today with political party affiliation even though most members (moderates) cherry pick the ideology/policies as they do with their religion.

I'm really not sure what kind of tribalism Quinn advocates because I've just started the book. There are, however, good kinds of tribes.  I just started the discussion with his book because he's advocating some kind of 'better way' we can explore and agree or disagree with, and I liked his old book Ishmael.

I'm also starting another interesting book dealing with possible ways we can make a better future, by Riane Eisler, named 'Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future'.

"Nurturing Our Humanity offers a new perspective on our personal and social options in today's world, showing how we can build societies that support our great human capacities for consciousness, caring, and creativity. It brings together findings--largely overlooked--from the natural and
social sciences debunking the popular idea that we are hard-wired for selfishness, war, r-a-p-e, and greed. Its groundbreaking new approach reveals connections between disturbing trends like climate change denial and regressions to strongman rule. Moving past right vs. left, religious vs. secular,
Eastern vs. Western, and other familiar categories that do not include our formative parent-child and gender relations, it looks at where societies fall on the partnership-domination scale. On one end is the domination system that ranks man over man, man over woman, race over race, and man over
nature. On the other end is the more peaceful, egalitarian, gender-balanced, and sustainable partnership system".

She was the author of the old classic 'The Chalice & The Blade'.

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

34 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's a Luna thread, if we tell left, she'll come with right, if we tell right it will be left.. so all answers and replies are OK, true or not, right and wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

Some people contribute to threads and some people just like to fight. What can I say except enjoy your reality!

[Theresa Tennyson]

13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Not sure where how getting the Soylent Green overpopulation stuff out of his book -- maybe you should read it or at least some quality reviews?
About tribes....tribes, just like people, are not bad in and of themselves....it's what those tribes or people do that makes the difference.

I didn't get it out of his "book" (one of many he's written) because you didn't bother telling us your source and I had to hunt. Here's what I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Race

Tribes, by nature, have "in-tribe" and "outsider" dynamics. With a group of chimpanzees wearing socks, as human are basically, that's usually a recipe for trouble. You seem to have a love of subgroup identity. I've spent too much time on the wrong side of that to share that love.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Not sure where how getting the Soylent Green overpopulation stuff out of his book -- maybe you should read it or at least some quality reviews?
About tribes....tribes, just like people, are not bad in and of themselves....it's what those tribes or people do that makes the difference.

I didn't get it out of his "book" (one of many he's written) because you didn't bother telling us your source and I had to hunt. Here's what I was referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Race

Tribes, by nature, have "in-tribe" and "outsider" dynamics. With a group of chimpanzees wearing socks, as human are basically, that's usually a recipe for trouble. You seem to have a love of subgroup identity. I've spent too much time on the wrong side of that to share that love.

So far I haven't seen anything about a food race in this new book...not even sure it's part of it. Should we totally diss an author because he has some ideas we might not agree with though?

Oh I don't like what can happen in groups either, but the thing is, some amazingly positive things happen in groups too! The reality is that we just can't make these changes alone, so we better pair up with those who are attempting to do at least some of what we believe in.  We need many minds thinking and working together to make a dent in these massive changes which need to happen.

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything about a food race in this new book...

It's over twenty years old. 

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

So far I haven't seen anything about a food race in this new book...

It's over twenty years old. 

Yes I said this new book...the one new to me that I'm reading...

I read a couple of the Ishmael ones years ago.

[Luna Bliss]

Hmmm...a quick search about what Quinn refers to as "new tribalism":

"New tribalism is a theory by queer Chicana feminist Gloria E. Anzaldúa to disrupt the matrix of imposed identity categories that the hegemonic culture imposes on people in order to maintain its power and authority.

Anzaldúa states that new tribalism is a way to think forward, that is to acknowledge:

[that] existing language is based on the old concepts; we need a new language to speak about new situations, the new realities. There's no such thing as pure categories anymore... categories contain, imprison, limit, and keep us from growing. We have to disrupt those categories and invent new ones. The new ones will only be good for a few years and then somebody will come along and say, 'These categories don't work, you didn't take into account this other part of reality.' Someone will come up with their own concepts. To me these categories are very much in transition. They're impermanent, fluid, not fixed. That's how I look at identity and race and gender and sexual orientation. It's not something that's forever and ever true.^[5]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_tribalism}

Well that's all very academically interesting....I think the last chapter in Quinn's book has some concrete ways we can apply all this.  Anyway, it appears this is what Quinn's book is about.

[VaelFaye]

[Ceka Cianci]

32 minutes ago, VaelFaye said:

And to wash it down.

[Silent Mistwalker]

7 hours ago, Ayeleeon said:

Mankind needs to learn to once again live in harmony with nature, not as we once did because we had no choice. But a new harmony, that sees nature as a treasure to be valued and enjoyed rather than as a threat to be feared and fought with.

Not all indigenous peoples saw nature as a constant threat to be feared and fought. Most, in fact, revered nature (still do) and did their part to nurture it as well as enjoy living in it. The only real fear was fear of other humans. The rest was just part of life. You either lived and learned or you died. They didn't fear death any more than humans of today.

