Stress R Us: human overpopulation and the deteriorating environment; sickening humans

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

121 posts / 0 new

Comments

So now I’m feeling frustrated, because I felt I’d expressed my points clearly and succinctly enough for others to comprehend, and yet those points missed their mark, at least with you, .ren, even though I appreciate your responding to my comment. Did I imply that matriarchy would be a great alternative to what we have here and now? I don’t think so.

I mentioned balance. Societies that divvy up roles to males and females, including some of those listed at your link Six Modern Societies Where Women Literally Rule, do not strike me as balanced nor gender-enlightened. In fact, the Minangkabau, where the tribe apportions roles according to sex/gender (“...women usually rule the domestic realm while the men take the political and spiritual leadership roles. However, both genders feel the separation of powers keeps them on an equal footing...”), strikes me as no more enlightened than the most hard-boiled, evangelically misogynistic system of the proper roles for men and women. James Dobson would approve wholeheartedly! And “separation of powers?” How do women find full freedom under that idea?

Toxic masculinity refers to a deep indoctrination boys and men receive in our culture as to how to control and dominate, while also appearing not to be controlled nor dominated, not ever. I do not see it as mere pride of achievement. I myself praised my sons for their true achievements, or even in small ones, because to my mind that’s an aspect of love. For example, your son finally learns to tie his shoelaces— “Wow, look at you! Great job!” That’s not teaching toxic masculinity; it’s teaching “I love you.”

Boys learn toxic masculinity by hearing “big boys don’t cry” and other terrible things. That’s something my sons never once heard. Never. When my youngest son lost his first wife to colon cancer, he sobbed uncontrollably at her funeral, all the while trying to speak about how wonderful she was. Now he has two beautiful daughters, has changed careers, and is married to a strong woman who teaches at a university. My point— despite my praises, he has managed to avoid the toxic masculinity trap and is thriving, as a balanced human being.

Sometimes arrogance wishes to hide itself behind a mask of self-deprecation. It does not mean the absence of toxic masculinity, not necessarily.

Toxic Masculinity and Murder - - Can we talk about men.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Chomsky on Hume's paradox

Hume's Paradox of Power:

Quote Chomsky:

(In answer to the question, how does power sustain itself) “If you think about it, power is always in the hands of the people who are oppressed. It's in the hands of the governed. They really have the power.

This simple notion became apparent to me in a kind of dreamlike vision as I was lying in my “rack” (what we called our stacked bunk beds on the ships in the Navy) early one morning before reveille in early February -- I think the date was the 7th -- of 1967. I'd been struggling for most of the year since I went into boot camp in 1966 with my revulsion at the oppression of authoritarianism that I encountered and was immersed in after entering and taking part in the military institution itself. The way it came to me was like this: I simply thought to myself that if we all got the idea at the same time that we didn't want to go along with the management (command authority as Chomsky terms it in reference to authoritarian societies); we could simply and effortlessly throw down all their weapons of war they had us handling on command and walk away, leaving them screaming their orders at our backs. It was such a simple idea that it just blew my mind. I've been picking up the scattered pieces ever since. I can't express how heartwarming it was to me when I heard Chomsky relate his version of my vision and I saw the obvious, common sense connections.

around 1:14 minutes:

Quote Chomsky:

Control their opinion and you got 'em. That means you change their aspirations, you restrict their aspirations to personal things, to commodities, to break down the natural bonds among people, force them to forget what they understand... that they basically want freedom and independence and justice and so on. Everybody... a child understands that, you have to work really hard to drive that out of their heads, and if you can drive it out of their heads, control their opinions, then they'll submit, whether you're a brutal state or a more free society. In fact it's more important in a free society – in the 20th Century. In Hume's day there wasn't much difference. Every society was absolutist. But as the societies differentiated over the years, with popular struggles and ____ franchise and so on and so forth, the difference between the freer societies and the more totalitarian or command societies became clearer, and a point began to be understood that Hume didn't talk about and that control of opinion is much more important in the free societies.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Here’s a better article on toxic masculinity, one referenced in the Atlantic article: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/overcompensation_nation_its_time_to_admit_that_toxic_masculinity_drives_gun_violence/

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

So now I’m feeling frustrated, because I felt I’d expressed my points clearly and succinctly enough for others to comprehend, and yet those points missed their mark, at least with you, .ren, even though I appreciate your responding to my comment. Did I imply that matriarchy would be a great alternative to what we have here and now? I don’t think so.

If you are referring to my post #46 and not Alberto's #45 -- pardon my confusion thanks to this board's ever screwing up of post numbers when we reply -- but as I re-read my post in response to the above, I see that my entire post never once said anything about your implying matriarchy would be a better alternative to anything.

Everything I've been writing about, and especially my post number 46, is about the problems that arise with complexity and hierarchy in societal organization. This involves a structure of authoritarianism involving two parts: dominance and submission. These are roles that people must play in those societies or they won't be organized that way (which I personally would be just fine with). That social structure, when formalized and thus institutionalized, leads to pretty much any forms of archy (matriarchy, patriarchy, etc.) that embody the meaning "to rule." And, I strongly suspect, in necessary combination where "to rule" becomes an omnipresence in the social order, especially if not questioned by those at the lower levels of a pyramid form that management hierarchies make when mapped. Anarchism, on the other hand, is, as the prefix implies (similar to the prefix in atheist), to be against anything of that nature, so I've brought that into my discussion.

What I made most of my argument about in post #46 is the addiction to being given recognition. In a society where rank is the epitome of being admired, then it's quite likely that people who don't feel they are getting their share of socially approved recognition will have a reaction of some kind. Some may become depressed, some may become accepting of their submissive role, some may become toxic as members of society, since they tend to seek behaving within the confines of the cultural norms and begin to do things that aren't culturally acceptable, like murdering fifty people or so in a night club. They may exert their conditioned need for dominance in bizarre ways on socially recognized inferiors in the hierarchy pyramid.

What people are now calling toxic masculinity is what I see as an outgrowth of a system of dominance and submission -- not something uniquely separate -- an order that, for the most part, people accept as necessary and natural. From an anarchistic point of view, all dominance and submission not questioned and demanded that it justify itself is toxic to our human nature. Boys learn to be dominant by being given examples of domination and being shown that society, both men and women, will admire them for this behavior. This conditioning goes far beyond the nuclear family home environment. There are many variations in how this conditioning takes place that I'm sure anyone who takes the trouble to look will notice.

Quote Zenzoe:

Toxic Masculinity and Murder - - Can we talk about men.

I prefer to talk about society and how it, as a whole system, creates the gender roles that people ascribe to as their own, and play out in various ways. I simply can't imagine how anyone can talk about how some men are weak and feel a need to murder people because they aren't being served with enough admiration to assuage their need for admiration without recognizing the social aspects that behaviorally condition people to seek admiration.

As I said in my post number 46, Margaret Mead noticed something she phrased as "the males' need for achievement can be recognized"(cross culturally).

Well, I'm inclined to ask, is this cross cultural observation for a "need for achievement recognition in males" inherent in being male? That is, is it a biological need? Or is it a socially conditioned need? Or perhaps some combination of the two? To question whether it's strictly a culturally unmodifiable biological need I brought in the gathering/hunting societies as an example where the men and the women down play their need for recognition in deference to their recognition that they all rely upon each other for survival. Of course, as you point out, that could be a 100,000 year sham that finally has emerged as the truth of masculinity now that we have progressed to a stage we call civilization.

Your referenced articles also seem to recognize there might be something to do with social context (which I consider to be the structure of hierarchy and the social conditioning that prepares us to take part in the hierarchy of roles) in these behaviors:

Quote Toxic Masculinity and Murder:

Toxicity of anything in life is only ever a matter of context. And today’s context is one where a dangerous, militant sect is trying to radicalize volatile people who live in the country where weapons are the most plentiful in the world. Today’s context is that on top of all that, there are men who are full of insecurity and expected to express themselves only in certain, limited ways.

And a bit more sophisticated and much easier for me to relate to a structure of social hierarchy and the need to get people to play those hierarchy roles involving dominance and submission:

Quote Overcompensation Nation: It's time to admit that toxic masculinity drives gun violence:

So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

I remain convinced that the desire for recognition plays no major role in the toxicity we're talking about. It's only human to wish for appreciation of one's talents and abilities.

That's enough for now from me. It's time for lunch. I'll have to see what else bubbles up, after re-reading what you wrote. Who knows, perhaps I'll change my mind.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

@07:00+/- "I think the states should dissolve, they are illegitimate" The state=civilization in my mind. So the states are bastards?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

I remain convinced that the desire for recognition plays no major role in the toxicity we're talking about. It's only human to wish for appreciation of one's talents and abilities.

That's enough for now from me. It's time for lunch. I'll have to see what else bubbles up, after re-reading what you wrote. Who knows, perhaps I'll change my mind.

Ok, Someone comes up with a label, 'toxic masculinity,' applies it to the latest repulsive behavior in an utterly toxic (to me) society, and now I'm at fault for failing to make an issue of that particular definition of some not entirely surprising to me aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior.

To me, all forms of unchallengeable dominance with expected submission, in any form, is toxic. I don't care if it's masculine or feminine. This is a toxic society to me.

In 1966 I got off the bus in a place called boot camp that I found to be one of the most toxic environments I had ever experienced to that day in my life, and it has seldom been equaled in any environment I've been in since -- though my experiences in corporate America with its little private tyrannies everyone actually wants to work in are not far behind.

