b

But apart from all of that, human beings have always been just a bit different. We tend to modify the environment more, much more, than other species. I think that’s our nature. Create and wear clothing in order to adapt to cold climates - “solution” to a “problem”? Is this inherently destructive and out of sync with nature? Had to learn to learn to dry meat for later (future), in order to solve the “problem” of changing seasons. Culture emerges with sense of “future” rather than pure instincutual response to the immediate. But not necessarily a descrutctive culture??? Is that correct? Are our most basic characteristics and tendencies destructive? (Maybe I’m projecting “problem”and “solution” into that fantasized earlier state of mind?) But we do modify our surroundings - even hunter gatherers. This has a future orientation - But not necessarily a “domination” orientaiton. correct?

I think maybe you are polarizing it too much. We do need what may be loosely called “solutions” (though like you I am very skeptical of this word and the implied orientation). These solutions, however, will not be aimed at continuing the current culture. Somehow, we have to find our way to something different - completely different - unless, of course, you believe that humanity is not redemable; a total blight that should be erradicated. (I can see how a person might come to such a conclusion).

I think though, that you are right when you say language is important - very. But this is also a matter of awareness and consciousness (for lack of better word). I’m thinking about the work of James Hillman and others in the field of archetypal psychology. Might reread “revisioning psychology” at this time. The problems have to do with the evolution of Western consicousness and especially what is excluded from it - as well as the dominiation of rational thought, the construciton of llinear time and “progress” etc.

Now there are people who say that the whole culture is about denying death - building human worlds that triumph (only through distracted and obfuscation - in denial), over death. I tend to think this is right - really right. We must come into a new relationship with death because we don’t have that in this culture and its critical That’s what was lost when the body became a souless machine that wears down. That’s got to be a part of the change here. There is such a huge denial of death that it now appears to have taken on Frankensteinian, gargantuan proportions in the real world. We are about to be overwhelmed with the death that has been denied or manipulated or controlled or obscured through consumerism, the worship of youth and so forth. So, better get a better relationship to death I’d say. Got to be part of what we’re doing here.

Random thoughts - B

Albert Bartlett has said “We should remember the words of Eric Sevareid; he observed that ‘the chief source of problems is solutions.’ This is what we encounter every day: solutions to problems just make the problems worse.”

from “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy” presentation (I always say this should be required listening for every activist, environmentalist, planner, politician, scientist, theologian, philosopher, and thinker).
http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy

This lecture/book was the beginning of my awakening.