[Silent Mistwalker]

56 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

And to wash it down.

 

Got anything nonalcoholic?

 

[Nalates Urriah]

Start with an intellectual mess and it usually gets messier.

So… what did the writer mean by “civilization” and “tribe”. The writing implies they are different but defines neither. A style of writing most common with propagandists. It leaves everyone arguing about their concept of the two and never bothering to clean things up to enable reaching a civilized consensus.

The writing implies forms of political systems. As the actual definitions of the concepts of “civilization” and “tribe” makes comparison of the two nonsensical.

The addition of economic casts farther shows an intent to attempt to compare mislabeled socioeconomic systems.

When the king character says there is nothing beyond or more advanced than “civilization” he is right. Those that believe there is something beyond being civilized are sadly lacking and understanding of the concept of “civilized” or "civilization."

Once people have individual freedom any movement from there is regressive, less free.

Tribes can be civilized or not. SL residents could be considered a tribe. It is debatable whether we are civilized or not.

Read the definitions and think about it.

 

Full Definition of civilization – Merriam-Webster

1a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained

b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
                the impact of European civilization on the lands they colonized

2 : the process of becoming civilized
                civilization is a slow process with many failures and setbacks

3a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste exhibiting a high level of civilization

b : a situation of urban comfort
                               Our African safari was quite interesting, but it was great to get back to civilization.

Definition of civilized

: characteristic of a state of civilization
                civilized society especially: characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint

Definition of tribe

1            a : a social group composed chiefly of numerous families, clans, or generations having a shared ancestry and language

b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome

c : phyle

2 : a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest [sounds like SL residents]

3 : a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank
                // the cat tribe
                // the rose tribe

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

30 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

When the king character says there is nothing beyond or more advanced than “civilization” he is right. Those that believe there is something beyond being civilized are sadly lacking and understanding of the concept of “civilized” or "civilization."

 

How does the definition you cited support that?

 

32 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Once people have individual freedom any movement from there is regressive, less free.

 

In what setting does an individual have greater freedom; within civilization or outside of it?

[Nalates Urriah]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How does the definition you cited support that?

 

In what setting does an individual have greater freedom; within civilization or outside of it?

I think you should reread the definitions...

If you think one might have more freedom inside or outside of a civilized society, you definitely haven't picked up the meaning of being civilized.

[Theresa Tennyson]

9 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I think you should reread the definitions...

If you think one might have more freedom inside or outside of a civilized society, you definitely haven't picked up the meaning of being civilized.

Theresa Tennyson nods and smiles.

Rousseau would say that civilization is the opposite of freedom.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[cunomar]

Tribes were and still are civilization , they just got bigger .

The credit note , which later became known as money is what messed things up . Prior to that the survival of each and every individual was wholly dependent on producing something worthwhile with which to barter .

[Lindal Kidd]

Maybe there IS something "better" than civilization. However, before we throw civilization under the bus, let's not forget that civilization is what has enabled a relatively small number of creative, innovative people to build up the knowledge and the infrastructure that we have today as a species.

It is not without its problems. That infrastructure (along with the simple fact that there's 8 billion of us) is the cause of climate change, deforestation, pollution, and species extinctions. There is still a huge number of impoverished people. But it has also been the means for a larger percentage of us to enjoy longer and richer lives than was ever possible under tribalism.

Any "better way to live" must enable that creative minority at least as well as our current system.

[Luna Bliss]

10 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Maybe there IS something "better" than civilization. However, before we throw civilization under the bus, let's not forget that civilization is what has enabled a relatively small number of creative, innovative people to build up the knowledge and the infrastructure that we have today as a species.

It is not without its problems. That infrastructure (along with the simple fact that there's 8 billion of us) is the cause of climate change, deforestation, pollution, and species extinctions. There is still a huge number of impoverished people. But it has also been the means for a larger percentage of us to enjoy longer and richer lives than was ever possible under tribalism.

Any "better way to live" must enable that creative minority at least as well as our current system.

I agree there are some great things about our civilization I would not want to lose -- the knowledge and infrastructure you speak to.

But the wealth which enabled the above -- I feel uneasy about how we acquired that.  I don't think it was because of our great civilization, but because we r-a-p-e-d and pillaged our way around the globe and stole the resources from other people. Starting with stealing the land from the Natives in our own country, soon followed by enslaving Blacks in the cotton fields to give us a good start in wealth accumulation compared to other countries that benefits us to this very day.

What caused this maltreatment of so many people?  I'm wondering if such a large organization of people that a civilization implies, is just too large to achieve a measure of equity for all and so a percentage of the population will always suffer deprivation and abuse with this system, as it fosters a lack of empathy for those who are faceless and unknown. But a tribe, a smaller social organization, is aware of and in contact with all members of its organization, and so might be more able to take care of all appropriately.
This could be the very reason why our civilization is in the process of collapsing, and in its wake might be smaller social organizations -- tribes.

[Luna Bliss]

12 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Rousseau would say that civilization is the opposite of freedom.

What did he propose in its place?