I strongly suspect that I am shocked and repulsed each and every day by what I see around me in much the same way the person who came up with the adjective 'toxic' for the noun 'masculinity' in response to mass shootings. I can't seem to get over it. I have to live with my personal reactions to what other people seem to be comfortable with. It's like a neurotic affliction for me. You may think what I'm saying is an abstract analysis. To me, I'm just describing what I see kind of like a paranoid schizophrenic endlessly describing their visions. It's like when I look at a building, I can see the bones, as we like to call them, of what makes it possible to stand without falling into a heap of unstructured materials.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote douglaslee:

@07:00+/- "I think the states should dissolve, they are illegitimate" The state=civilization in my mind. So the states are bastards?

Yeah, I looked at that one this morning. I couldn't help it when I saw the title: "Interviewer gets fucked by Chomsky"

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Quote .ren:

Ok, Someone comes up with a label, 'toxic masculinity,' applies it to the latest repulsive behavior in an utterly toxic (to me) society, and now I'm at fault for failing to make an issue of that particular definition of some not entirely surprising to me aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior.

You may think of “toxic masculinity” as a label, with all the negative connotations attached for you to the word label, but then, if we’re going to be fair, we will have to hold in suspicion each and every term or noun we use to describe anything at all, including “toxic society.”

I didn’t, and don't, find you “at fault,” .ren. The ignoring of toxic masculinity —as a fundamental sickness underlying so much of what goes haywire— pervades our public conversations wherever issues come up. For example, how often do you hear the subject come up in the news media? Can't say it 'cause it's a "feminist perspective" and an ultimate taboo, no doubt, because to mention it is to undermine the values, rules and beliefs contained in patriarchy and capitalism. It's subversive, big time, and it won't be allowed.

Quote .ren:

To me, all forms of unchallengeable dominance with expected submission, in any form, is toxic. I don't care if it's masculine or feminine. This is a toxic society to me.

And see, I think toxic masculinity drives from underneath, among other spirits, and informs the kind of society that evolves. Toxic masculinity is a spirit, or even a poison, not a final destination. Infuse your growing society with the greed, aggression, fear and lust for power and control, such characteristics we now recognize as toxic masculinity, and your society grows up sick.

You can see a spirit of aggression in the paintings of Jackson Pollock. The spirit comes before the painting.

Similarly, you can see a spirit of tenderness in the paintings of Vermeer. (example) There too— first comes the spirit, then the painting evolves according to the spirit of its maker.

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

Don’t blame the society; blame its maker.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

P.S. and btw to my last comment: The importance of naming.

How Naming Confers Dignity Upon Life and Gives Meaning to Existence. The article mostly looks from the positive angle of naming.

At the top a quote appears: "Finding the words is another step in learning to see,” which is identified later in the article as from Susan Sontag. The context goes: "Having words for these forms makes the differences between them so much more obvious. With words at your disposal, you can see more clearly. Finding the words is another step in learning to see."

So, that's in the context of a tender dignity. One could also insist that having words for sicknesses, for inhumane acts or people, may also allow one to see more clearly, as we learn to see what's true, what's underneath. It's the darker view, but such a view also confers dignity, because it isn't kitsch. Kitsch refuses to look at the ugly side. As Milan Kundera said so very well, "Kitsch is the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the figurative senses of the word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially unacceptable in human existence." He named it and made it visible in doing so. That way we can know it when we see it, because it has a name.

Obviously, on the other hand, we know that some things cannot be named; they're either ineffable, or they're so unutterably horrific, they're beyond description. Toxic masculinity is not one of those. It's a namable, identifiable thing.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

This:

Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Obviously, on the other hand, we know that some things cannot be named; they're either ineffable, or they're so unutterably horrific, they're beyond description. Toxic masculinity is not one of those. It's a namable, identifiable thing.

Toxic masculinity is not a sole cause, but it comes first as a spirit that imbues the sickness I see all around me. And now it's a thing. So toxic masculinity is not a label, it's a noun, and toxic is not an adjective, it's an integral part of the thing itself. That's more than my poor mind can wrap itself around. I am very sorry for my intellectual inadequacy here.

I personally have no problem with naming in whatever way anyone wants to if they want to make sense of their world. That's what I acknowledge and respect as differences that we must take into account when we attempt to discuss any issue. Many people I've read on the topic seem to recognize that the more diversified and complex the society, the more likely there are to be compartmentalized versions of language with their unique versions of naming. That a common language of agreed upon names for large societies is difficult to achieve unless it's enforced through some system of authority, or at the very least, a very carefully controlled propaganda program as, for instance, described by Herman and Chomsky in their theory about Manufacturing Consent. Well, I don't know, that seems to make sense, but I have no way as an individual to confirm any such theories as truth with any objective, scientific method. Could even explain your frustration that no one in the media wants to talk about toxic masculinity.

Other than that, I'm really out of words, since my naming of the underlying structures that emerge as the many toxic variants in domination and subordination that I see in the society I was born into -- which are not restricted to sex in my observations, but perhaps they can be decided upon as gender related -- are not specific enough for you. I'm afraid I'll have to leave this matter to you and any others who can grasp these complexities.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

I have seen on fox some women bitching about how the liberals have feminized society, and thus the cause of all anxiety. They do like likud style slaughters, so maybe to nazis the US is feminized.

I don't see toxic masculinity over here. With two daughters, married to a girl with two sisters, and in a fairly advanced country I think I would be aware. Dya think I'm in a feminized world?

I do like categorizing, organizing, and defining*. However, the definitions are always mine and what they mean to me. I liked your 'bones' reference .ren. I bet we all have our own language, or mental dialects? Within the current controlled media, finding definitions for social aberrations is worthwhile and necessary if the topic is to be addressed in a serious way.

*Graphic arts was taught in my school too. Design study seeks control and some call it anal retentive. I straightened a picture frame at my doctors office last week.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote .ren:

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

Ås anyone who has objectively and fairly followed this thread should be able to see, I write every bit as clearly as you do. We simply disagree on certain points. However, apparently I have hit a nerve, and so my clear statements, taken out of context, get presented as confusing. How about just considering the possibility that reasonable people just might disagree from time to time?

I choose not to defend my writing. But if you want me to parse your sentences and paragraphs, demonstrating problems of clarity there, I’ll be glad to do so. Just say the word.

Quote .ren:

Toxic masculinity is not a sole cause, but it comes first as a spirit that imbues the sickness I see all around me. And now it's a thing. So toxic masculinity is not a label, it's a noun, and toxic is not an adjective, it's an integral part of the thing itself. That's more than my poor mind can wrap itself around. I am very sorry for my intellectual inadequacy here.

I personally have no problem with naming in whatever way anyone wants to if they want to make sense of their world. That's what I acknowledge and respect as differences that we must take into account when we attempt to discuss any issue. Many people I've read on the topic seem to recognize that the more diversified and complex the society, the more likely there are to be compartmentalized versions of language with their unique versions of naming. That a common language of agreed upon names for large societies is difficult to achieve unless it's enforced through some system of authority, or at the very least, a very carefully controlled propaganda program as, for instance, described by Herman and Chomsky in their theory about Manufacturing Consent. Well, I don't know, that seems to make sense, but I have no way as an individual to confirm any such theories as truth with any objective, scientific method. Could even explain your frustration that no one in the media wants to talk about toxic masculinity.

Other than that, I'm really out of words, since my naming of the underlying structures that emerge as the many toxic variants in domination and subordination that I see in the society I was born into -- which are not restricted to sex in my observations, but perhaps they can be decided upon as gender related -- are not specific enough for you. I'm afraid I'll have to leave this matter to you and any others who can grasp these complexities.

Oye, thanks for ‘splaining all that to me.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Derrick Jensen is a prominent member of Deep Green Resistance. He uses the terms “man box” and “cult of masculinity.” He’s a radical feminist. He gets that a discussion of the concept of “toxic masculinity” fits perfectly with discussions about toxic civilization.

Quote DGR:

Guiding Principles of Deep Green Resistance Statement of Principles

The soil, the air, the water, the climate, and the food we eat are created by complex communities of living creatures. The needs of those living communities are primary; individual and social morality must emerge from a humble relationship with the web of life.

...

Deep Green Resistance works to end abuse at the personal, organizational, and cultural levels. We also strive to eradicate domination and subordination from our private lives and sexual practices. Deep Green Resistance aligns itself with feminists and others who seek to eradicate all social domination and to promote solidarity between oppressed peoples.

...

Deep Green Resistance is a radical feminist organization. Men as a class are waging a war against women. Rape, battering, incest, prostitution, pornography, poverty, and gynocide are both the main weapons in this war and the conditions that create the sex-class women. Gender is not natural, not a choice, and not a feeling: it is the structure of women’s oppression. Attempts to create more “choices” within the sex-caste system only serve to reinforce the brutal realities of male power. As radicals, we intend to dismantle gender and the entire system of patriarchy which it embodies. The freedom of women as a class cannot be separated from the resistance to the dominant culture as a whole.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In Doubters-Companion-Dictionary-Aggressive-Common-Sense, Saul has an entry for Edmund Burke. Neocons have adopted him and cite him as a patriarch or godfather of their movement. Saul says he would be appalled as he worked to prevent so much of what they stand for. It's easy to label (and libel) the dead.

"Burke appears to be the victim of a peculiar longstanding cooperation between the intellectuals of the Left and Right in which all thinkers are reduced to a caricature in order to be fitted into a closed dialectic of extremes"

By highlighting particular events Burke's entire career time line can be deformed to fit any political faction and then claimed as their spiritual ancestor, is his point.

There is a look inside feature on the link and worth sampling if you like satirical intellectual heft. I got the hardback and read it on the bus and train since there is no plot and any page can be read anew at any time. Thanks ren, for introducing him to me.

btw, "The Grail of Balance" is an intro addressing the use of language in ideological and political debate. Misuse or abuse of language (aka propaganda) is common.

"The ideologies of this century (20th) have prospered through the exploitation of what amounts to modern superstitions. Each of which is justified by closely argued definitions divorced from reality" "Even the most horrifying of superstitious acts- the Holocaust- was the product of decades of written, intellectual justification, which the rest of society failed to destroy as an expressible option by passively allowing the arguments to stand"
. The recent ebola scare had Americans stating that anyone exposed must be put down humanely, like a dog- even before symptomatic. Superstition indeed!

Early Americans were against certain rights granted to Canada because if someone else is getting something it means you are getting less. The abandonment of reconstruction was based on denying blacks rights they had just won. They had been property two decades earlier and if they get to vote and hold office as some were elected to do under reconstruction, it meant the whites were getting less rights*.

*A study conducted in America found a huge portion would take a smaller pay rate as long as they were making the most. I mean 10 to 20k less. I call it the Triple wide wager. You can choose between a condo with a balcony or the only triple wide trailer home in the park of Doublewides. Many want to be their own little donald j trumps.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Reply to posts 64 and 65.

Quote Zenzoe:

Ås anyone who has objectively and fairly followed this thread should be able to see, I write every bit as clearly as you do. We simply disagree on certain points. However, apparently I have hit a nerve, and so my clear statements, taken out of context, get presented as confusing. How about just considering the possibility that reasonable people just might disagree from time to time?

Let's try to be clear here, I did not say you don't write clearly. I said I, me, Ren, I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't even see that I'm disagreeing. I'm letting you and the other people who understand you go on with it.

How is anything apparent other than that?

I'm indicating as best as I can that I'm simply incapable of understanding what you are trying to say about how you view what you are putting into the term "toxic masculinity". It seems to include too much for me to make it out. I apologize again for my inability to comprehend, and I'm sorry if that makes you feel like your writing is unclear. I think it's clear enough, in this particular case it just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said, I see toxic features that include masculinity all around me. I see it much as Derrick Jensen has s'plained in many of his writings that he does. 'Cult of masculinity' and 'man box' are ways I see it as well, along with toxic masculinity. If you don't think my experience in boot camp was an indoctrination into that cult in my eyes, let me be clear: that's what it was; and that's why I still rail against it. That's also why I see any form of the military as a social poison; meanwhile most of society puts it on a pedestal. That's toxic.

I see many, many aspects of a dominant/subordinate violent social toxicity swirling around me that I personally feel must constantly be struggled against. I'm pretty certain I'm consistent with that. I don't see much difference in what Derrick Jensen says about civilization and what I say about it. As you once discovered, I was into some radical feminism you'd never heard of (Mary Daly Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, 1978) when Derrick was still in high school. Maybe he was into it then too. I got into it when I got back from Vietnam. Before Vietnam, Virginia Woolf was one of my important reads. I discovered it was the feminists on campus who could relate to what was troubling me in those days. The radical feminist friends who introduced me to writers like Mary Daly helped me to inform myself and develop my current views of our society and what it does to the environment through the deeply instilled and systematically indoctrinated attitudes of patriarchy.

Quote Zenzoe:

I choose not to defend my writing. But if you want me to parse your sentences and paragraphs, demonstrating problems of clarity there, I’ll be glad to do so. Just say the word.

You don't need to defend your writing. You write well.

If it makes you feel better to parse mine, knock yourself out. I know I write poorly. I'm constantly trying to overcome my many inadequacies in writing, including long and convoluted sentence structure that I constantly break into smaller segments, including my ever crippled capacity to spell correctly. I'm suspecting I'm upsetting you because I am so deficient with my ability to be clear.

Quote Zenzoe:

Oye, thanks for ‘splaining all that to me.

Yeah, well, that's what we men are here for, right?

____

Still waiting for a response to this (my post #35):

Quote .ren:

All I ever ask is that someone demonstrate to me that Jensen's Premise One is not true. In other words, show me an existing sustainable society that is not part of the global system of "civilized" societies. Show me a society that is completely self reliant and organized in such a way that at least demonstrates some potential to sustain itself indefinitely without taking part in any of the elements of industrial society that Jensen argues are not sustainable.

PREMISE ONE: Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.

If civilization is driving a 6th mass extinction, how is that not toxic?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Yeah, I got one of those two dollar hard backs through an Amazon affiliate, brand new with the jacket still on. Those can be great deals. I like having the Kindle edition ($3.99) to go with it. Nice for quoting. I think this relates to what Zenzoe was saying about naming:

THE GRAIL OF BALANCE

Our civilization is unable to do what individuals cannot say. And individuals are unable to say what they cannot think. Even thought can only advance as fast as the unknown can be stated through conscious organized language, an apparently self-defeating limitation.

The power of dictionaries and encyclopaedias is thus enormous. But what kind of power? The very possibility of it invites positive or negative use. A dictionary can as easily be a liberating force as one of control.

In the humanist view, the alphabet can be a tool for examining society; the dictionary a series of questions, an enquiry into meaning, a weapon against received wisdom and therefore against the assumptions of established power. In other words, the dictionary offers an organized Socratic approach.

The rational method is quite different. The dictionary is abruptly transformed into a dispensary of truth; that is, into an instrument which limits meaning by defining language. This bible becomes a tool for controlling communications because it directs what people can think. In other words, it becomes the voice of Platonic élitism.

Humanism versus definition. Balance versus structure. Doubt versus ideology. Language as a means of communication versus language as a tool for advancing the interests of groups.

This power of mere words and sentences may be particular to the West. Other civilizations are driven more by the image or by metaphysics. These lead them to treat the relationship between the oral and the written as secondary. But in the West, almost everything we need to know about the state of our society can be extracted from the relative power of oral versus written language.

Saul, John Ralston (2012-11-06). The Doubter's Companion: A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense (pp. 1-2). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote douglaslee:

The recent ebola scare had Americans stating that anyone exposed must be put down humanely, like a dog- even before symptomatic. Superstition indeed!

Toxic.

Quote douglaslee:

Early Americans were against certain rights granted to Canada because if someone else is getting something it means you are getting less. The abandonment of reconstruction was based on denying blacks rights they had just won. They had been property two decades earlier and if they get to vote and hold office as some were elected to do under reconstruction, it meant the whites were getting less rights*.

Toxic.

Quote douglaslee:

*A study conducted in America found a huge portion would take a smaller pay rate as long as they were making the most. I mean 10 to 20k less. I call it the Triple wide wager. You can choose between a condo with a balcony or the only triple wide trailer home in the park of Doublewides. Many want to be their own little donald j trumps.

Toxic.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

OMG! I've stressed out in coming back to find the op has left the building. Why? Was it something I said? I doubt it (after all I'm no expert) and far from a reasoned writer, but then again................gee, hope I don't lose any sleep over it.

At any rate, the crux of the matter as I understand it is that stress is in the DNA of the human creature and it is makes us what we are. It's in the what we stress over is the real issue.

rs allen
Joined:
Mar. 15, 2012 5:55 pm
Quote rs allen:

OMG! I've stressed out in coming back to find the op has left the building. Why? Was it something I said? I doubt it (after all I'm no expert) and far from a reasoned writer, but then again................gee, hope I don't lose any sleep over it.

At any rate, the crux of the matter as I understand it is that stress is in the DNA of the human creature and it is makes us what we are. It's in the what we stress over is the real issue.

Indeed.

I'm not sure gmiklashek would disagree. I would love to see him take a greater role in his thread, though.

I know he put a lot of time and effort into his opus. But it is not the end, it's only a beginning. Much remains to be explained. However ten years effort at creating an airtight argument and still a lot of questions coming out in discussions can be exhausting to encounter. Or maybe it's really up to us at this point.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Ren,

All I know is that it’s clear we disagree, not in sum —we probably agree in general; certainly, we’re closer than Derrick Jensen and Dick Cheney would be in this discussion— but in part, as in our individual approach to the problem of civilization, that is, what’s wrong and how to fix it. And yet, while disagreeing with me (first paragraph, below), you concurrently agree (second paragraph, below):

Quote .ren:

I'm indicating as best as I can that I'm simply incapable of understanding what you are trying to say about how you view what you are putting into the term "toxic masculinity". It seems to include too much for me to make it out. I apologize again for my inability to comprehend, and I'm sorry if that makes you feel like your writing is unclear. I think it's clear enough, in this particular case it just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said, I see toxic features that include masculinity all around me. I see it much as Derrick Jensen has s'plained in many of his writings that he does. 'Cult of masculinity' and 'man box' are ways I see it as well, along with toxic masculinity. If you don't think my experience in boot camp was an indoctrination into that cult in my eyes, let me be clear: that's what it was; and that's why I still rail against it. That's also why I see any form of the military as a social poison; meanwhile most of society puts it on a pedestal. That's toxic.

That contradiction suggests you DO comprehend what I’ve been trying to say. My guess, though, is that you just don’t want to give me credit for pointing out a valid critique of discussions that fail to mention the masculinity issue; whether you want to name it toxic masculinity, cult of masculinity or the man box matters little to me. It’s all the same, sick ideology that drives, or contributes to, or instructs, or instrumentalizes, or informs toxic civilization. You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example.

So, could you not just say, Yes, I agree: toxic masculinity is a factor in the problem within our particular civilization? Must you really make claims of an “inability to comprehend” my writing?

Quote .ren:
You don't need to defend your writing. You write well.

That’s nice, but if I write well, as in coherently, how can saying, “...It seems to include too much for me to make out…” be consistent with your opinion that I write well? Do you really expect me to believe you think you’re being “dense,” or it “doesn’t make sense” to you? What— your mind is so different, that you can see something is written well and coherently, and yet you cannot comprehend what’s being said? Nonsense!

———

I don’t have to write a major tome ‘splaining what’s wrong with our “civilization.” Nor do I have to write an endless response, trying to ‘splain how we differ. It’s not that complicated, at least if I want to see the forest and not be overwhelmed by the trees.

Correct me if I am wrong (of course you will), but Derrick Jensen, et al, take the anarcho-primitivist position, as far as I can tell. The basic idea is that all civilization is toxic and has to go. It’s not just that we might incorporate some healthier ways of living into our own society, ways suggested by primitive societies. Instead, we must destroy civilization and return to clan or tribal life and living. (What’s funny about that is that he makes full use of technology and modern civilization to spread his ideas. I’d love to see what he’s do without those. Also this: he presents himself publicly in a leadership position, a contradiction of his supposed egalitarianism.)

I and others take a humanist position, a more yin/yang position (balance as a driving virtue), one that recognizes that it isn’t civilization that’s the problem; it’s the ideology driving our particular civilization that is the problem. Change that, and you begin to grow a healthy society, a healthy, non-toxic civilization.

I’ve read three of Derrick Jensen’s books, no, make that four. And, as much painful truth as I have found in those books, I don’t feel obligated to bow down in abject agreement with everything he stands for. For example, he makes the mistake of assuming that only two options exist— either toxic civilization (He makes no such distinction, though: civilization is bad. Period. And so he would think “toxic civilization” is a redundancy.) or tribal life. As I’ve pointed out —a point I get no credit for mentioning, btw— we do not have to return to primitive life to find equality, freedom, and non-toxic human arrangements; nor do we have to seek clues from tribal societies— clues exist within present-day modern societies, as Michael Moore’s latest documentary demonstrates.

As for Derrick Jensen’s Premise One, I wonder if that’s not his weakest premise. What does he mean by “sustainable?” This? I see no reason that’s not a possibility, given enough suffering over global climate change.

Sustain also means to hold up under. Lots and lots of primitive cultures failed to sustain themselves, if we use that definition.

Btw, is “sustainable development” an oxymoron?

As for your proof of the validity of Premise One, you seem to insist that if it doesn’t exist now, it’s impossible. That is to say, because “civilizations” have always been “unsustainable,” any future civilizations will also be unsustainable. I’m not convinced of that.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Each one of these was written clearly:

Quote .ren:

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

This:

Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

You said,

I don't remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a content. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness;

So there we seem to be in agreement, toxic masculinity is a subset of something.

Then you go;

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it.

Sorry, that sounds like more than a subset. It's a cause. And not just a cause, but a first cause.

Both very clearly stated, so yes you write clearly. I just can't fathom how you put them together. If it makes sense to you, that's fine with me. I'm not the least disturbed by my ignorance.

Quote Zenzoe:

Btw, is “sustainable development” an oxymoron?

I consider sustainable development an oxymoron. I've said so on this board a number of times. That's in keeping with my refusal to consider myself a progressive which I've also declared. But the concept seems to appeal to the management class and so it looks to me like a start for a conversation about both. Who knows where that might go...(more like sarcasm than a question on my part)

Sustainable, as I think of it, means your species doesn't destroy the biosphere of the planet and manages to somehow survive as well. Nobody needs to bow down to that.

You seem to be concerned that we be in agreement. The topic keeps coming up in your posts. I've never even entertained hope that anyone will agree with my analysis. It's simply what I do, is all, and I enjoy unraveling my confusing swirl of thoughts and trying to see what they look like in print. I don't do it for agreement or appreciation. I satisfy myself.

Quote Zenzoe:

As for your proof of the validity of Premise One, you seem to insist that if it doesn’t exist now, it’s impossible. That is to say, because “civilizations” have always been “unsustainable,” any future civilizations will also be unsustainable. I’m not convinced of that.

It was a question, leading to the next question now that you've answered: If none are sustainable now, how do you see that changing? What will need to change and how do you see it feasibly coming about?

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

How about sustainable evolution? A recent bio-study shows all species helping one another until being out numbered by predators. The ones surviving the predators' attacks are so weakened their development/evolution ceases. When helped to survive by fellow species members the healthy community procreates and passes on the best genes by the nurturing and enmity that not only helped them survive, but live a healthy life.

You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example. I do think it's better than toxic masculinity, but then I like knuckle dragger over conservative. However, with the vast amount of lead poisoning due to failure to sign the lead ban treaty in 1920, and poisoning citizens for 59 years while the rest of the world protected their citizens' brains, American corporations made profit by poisoning them and condemning them to permanet serf status. Maybe many gop are simply mentally disabled, poisoned by their own business friendly government. Koch bros favorite pres was Calvin Coolidge, president in the '20s when the country embarked on a 60 year poisoning campaign.

There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Overpopulation is a major problem. Again profits over people and religion are the culprits. Sex is an advertisers dream aid to sell products. It has taken the basic act of reproduction and turned it into a fun way to relieve stress. With the right products you too can join in.

Then the religions ban any contraceptive and preventive measures. The larger the numbers the greater the loss. Making daily killings and torture insignificant in comparison. 7+ billion and half are hungry, while they outlaw nutrition in the name of saving kids. Wall St sees it as a great big cheap labor pool to keep producing the same fossil fools pollutants and pharmaceuticals when they get sick. Again outlawing affordable homegrown healthcare.

China forces limits. The old reasoning was due to still births and high mortality rates among the young. The work force for most farms was the children. Preservatives are letting people live longer, not better. Just preserved like any old relic, Dignity and Mercy have no value in the profit world. A frivolous costly emotional downside of humans. Profits are the new mother of invention over necessity. Homeless and hungry are deterrents to whistle blowing. Living paycheck to paycheck.

They censored brain tumor reduction studies in 1974, then banned any medicinal research on Cannabis. That is diabolical, and yet that was 1974. Who ya gonna call? They did that and now they are fracking the US. While buying up over a million acres in Paraguay over their largest aquifer. Wars for profit and Police actions for profit selling the tools of the trade.

Fabricated for profits and power for more profits and when investigated, if investigated. Nothing goes any farther. Immunity to protect the office? Treason? Nixon's drug war against blacks lumping in Hemp with heroin. A temporary measure since 1971 until the research comes out. When it did he simply ignored it and then Ford banned it, and that is how it is in 2016.

Some times people are just too ignorant to save from themselves. The earth is probably due a good cleansing to rid itself of these harmful hungry parasites. Not to fret. Neocons have been building underground towns since the 60s. I'm sure the obedient loyal sheep will have a place to serve. Get rid of the trash in one fell swoop. So what is any point of dwelling on problems that can't be solved under present conditions? Not for lack of trying or knowhow.

For the same logic that would justify banning Cannabis medicinal research and keep research pertinent to millions of Americans, from them. Profits are the greatest addiction. Treatment over cures and prevention. Treatment sold even if symptoms have to be fabricated. Monsanto has been trying to do its part killing off the excess for a Century. Rockefeller's crude oil and Nukes. Cancer profits prevent cures. Many have served their greed at the health of us all and what swift just punishment do we dole out to these persecutors? Less tax burdens, offshore shelters and outsourcing. 'Relax Your Muscles as Much as Possible' Citizens pay more tax and generate more capital to spend being caged in a for profit max cap mandatory minimum prison, than working minimum wage. $35k/yr vs. $12k+-.

Being sick is the measure of a patriot. Healthy people take jobs! The irony of all those pro Iraq lemmings believing the corporate news and corporate Bush administration. Running off to MalWart's for their little plastic flag to jerk at the out of work kids signing up and shipping out. Flags made by kids in Chinese sweatshops from plastic made from Iraqi crude oil. The foxers were buying bullets to shoot at the kids they were jerking their flags at. How many have died from brain tumors? When Teddy Kennedy's kid protested his own father from receiving Cannabis treatment. Can these mentalities be saved or should they be saved? How many people foght and died to keep a race of people in chains. Not freedom, they fought to keep them in chains as they fight to keep Americans in chains for growing the oldest medicine known. The oldest agriculture was growing Hemp. While the GOP fights to maintain profits on prohibition. Why do the Democrats assist them? Or shun the conversation and take it off of the front burner? Political Correct Ignorance is about as bad as old time ignorance. You reap what you sow. Cowards beget Oppression.

The biggest killer on the planet is stress
and I still think the best medicine is
and always has been cannabis.
-- Willie Nelson,
High Times, January 1991

Only The PotHeads Will Survive

Endocannabinoids
Antibacterial, Analgesic and Antiinflammatory

“It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living, by its purely physical effect on the human temperament, would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.”
― Albert Einstein

Starving Babies and Illegal Food

Cannabis Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74

And I will raise up for them a plant of renown,
and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land,
neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.
Ezekiel 34:29

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;
because you have rejected knowledge,
I will also reject you, that you will be no priest to Me
for I desired mercy and not sacrifice."
(Hosea 4:6, 6:6)

High on Hemp
this PSA brought to you by Big Sur Holy Bud

Factory farming bon apetite'

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

=The language choice for nouns is related to our labels discussion. Nouns created before the concept or topic of interest is defined leaves one with a label seeking a definition.

In reading Colin McGinn’s fine recent piece, “Groping Toward the Mind,” in The New York Review, I was reminded of a question I had pondered in my 2013 book Anatomy of Chinese: whether some of the struggles in Western philosophy over the concept of mind—especially over what kind of “thing” it is—might be rooted in Western language. The puzzles are less puzzling in Chinese.

Indo-European languages tend to prefer nouns, even when talking about things for which verbs might seem more appropriate. The English noun inflation, for example, refers to complex processes that were not a “thing” until language made them so. Things like inflation can even become animate, as when we say “we need to combat inflation” or “inflation is killing us at the check-out counter.” Modern cognitive linguists like George Lakoff at Berkeley call inflation an “ontological metaphor.” (Theinflation example is Lakoff’s.)

I really like New York Review of Books and have since I first discovered it. It has been called intellectual and I'm not one, but love this and other sources described as such. There is a rich history of columnists and their work in the advanced search function. Chomsky and Krugman write regularly for the Review.

ren used the same term as the author a few posts back when he mentioned toxic masculinity becoming a 'thing'. Of course we all like to know what 'the latest thing' is. Scholasticism was a medieval thing. Anti-intellectualism is a self-validation thing created by and for intellectuals, according to Saul (John Ralston).

When I studied Chinese, though, I began to notice a preference for verbs. Modern Chinese does use ontological metaphors, such as fāzhăn (literally “emit and unfold”) to mean “development” or xὶnxīn (“believe mind”) for “confidence.” But these are modern words that derive from Western languages (mostly via Japanese) and carry a Western flavor with them. “I firmly believe that…” is a natural phrase in Chinese; you can also say “I have a lot of confidence that…” but the use of a noun in such a phrase is a borrowing from the West.

Wanting to test my intuition that classical Chinese was more verb-heavy than its Indo-European counterparts, I opened Confucius’s Analects and an English translation of Plato’s Apology of Socrates and counted nouns and verbs. Confucius uses slightly more verbs than nouns. Plato uses about 45 percent more nouns than verbs. In search of a more recent example (but still from before the major Western-language influence on Chinese), I chose at random a page from Cao Xueqin’s eighteenth-century novel Dream of the Red Chamber and a page from Charles Dickens’s Oliver Twist. The Cao page had 130 nouns and 166 verbs (a 0.8 to 1 ratio), while the Dickens page had 96 nouns and 38 verbs (a 2.5 to 1 ratio).

I wondered: in Western languages, especially in their modern versions, do we sometimes use nouns to conceive things when we don’t really need to? For example, when electrical impulses are speeding along neurons in the brain, might not a verb be best? Why do we create the noun “neural connectivity” and then refer to it as an actor: “neural connectivity makes it natural for complex metaphorical mappings to be built”? This sentence is from Lakoff, but similar examples are everywhere. A medical researcher at the University of California at San Francisco in 2003 discussed mad cow disease in terms of its “high infectivity.” Infectivity? Why not just say the disease spreads easily?

At this point in time, do you mean now? Dis is not a word to me and I don't use it and won't use it, even if I needed more verbs for my vocabulary.

Thinking has many synonyms, pondering being more colorful but meaning the same. Maybe productive thought is pondering (Oxford dictionary says it is deep thought) and wasteful thought is conservatism, wasteful thinking is mindless blathering or praying (aka wishing). Cogitate, ruminate (on), contemplate are all good.

The article is worth a look, if you've ever considered your own communication (talking and/or writing) or comprehension (listening and/or reading) skills.

I use parenthesis a lot to add supplemental information or relative thought. It is probably wrong but I want the extra phrases without interrupting the sentence, so they are an aside. Sometimes rule breaking fits to illustrate the absurdity. Actors break the 4th wall and address the audience out of character sometimes (going back to Groucho). However, some actors and actresses can convey the same message with nuance and subtlety, like a roll of the eyes, or a deadpan stare.

"Is sex dirty? Yes, if you're doing it right" -Woody Allen.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote .ren:

Each one of these was written clearly:

Quote .ren:

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

This:

Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

You said,

I don't remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a content. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness;

So there we seem to be in agreement, toxic masculinity is a subset of something.

Then you go;

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it.

Sorry, that sounds like more than a subset. It's a cause. And not just a cause, but a first cause.

Both very clearly stated, so yes you write clearly. I just can't fathom how you put them together. If it makes sense to you, that's fine with me. I'm not the least disturbed by my ignorance.

So, in other words, you noticed a supposed inconsistency in my logic. You weren’t saying “I’m too dense” to comprehend; you were saying, “you’re being illogical, and I’m too logical to follow what you’re saying.” Your “apology for my being dense,” or your “I’m not the least disturbed by my ignorance,” meant/means to conceal your contempt for my “illogic.” In my book, we call such an apology sarcasm. It’s also what I call dishonest, but in a mean way. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

It would hurt less to hear “I see an inconsistency in what you’re saying,” rather than make a phony, sarcastic apology that insults my intelligence. However, as to my supposed inconsistency in logic, I don’t suppose you noticed this: “... toxic masculinity drives from underneath, among other spirits, and informs the kind of society that evolves.” That “among other spirits” supports “I don’t remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause…” And if it drives “from underneath” that supports its being a subset, with society as a cause of suffering as the heading. A subset can still be counted as sharing causation within a general malaise.

But what does it matter what metaphor I use, whether it’s a cause, a sole cause, a subset under a heading, or an aspect of the problem? I simply disagreed with your assertion of society as first cause with toxic masculinity as an irrelevancy in the mix, that supposedly, according to you, toxic is toxic, regardless of whether it’s masculine or feminine. My main observation pointed to the lack of discussion about an important and flawed thread making up the fabric of our civilization and causing that fabric to fall apart. It’s like it’s right there, plain as day, but nobody wants to see it.

Quote .ren:

...You seem to be concerned that we be in agreement.


I don’t object if we disagree at all; just don’t deny that we disagree, or deny when we agree. Expressing agreement or disagreement adds glue to a discussion. It needs to be expressed directly and honestly. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. It saves a lot of space, if nothing else.

Quote .ren:

Quote Zenzoe:

As for your proof of the validity of Premise One, you seem to insist that if it doesn’t exist now, it’s impossible. That is to say, because “civilizations” have always been “unsustainable,” any future civilizations will also be unsustainable. I’m not convinced of that.

It was a question, leading to the next question now that you've answered: If none are sustainable now, how do you see that changing? What will need to change and how do you see it feasibly coming about?

I think I answered that here: “I see no reason that’s [sustainability] not a possibility, given enough suffering over global climate change.” That is to say, Mother Earth delivers enough punishments, and humanity may come to its senses:

When a man knows he is to be hanged...it concentrates his mind wonderfully." —Samuel Johnson

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

How about sustainable evolution? A recent bio-study shows all species helping one another until being out numbered by predators. The ones surviving the predators' attacks are so weakened their development/evolution ceases. When helped to survive by fellow species members the healthy community procreates and passes on the best genes by the nurturing and enmity that not only helped them survive, but live a healthy life.

You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example. I do think it's better than toxic masculinity, but then I like knuckle dragger over conservative.

LOL, several times. :-)

Quote douglaslee:

...There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

Good examples. But how come those guys are so smart, and we're so dumb? Is it the cold weather?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

Quote .ren:

Each one of these was written clearly:

Quote .ren:

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

This:

Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

You said,

I don't remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a content. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness;

So there we seem to be in agreement, toxic masculinity is a subset of something.

Then you go;

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it.

Sorry, that sounds like more than a subset. It's a cause. And not just a cause, but a first cause.

Both very clearly stated, so yes you write clearly. I just can't fathom how you put them together. If it makes sense to you, that's fine with me. I'm not the least disturbed by my ignorance.

So, in other words, you noticed a supposed inconsistency in my logic. You weren’t saying “I’m too dense” to comprehend; you were saying, “you’re being illogical, and I’m too logical to follow what you’re saying.” Your “apology for my being dense,” or your “I’m not the least disturbed by my ignorance,” meant/means to conceal your contempt for my “illogic.” In my book, we call such an apology sarcasm. It’s also what I call dishonest, but in a mean way. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

The "other" words are your words. Not mine. I'm happy to leave it that way.

Quote Zenzoe:

It would hurt less to hear “I see an inconsistency in what you’re saying,” rather than make a phony, sarcastic apology that insults my intelligence. However, as to my supposed inconsistency in logic, I don’t suppose you noticed this: “... toxic masculinity drives from underneath, among other spirits, and informs the kind of society that evolves.” That “among other spirits” supports “I don’t remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause…” And if it drives “from underneath” that supports its being a subset, with society as a cause of suffering as the heading. A subset can still be counted as sharing causation within a general malaise.

You've gone into a personal realm here, over a line I draw in my board interactions. I'm not interested in pursuing this form of interaction.

Quote Zenzoe:

But what does it matter what metaphor I use, whether it’s a cause, a sole cause, a subset under a heading, or an aspect of the problem? I simply disagreed with your assertion of society as first cause with toxic masculinity as an irrelevancy in the mix, that supposedly, according to you, toxic is toxic, regardless of whether it’s masculine or feminine. My main observation pointed to the lack of discussion about an important and flawed thread making up the fabric of our civilization and causing that fabric to fall apart. It’s like it’s right there, plain as day, but nobody wants to see it.

Those are questions and answers I now leave to you.

Quote Zenzoe:
Quote .ren:

Quote Zenzoe:

As for your proof of the validity of Premise One, you seem to insist that if it doesn’t exist now, it’s impossible. That is to say, because “civilizations” have always been “unsustainable,” any future civilizations will also be unsustainable. I’m not convinced of that.

It was a question, leading to the next question now that you've answered: If none are sustainable now, how do you see that changing? What will need to change and how do you see it feasibly coming about?

I think I answered that here: “I see no reason that’s [sustainability] not a possibility, given enough suffering over global climate change.” That is to say, Mother Earth delivers enough punishments, and humanity may come to its senses:

When a man knows he is to be hanged...it concentrates his mind wonderfully." —Samuel Johnson

And so it ends.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

Yes, I've read about that island. One of the questions that came to my mind at the time was: did everything made on that island come from raw materials on that island? Or did they use materials that had to be brought In? If so, what materials, how were they mined and developed, and so forth. If anything involved contributes to degredation elsewhere, fossil fuel consumption and so forth, that begs the question of whether the island is truly self sustaining. If the energy the island makes and consumes cannot be maintained by processes entirely contained on that island, then the question becomes, how far and to what extent must the islanders go to obtain them?

These are just some basic imaginary logic explorations I've made to come to my conclusions about a potential global collapse of the current closely linked trade systems that have evolved over the last six hundred or so years.

I've used the !Kung as an example of a gathering/hunting society that made all its technology for its survival strategy from the environment they lived in, and found all its food in that environment as well. Until that environment was taken over by the South African civilized society and they had their territory halved, they were self sufficient. They had been living with their steady state self sufficiency for thousands of years, having no degrading effect on their environment. All that changed when their environment was artificially and forcefully shrunk.

Of course, no moderner who we might see as civilized would dream of living with so few material goods, running around nearly naked, no television to entertain them, no internet, no books, making shelters from whatever might be at hand as they move about, but those are not the crucial points I would consider in looking at the problem of sustainability on a global scale.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

hWind, solar and biomass were achieved through community outreach and information distribution.

Only 5k people so cooperation might've been easy for them. The energy plants are co-ops owned by the community.

"Now it is more important for us to have 5 solar panels on the house than a Mercedes in the garage" is a statement from one guy in the Vimeo. It represents the attitude of the people, and they are still consumers. Bragging about your greenness is kind of neat. "Oh yeah, how small is your carbon print?" "How much was your energy bill?" Might be typical conversation points according to the clip.

I was reading of some of the Norwegian delicacies. A lot of dried and/or salted fish going back 1000s of years. It has a massive coast and mountains providing food and shelter. And exports since about 800CE- cheese to Britain or whatever it was called at the time. Brits bitched to me years ago "Vikings came and took all our pretty women". Scandinavian women are prettier IMO, I might be biased. Q: What do the french call a pretty woman in Britain? A: tourist.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DdC:

Overpopulation is a major problem. Again profits over people and religion are the culprits. Sex is an advertisers dream aid to sell products. It has taken the basic act of reproduction and turned it into a fun way to relieve stress.

I'm just going to quote the beginning simply to acknowledge your post, but I'm addressing the whole of it.

First, I don't know if gmiklashek950 will return to his thread. As rs allen noted, "he's left the building." If he doesn't then others will need to keep it going. My interest is waning, but I'm on the board at the moment, so I'm inclined to respond to what's here.

I don't know if you are addressing any particular point on this thread. I don't know if you have even looked at the free pdf book that gmiklashek950 offered in the OP. But I'll refer to it anyway, since its subject, stress, is the a fundamental subject matter of this thread.

I think he agrees with you so far as money and stress is concerned. His logic about how it does so relates to his theory about hierarchy and status. If you haven't read the book, he discusses money on pages 237 and 238:

Quote Gregg Miklashek:

40. MONEY: THE ROOT OF ALL STATUS and HIGHLY ADDICTIVE

Money is “the root of all evil”, “a medium of exchange”, “a necessary evil”, “a means to an end”, and a measure of personal/corporate status, or, as the human ethologists would have it, RHP (resource holding power). The reader may recall our earlier discussions of human overpopulation and our resulting negative impact on the biosphere. Furthermore, the reader may, as well, recall our discussion of conceptual space as a substitute for physical space or territory. The invention of money was central to the invention of conceptual space. In a sense, money is conceptual space. (for a complete discussion of conceptual space, see TOPIC 23, page 122ff) This world changing leap from 3-dimensional physical space, which is finite on the planet’s surface (except for multiple floor, vertical “high rises” or underground cities), to a 4th dimension of conceptual space, has resulted in a 728X plus explosion of the human population on earth. As previously noted in this essay, this dimensional leap, and our resultant break from previously adequate population bounds, has occurred at the expense of all other species and Natural Resources.

He goes from there to make his argument, developing a narrative about how status arrived through the development of hierarchy related to the evolution of managing agricultural production and control systems. So if you want to get acquainted with it, I'm offering you that as a way of finding what he says in the 300 pages or so he's written.

I leave it to you and gmiklashek to sort out any differences you may have in theory about cause, effect, and solutions. Personally, I have a bit more detail from my investigations about this evolutionary process (using ecology, archeology and cultural anthropology as my guide) than gmiklashek offers, which, I discover every time I try to talk about it, creates too much confusion (starting with my own mind) to make any sort of meaningful point, so I feel it sensible to my own mental health to remove myself from the discussion.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote douglaslee:

hWind, solar and biomass were achieved through community outreach and information distribution.

Only 5k people so cooperation might've been easy for them. The energy plants are co-ops owned by the community.

"Now it is more important for us to have 5 solar panels on the house than a Mercedes in the garage" is a statement from one guy in the Vimeo. It represents the attitude of the people, and they are still consumers. Bragging about your greenness is kind of neat. "Oh yeah, how small is your carbon print?" "How much was your energy bill?" Might be typical conversation points according to the clip.

I was reading of some of the Norwegian delicacies. A lot of dried and/or salted fish going back 1000s of years. It has a massive coast and mountains providing food and shelter. And exports since about 800CE- cheese to Britain or whatever it was called at the time. Brits bitched to me years ago "Vikings came and took all our pretty women". Scandinavian women are prettier IMO, I might be biased. Q: What do the french call a pretty woman in Britain? A: tourist.

Still, the vimeo doesn't tell me much about where the materials came from.

Nice countryfolkish music in the vimeo promotion piece to go along with the bucolic visions.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Quote .ren:

Quote Zenzoe:

Quote .ren:

Each one of these was written clearly:

Quote .ren:

Reply to posts 60 and 61

I apologize for being so dense, but I remain confused about what point you are making.

This:

Quote Zenzoe:

Ren, I don't remember proposing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a context. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness; that's understood. My frustration comes of the ignoring of that very specific aspect —toxic masculinity— the failure to name it out loud, with a preference for abstract analysis over specifics. It feels to me like a deafening silence about something that drives practically every ill we face in society, from corporate degradation of the environment, to economic disasters, to the toxic, for-profit prison system, to our racist justice system and police, to domestic violence and beyond.

And this:

Quote Zenzoe:

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it. You don't honestly think our toxic society evolved out of "toxic femininity," do you?

You said,

I don't remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause absent a content. Of course, for example, systems of hierarchy play a part in the dominance-submission dynamic you write about. I bring up toxic masculinity as one aspect, or subset if you insist, of the larger sickness;

So there we seem to be in agreement, toxic masculinity is a subset of something.

Then you go;

Yes, it’s a simple analogy— first comes the spirit of toxic masculinity, then the society evolves in keeping with the spirit informing it.

Sorry, that sounds like more than a subset. It's a cause. And not just a cause, but a first cause.

Both very clearly stated, so yes you write clearly. I just can't fathom how you put them together. If it makes sense to you, that's fine with me. I'm not the least disturbed by my ignorance.

So, in other words, you noticed a supposed inconsistency in my logic. You weren’t saying “I’m too dense” to comprehend; you were saying, “you’re being illogical, and I’m too logical to follow what you’re saying.” Your “apology for my being dense,” or your “I’m not the least disturbed by my ignorance,” meant/means to conceal your contempt for my “illogic.” In my book, we call such an apology sarcasm. It’s also what I call dishonest, but in a mean way. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

The "other" words are your words. Not mine. I'm happy to leave it that way.

Fine then. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge any of it. And I am happy to accept your being an authority on yourself, as I am happy to tell it like I see it, or like it feels to me.

Quote .ren:

Quote Zenzoe:

It would hurt less to hear “I see an inconsistency in what you’re saying,” rather than make a phony, sarcastic apology that insults my intelligence. However, as to my supposed inconsistency in logic, I don’t suppose you noticed this: “... toxic masculinity drives from underneath, among other spirits, and informs the kind of society that evolves.” That “among other spirits” supports “I don’t remember posing toxic masculinity as a sole cause…” And if it drives “from underneath” that supports its being a subset, with society as a cause of suffering as the heading. A subset can still be counted as sharing causation within a general malaise.

You've gone into a personal realm here, over a line I draw in my board interactions. I'm not interested in pursuing this form of interaction.

Well, of course you’re correct— you have a right to interact within your area of comfort. I have different rules, even though I understand this “community” does not fit the definition of a real community. I risk a lot in daring to be real (not that setting a boundary is unreal). Though gathering together for “conversation,” in fact we’re nothing but text on computer screens to each other. And if an interaction feels personally demeaning, or insulting, or lacking in empathy or care, some texters won’t like my mentioning it, especially if I reveal hurt feelings. It’s just plain bad manners to respond with emotional truth. Be silent! Acquiesce! Don’t question! Don’t doubt! Submit to the dominant one!— ergo Stress R Me, and forget my expectation of empathy, equality, and respect, while learning to accept hierarchy and authoritarianism on the forum in the guise of “sharing knowledge.”

You will hate that paragraph, above. I understand, really. It probably looks obnoxious and unfair as hell. My sensitivity, or hypersensitivity, to any suggestion that feels like the same ol’ same ol’ response to women’s thoughts and observations, as in, “Women aren’t logical...can’t understand ‘em…” cannot be denied. I confess. I cannot let it pass. I won’t.

It matters little to me if you’re not interested in pursuing “this form of interaction.” Suit yourself, and I will suit myself. I don’t really like it either— it’s stressful. But then, a forum like this one functions as a micro system tucked within the macro toxic system itself. It shouldn’t surprise us, when the same stressors appear here, as they do everywhere else.

———

Among the other “spirits,” besides toxic masculinity, that create the toxicity of our civilization, or weaker threads in the fabric enveloping our society, would be racism, homophobia, authoritarianism, white supremacy, elitism, celebrity worship, consumerism and on and on. But beautiful spirits exist too— of creativity, invention, community, healthy voices of protest and dissent, of art and literature. Not everything or everyone deserves trashing. Perhaps stress R us, but we're getting better.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde

quotes/Oscar_Wilde

Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.
Oscar Wilde- More quotations on: [Argument]
At twilight, nature is not without loveliness, though perhaps its chief use is to illustrate quotations from the poets.
Oscar Wilde
Biography lends to death a new terror.
Oscar Wilde
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
Oscar Wilde
Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.
Oscar Wilde- More quotations on: [Photography]
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
Oscar Wilde
douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote douglaslee:

How about sustainable evolution? A recent bio-study shows all species helping one another until being out numbered by predators. The ones surviving the predators' attacks are so weakened their development/evolution ceases. When helped to survive by fellow species members the healthy community procreates and passes on the best genes by the nurturing and enmity that not only helped them survive, but live a healthy life.

You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example. I do think it's better than toxic masculinity, but then I like knuckle dragger over conservative.

LOL, several times. :-)

Quote douglaslee:

...There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

Good examples. But how come those guys are so smart, and we're so dumb? Is it the cold weather?

I know you were being facetious but I thought I would add a few extra facts - in total HDI Norway is indeed #1 with the U.S. being #8, Canada #9, Sweden #14 and Finland 24th in 2014.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote douglaslee:

How about sustainable evolution? A recent bio-study shows all species helping one another until being out numbered by predators. The ones surviving the predators' attacks are so weakened their development/evolution ceases. When helped to survive by fellow species members the healthy community procreates and passes on the best genes by the nurturing and enmity that not only helped them survive, but live a healthy life.

You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example. I do think it's better than toxic masculinity, but then I like knuckle dragger over conservative.

LOL, several times. :-)

Quote douglaslee:

...There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

Good examples. But how come those guys are so smart, and we're so dumb? Is it the cold weather?

I know you were being facetious but I thought I would add a few extra facts - in total HDI Norway is indeed #1 with the U.S. being #8, Canada #9, Sweden #14 and Finland 24th in 2014.

All three are within the top 10th percentile. Within that top 10th percentile Norway is 300% the score of the US. The US vs Sweden (both are in the top 10th percentile) is a difference of a mere .008.. 0r 8000th of a 1% vs 300%!! I would bet on Norway.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote Zenzoe:
Quote douglaslee:

How about sustainable evolution? A recent bio-study shows all species helping one another until being out numbered by predators. The ones surviving the predators' attacks are so weakened their development/evolution ceases. When helped to survive by fellow species members the healthy community procreates and passes on the best genes by the nurturing and enmity that not only helped them survive, but live a healthy life.

You could also call it big swingin' dickism, for all I care, which I think would fit if we're talking policies such as the invasion of Iraq, for example. I do think it's better than toxic masculinity, but then I like knuckle dragger over conservative.

LOL, several times. :-)

Quote douglaslee:

...There is a Danish island that is 100% energy independant and carbon neutral. Now, that is self sustaining survival also. Norway landed #1 on UN's best country to live in again for the 12th year in a row based on Human Development Index measures.. Norway also recently signed a first in the world law against clearcutting forestry.

Good examples. But how come those guys are so smart, and we're so dumb? Is it the cold weather?

I know you were being facetious but I thought I would add a few extra facts - in total HDI Norway is indeed #1 with the U.S. being #8, Canada #9, Sweden #14 and Finland 24th in 2014.

All three are within the top 10th percentile. Within that top 10th percentile Norway is 300% the score of the US. The US vs Sweden (both are in the top 10th percentile) is a difference of a mere .008.. 0r 8000th of a 1% less vs 300% more. I would bet on Norway.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Lol, which makes them what - 301% better than your adopted home. What's the matter with idylic Sweden? Will Norway even let you cross the border.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Ren, I reject any Science based on censored information. So I've seen enough to see the hypothesis is based on false conclusions and assumptions. Brain functioning and all of the bodies systems are regulated by the endocannabinoid system ECS. Doctors aren't taught, so any academic is simply following others false conclusions or making shit up.

Money is a convenient way of bartering for goods. That's it. Any more is an addiction or status quo warped value system putting profits over people. Cannabis resets that value system and so money isn't as debilitating for society. Now of coarse this is not the way prohibitionists see money. They see not being addicted as a psychological problem. They can't survive withot sheep and letting sheep think for themselves or see money for what it really is. Thats just not prudent at this juncture. ECBD is causing people to be slaves. Maybe that's how they got the pyramids built? Seems to be wotking for the 1%.

Like I said, most Science is paid for by tax or corporate R&D. Predominantly for profits on products they hope to use to treat problems. Not cures or preventions that are shelved. NO tax is permitted to fund cannabis research. That is basics. Yet no science outside of private research not accepted by the FDA is even conducted. So all of the past Science based on theory without the ECS is not imo worthy of my time.

Like most politically correct. You can just dismiss it all as stoner dreams or accept the fact that Science has been delegated to the level of serving profits, not people. Israel has been doing the brunt of research and discovering many things. The US government research permitted is only doing potential negatives. Not one study has a causal connection and yet we still waste taxes and Science doesn't seem interested in cures or prevention. So that leaves us with half assed conclusions by smart people with no reasoning ability.

Sorry. Stress is the base of every disease and it will never be treated accurately without learning about the endocannabinoid system and the relationship with Cannabis and its cannabinoids. 12,000 years of supplementing the ECS and cold turkey abstinence has produced a race of sheep. ECB Deficiency leading to larger Fear Centers and more stress. More blind fellowship and more treatment for profits over cures and prevention.

Using Pot To Save Brains!

Endocannabinoids

Only 13% of the medical schools surveyed mention the endocannabinoid science to our future doctors.

“The results of the study are predictable, so no one should be surprised! Not one of the medical schools surveyed had a department of endocannabinoid science or an ECS director. None of them taught the endocannabinoid science as an organized course. Only 21 of the 157 schools surveyed had the ECS mentioned in any course. 21/157 = 13.3% In the United States of America, only 13% of the medical schools surveyed teach the endocannabinoid science to our future doctors.”
~ Survey of the Endocannabinoid System in Medical Schools

Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency

Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

Hydroponic greenhouses have the potential to completely alter how humans farm! With advancement in computer, expasion in science in sustainable farming we could be feeding far more! If china spent efforts in building out green houses not empty cities! Using new desalination tech to create fresh water etc they could be focusing the realestate issues into furture food sourcing areas!

We can spend trillions blowing up the middle east. We can let civil wars take whole regions back to the stone age! But we humans can not have long term sustainable delopements! We can not green the deserts of the world with building sustanible area of little water loss there? Saudi Arabia would not be smarter investing in these techs than in weapons for long term stability?

Hydroponic with merger of tech could fully break down growing crops into a true science! You could develope tech that would scan the water for infections microbs, we could use it to make food more nutritional and health for consumption! We could be mechanising crops using solar, making un productive areas our places for food, build out aqueducts and levies to move area that will have too much water into places that lack it! We could build great green houses on the tops of city roofs using this, or build massive multi story green houses in cities that would provide food year around! We honestly have a lack of investment and creativity!

We also waste too much food!

But the guy who's pushing all meat diets! We humans should only eat four ounces of protein more than that causes many health issues! Take a proper nutrition class and stop peddling ur rubish book on here!

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

Seriously we have oil pipe lines criss crossing the whole globe! We have super heated pipe lines to move tar sands across an area or we truck it to texas on trains! We had these pipe lines since Rockefeller figured out the concept hundred plus years ago! But talk about building aqueducts at the same capacity that is insanity! Even with the most base irrigation we could be moving fresh water across whole regions to help the western droughts! Its far less crazy than moving tarsands from canada across country to texas! Its honestly far easier to do!

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

Here is an article about the fact we produce enough food to feed the world already!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/world-hunger_b_1463429.html

The biggest issues are monopolized food, the stock markets futures on food, and basic waste and greed issues! How ever climate change may create a massive food shortage issue possible within this decade but without long term investment and alteration's to how we grow and produce we are looking at a massive issue within 50 years or less!

The way we have delt with this is massive wars and migration globally! Which will only worsen these issues in the coming decade!

We in the us might be looking at a dust bowl even in the Midwest in the near future! Its already basically occuring in the south west! Which means the US should stock pile longterm food products as a way to make sure this country full of guns doesn't turn into syria if an event like that occurs!

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/dust-bowl-conditions-are-literally-retu...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dust-bowl-days-are-here-again/

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

Syria's blow up was linked to climate change, and with a civil war next door there were plenty of rebels and militia to capitalize on the agricultural tragedy.

Australia has good desalination, I don't know why CA doesn't install a plant. I hear they might like a bit more water.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DdC:

Ren, I reject any Science based on censored information. So I've seen enough to see the hypothesis is based on false conclusions and assumptions. Brain functioning and all of the bodies systems are regulated by the endocannabinoid system ECS. Doctors aren't taught, so any academic is simply following others false conclusions or making shit up.

I think the stress is real enough. I experience it. I suspect if I look for a cause, a cause will be where I look, and then if it matters to me I may go about trying to prove I've found IT, THE cause and thus THE solution to all this civilized stress. As the quantum physicists have noted, the subjective viewer is the censor and creator of their world. If true, what's not censored?

I live within five miles of five new cannabis retail outlets and two new greenhouses legally growing it. "New" is relative to the passage of laws here in Washington State. One of those retail outlets has a green cross signifying medicinal use.

The change has been beneficial in several ways for our extractive industry community -- a community that had extracted itself into near poverty before the passage of Initiative 502 in 2012. For years I have watched the expanding of clear cuts, now stretching over vast acres of our Willapa Hills watershed, where once were tall and lush green firs and pines. It takes about forty years to get them back to lumberable size, so the new growth industry is also a boon to the local economy. Whatever money is, not having it, and not having the resources to live on can be stressful.

My friends who partake are mellower now that the law doesn't threaten their consumption. One friend has a doctor's prescription so he can grow his own.

I don't know if or how I'm keeping my endocannabinoid (eCB) system regulated, but apparently from my good health and mellow state of mind I am. Obviously the science is just getting started. According to this abstract of a recent study:

Care and Feeding of the Endocannabinoid System: A Systematic Review of Potential Clinical Interventions that Upregulate the Endocannabinoid System

these are some of the ways that we can feed our eCB system:

The endocannabinoid (eCB) system consists of receptors, endogenous ligands, and ligand metabolic enzymes. Metaphorically the eCB system represents a microcosm of psychoneuroimmunology or mind-body medicine. Cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) is the most abundant G protein-coupled receptor expressed in the brain, with particularly dense expression in (rank order): the substantia nigra, globus pallidus, hippocampus, cerebral cortex, putamen, caudate, cerebellum, and amygdala [1]. CB1 is also expressed in non-neuronal cells, such as adipocytes and hepatocytes, and in musculoskeletal tissues. Cannabinoid receptor 2 (CB2) is principally associated with cells governing immune function, although it may also be expressed in the central nervous [2], [3].

The eCB system's salient homeostatic roles have been summarized as, “relax, eat, sleep, forget, and protect” [5]. It modulates embryological development, neural plasticity, neuroprotection, immunity and inflammation, apoptosis and carcinogenesis, pain and emotional memory, and most importantly from the viewpoint of recent drug development: hunger, feeding, and metabolism. Obese individuals seem to display an increased eCB tone, driving CB1 activation in a chronic, feed-forward dysfunction (reviewed by [6]). An antagonist or inverse agonist of CB1 called rimonabant (aka, SR141716 in preclinical studies) was approved for the treatment of obesity. It was subsequently withdrawn from the market due to adverse effects [7].

Other diseases are associated with suboptimal functioning of the eCB system. Russo [8] proposed that migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, and related conditions represent CEDS, “clinical endocannabinoid deficiency syndromes.” Fride [9] speculated that a dysfunctional eCB system in infants contributes to “failure to thrive” syndrome. Hill and Gorzalka [10] hypothesized that deficient eCB signaling could be involved in the pathogenesis of depressive illnesses. In human studies, eCB system deficiencies have been implicated in uncompensated schizophrenia [11], migraine [12], multiple sclerosis [13], Huntington's [14], [15], uncompensated Parkinson's [16], irritable bowel syndrome [17], uncompensated anorexia [18], and chronic motion sickness [19].

Correcting CEDS may be accomplished via at least three molecular mechanisms: 1. augmenting eCB ligand biosynthesis; 2. decreasing eCB ligand degradation; 3. augmenting or decreasing receptor density or function. Clinical interventions for CEDS are largely unknown; this provided a rationale for reviewing potential clinical approaches. The paucity of human clinical trials led us to include preclinical studies in a systematic review. A systematic review uses an objective, transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimizing bias. Systematic reviews usually analyze human clinical trials, but the methodology can be applied to preclinical studies [20], [21]. We previously conducted a systematic review of in vitro CB1 ligand binding affinity and receptor distribution [22]. The review has alerted others to inter-species differences in preclinical studies, and other methodological issues (e.g., [23]).

Potential clinical interventions (intervention groups) include pharmaceutical drugs, such as analgesics (acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opiates, glucocorticoids), antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytic agents, and anticonvulsants. We also investigated therapeutic approaches classified as “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM). The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) defines CAM as “a group of diverse medical and healthcare systems, practices, and products, that are not currently part of conventional medicine” (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/). The NCCAM categorizes CAM practices into three broad groups: “natural products” (dietary supplements and herbal remedies), “mind and body medicine” (meditation, yoga, and acupuncture), and “body-based practices” (massage, spinal manipulation). For the purposes of this review, we add “lifestyle modifications,” including diet, weight control, exercise, and commonly-used psychoactive substances—alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and cannabis.

Recently, my first required physical in over thirty years (so I could stay legally alive -- thank you U.S. government and Obamacare) determined I was optimally healthy, and not just for my age. Thus I don't have any of those above described CEDs (Clinical Endocannabinoid Deficiency syndromes). So maybe that's possible because we were "food nuts" (early term for organic farmers and consumers) when I was a child, and I stayed with it throughout my life. Also I roast my own coffee these days and drink a couple of cups a day. That's about the closest I come to psychoactive substance consumption. Oh, yeah, I do sort of meditate, do yoga exercises, bicycle, and walk. I weigh what I weighed when I got out of the Navy in 1970, can wear the same clothes. Hardly ever drive a car anymore. All that seems to fit the three broad groups of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices. But it probably also satisfies whatever C.O.A.S.T.E.R (Chronically OverActive StrEss Response) mitigation gmiklashek might prescribe for his determined causes of stress.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am
Quote ren: New" is relative to the passage of laws here in Washington State. One of those retail outlets has a green cross signifying medicinal use.

I was referring to "new" as in not even discovered until the mid 1960s. The Military was experimenting with synthetic cannabinoids in the late 50s and 60s. Yet Science didn't know about it or its functions until then? Suspicious.

I haven't tried WA pot system. I've heard of a lot of prohibitionists influence. Mark Klieman is an ass. I prefer Prop 215 as it is without giving state cops jurisdiction that ALUM will do. The dispensaries are beyond imagination and they deliver. Never more civilized or inexpensive. I have also had a check up and pushing retirement age, not that I'm going too. Clean lungs, no problems.

The theory on ECS or eCS is mine and not many have stated a response, positive or negative. I have no details or how much abstinence might start enlarging fear centers. Or other symptoms of EDSD. Like I said, not many are researching and the government is stuck with Mississippi schwag they send the IND patients.

Private research is moving forward. But its a new field with many options to study and most are looking for profits over positive results cutting down on fat pharma profits treating it.

After Medical Marijuana Legalized, Medicare Prescriptions Drop For Many Drugs

MAPS is in Santa Cruz doing private research. They are in sinc with Israel studies. Universities are doing studies but again they were required to use the sabotage pot from Mississippi. I haven't heard of private stash being used outside of GWPH doing FDA trials with their own imported. Studies on whole plant Sativex or synthetics are driving stocks high enough to buy my pot the last three years.

Obama can remove it as a controlled substance and let all of the people use it. Hemp is ridiculous listed the same as crack or heroin. All of the states are on their own "experimenting" and most of the "regulations" are based on Nixon's lies. Not enforcing federal laws is not legalizing.

Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System

Meet The Man That Discovered The Endocannabinoid System

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am
Quote douglaslee:

Syria's blow up was linked to climate change, and with a civil war next door there were plenty of rebels and militia to capitalize on the agricultural tragedy.

Australia has good desalination, I don't know why CA doesn't install a plant. I hear they might like a bit more water.

Climate change was the major factor in Syria but it was also the market forces driving wheat prices higher on theses insane future market which was the final crack in that dike that flooded the town!

Climate change plus locust capitalism equals complete break down of society! So grasp stock market greed means more mass migration destabilizing first world countries!

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

Gary Larson on stress, scientific research, evolution, early “man,” mass extinction, naming things, communication, and writing flaws:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/d6/ce/0cd6ce5da430bc293bf7dd918081f22d.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bd/74/20/bd7420bcfa127982ee788b3cf3907be6.jpg

http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol261/ExamsEtc/Exam012006_files/image001.jpg

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/fossilhominins-fromardipithecustohomo-091108203054-phpapp02/95/fossil-hominins-from-ardipithecus-to-homo-22-728.jpg?cb=1257712294

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b1/08/5d/b1085d80275951a7b628345bdb7d4f51.jpg

Naming things: http://comicsalliance.com/files/2015/08/Larson00-630x420.jpg

Personality types.

Communication.

Writing flaws.

Gary Larson, one of the treasures of modern civilization.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Agreed.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Fascist Spain under Franco read more books and broader theories because they cold beat and torture you any time so it didn't matter what you thought.

Back then the US as free society was not allowed to beat the citizens. What they thought was important, and Eddie Bernays' to the rescue.

I think cops are allowed to beat the shit out of people now. Two just killed two last week. Maybe this IS in response to the loss of the narrative aka the internet. Violence is blamed on the internet violence in some circles, fox I think. What if it's just the increased knowledge? BLM is who gave the instructions to the fiance in MN to live stream. More videos of more cops killing fleeing unarmed men, or stuff that used to be hidden. I wonder if it is the same procedures as always and they've been killing forever, like black folks have been saying forever. Video cameras are a force that Rodney King taught the police about a long time ago. Is PR going to save the fascists' asses this time?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Fascist Spain under Franco read more books and broader theories because they cold beat and torture you any time so it didn't matter what you thought.

Back then the US as a free society was not allowed to beat the citizens (that's what we were told anyhow). What people thought was important, and Eddie Bernays to the rescue.

I think cops are allowed to beat the shit out of people now. Two just killed two last week. Maybe this IS in response to the internet- but the loss of control of the narrative. Violence is blamed on internet violence in some circles, fox I think. What if it's just the increased knowledge? BLM is who gave the instructions to the fiance in MN to live stream. They teack that NOT to save your life but to make your impending death meaningful, unlike the hapless victims in our allie's stoning fields. We see more videos of more cops killing fleeing unarmed men, or stuff that used to be hidden. I bet it is the same procedures as always and they've been killing forever, like black folks have been saying forever. Video cameras are a force that Rodney King taught the police about a long time ago. Is PR going to save the fascists' asses this time? Will all 3 cops go to jail? Yes to the former, no to the latter.

btw, I found a definition for a word not in Saul's current Dictionary of Common Sense, Internet. Internet- Where religions go to die, (or the religion graveyard if you liked the elephant graveyard meme) Religion attendance and belief is down by a lot lately.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why Hasn't Congress Taken War Powers Away From Trump?

Thom plus logo Donald Trump's pathetic betrayal of our Kurdish allies in northern Syria highlights the importance of Congress taking seriously it's constitutional obligation to define and authorize war.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system