I think you need to read Ishmael a little more carefully. Judging from your video, you have some grave misunderstandings of what Daniel Quinn was trying to say.
Associating Jesus with the "good" Gods is quite ethnocentric (and even civic-centric), but at least you admit that civilization is inherently problematic. You're on the right track. Sorry if I sounded snobby :-)
seems to be reducing civilization to the kind of gods we worship. Also, all gods cited, including "moon gods" are civilizational gods. Jesus is not a god, but he is the son of a sun god. Also, nature is not a god, nature is nature. Taoism is very much like Platonism. Buddhism, as Christianism, belives that this world is not the place we belong... Also I would say that Quinn is worng if he thinks this is a matter of religion...
I am quite willing to admit that my video drastically over simplified civilization and religion, but I think your characterizations did as well. Nature is nature, but whenever we assume we know its essence we are on effect worshiping an idol or god of our own creation.
Taoism is like Platonism? That comparison I don't understand at all.
Well, did leavers assume they know the essence of nature? I dont think so.
Taoism is such an abstraction... The idea of "Good", which Plato said to be like the sun, is pretty much the same as the idea of Tao... One cannot look directly to it, in this world we cannot truly see it.
"The great Tao flows everywhere, both to the left and to the right. The ten thousand things depend upon it; it holds nothing back. It fulfils its purpose silently and makes no claim. It nourishes the ten thousand things. And yet is not their lord. It has no aim; it is very small. The ten thousand things return to it, yet it is not their lord. It is very great. It does not show its greatness, And is therefore truly great. (verse 34 Tao Te Ching)
The Tao is not other than what we see and experience in this very world. It is not an abstraction or otherworldy concept like Plato's notion of the Good. Plato had a dualism at the heart of his metaphysical system. Lao Tzu never implied that such a dualism exists or could exist in the flow of Tao because Tao is all things, including no-thing. Plato named the Good and gave its characteristics, but the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
If I wanted to find two views more opposed to one another, I don't think I could do much better than Plato's and Lao Tzu's (though of course Plato and his system are also expressions of the course of nature, or Tao).
Maybe I have a wrong concept of Tao, but it looks to me as an abstraction, like the "Being". To Plato, those eternal and imutable ideas where not abstractions, the where reality. What we see are reflections of it, but not reality itself. That cannot be accessed, or named too.
Tao is not located in some ontologically separate or higher plane of existence like Plato's ideas are. It is an underlying law of nature, you might say. But it is not at all separate from nature.
what is leaving? nonaction of the mind, or rather no mental action which is dualistic, divided? perhaps it is the friction which destroys pure undivided energy
"leavers" are Daniel Quinn's name for the tribal peoples who existed before civilized "takers" ate up all their land and culture with the civilized "nature must be conquered and controled" attitude.
Yeah, and if you don't mind seeing your children die of disease, it's all cool. No one is stopping you from returning to the wilderness to hunt-gather.
It's just that the rest of us don't want to make that trade off, because we value the freedom that civilization affords, rather than the freedom of living under the rigid tradition of tribalism and working constantly for our own survival.
I really dug this video. What song is this? I think 'civilization' is both good and bad. Our consumerism is slowly destroying the earth, and our rapid population growth which will ultimately lead to the Malthusian hypothesis becoming true. However, "civilization" also means better medical care, higher quality of life, etc.
somehow I think we can walk away from civilization while still retaining the knowledge we've gained about nature. the trick will be to transform it from technical manipulation to intelligent relationship.
its the same difference between classical economics and planetary ecology. the former is about more digits, more stockpiles, more efficiency, more (cheaper, quicker, grosser) food, and more war. the latter is about more harmony, more sustainabiliy, more humanity, "more" quality, and more peace. its from big macs to vine ripened tomatoes.
I forget LOL. I really don't think we can walk away from civilization. Can an individual or group of individuals? Yes. But to walk about from it completely would be to ignore the potential technological and economic progress which would make our lives better...but simultaneously make our lives worse. The same technology that may cure AIDS will allow us to create new forms of warfare :(
uh.... farming works in harmony with the planet? farming flows with the tao. full scale agricultural civilization doesn't flow anywhere but up. and only for so long.
oh yeah i think i should have said few thousand years since we became civilized. but back then, we didn't have the technology to kill more than eachother. nowadays we can kill everything on the planet without much trouble, and that has only been possible very recently, like since the end of ww2. so i averaged the two factors together and came up with a few hundred...
I'll check them out, but you know we needn't necessarily read what the physicists have to say about the mind. We could also see what cultural historians and mystics have to say: William Irwin Thompson's book "At The Edge of History" is pretty good. So is Gary Lachman's "A Secret History of Consciousness," which is basically the cliff notes to Jean Gebser's "Ever-Present Origin," which is a bitch to read but well worth it.
groundbreaking. this is amaizng. this is amazing. you should post this to gimmeabreakman's "social unrest" contest. only if you want to. it'd win for sure. it'd have to. not that you want to win. but this is amazing.
I think you need to read Ishmael a little more carefully. Judging from your video, you have some grave misunderstandings of what Daniel Quinn was trying to say.
zamonkey 10 months ago
i like your video dude.
dazedANDtruckin 3 years ago
Associating Jesus with the "good" Gods is quite ethnocentric (and even civic-centric), but at least you admit that civilization is inherently problematic. You're on the right track. Sorry if I sounded snobby :-)
TigrisVirgata 3 years ago
seems to be reducing civilization to the kind of gods we worship. Also, all gods cited, including "moon gods" are civilizational gods. Jesus is not a god, but he is the son of a sun god. Also, nature is not a god, nature is nature. Taoism is very much like Platonism. Buddhism, as Christianism, belives that this world is not the place we belong... Also I would say that Quinn is worng if he thinks this is a matter of religion...
janosbiro 4 years ago
I am quite willing to admit that my video drastically over simplified civilization and religion, but I think your characterizations did as well. Nature is nature, but whenever we assume we know its essence we are on effect worshiping an idol or god of our own creation.
Taoism is like Platonism? That comparison I don't understand at all.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Well, did leavers assume they know the essence of nature? I dont think so.
Taoism is such an abstraction... The idea of "Good", which Plato said to be like the sun, is pretty much the same as the idea of Tao... One cannot look directly to it, in this world we cannot truly see it.
janosbiro 4 years ago
"The great Tao flows everywhere, both to the left and to the right. The ten thousand things depend upon it; it holds nothing back. It fulfils its purpose silently and makes no claim. It nourishes the ten thousand things. And yet is not their lord. It has no aim; it is very small. The ten thousand things return to it, yet it is not their lord. It is very great. It does not show its greatness, And is therefore truly great. (verse 34 Tao Te Ching)
redliterocket4 4 years ago
The Tao is not other than what we see and experience in this very world. It is not an abstraction or otherworldy concept like Plato's notion of the Good. Plato had a dualism at the heart of his metaphysical system. Lao Tzu never implied that such a dualism exists or could exist in the flow of Tao because Tao is all things, including no-thing. Plato named the Good and gave its characteristics, but the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
If I wanted to find two views more opposed to one another, I don't think I could do much better than Plato's and Lao Tzu's (though of course Plato and his system are also expressions of the course of nature, or Tao).
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Maybe I have a wrong concept of Tao, but it looks to me as an abstraction, like the "Being". To Plato, those eternal and imutable ideas where not abstractions, the where reality. What we see are reflections of it, but not reality itself. That cannot be accessed, or named too.
janosbiro 4 years ago
Tao is not located in some ontologically separate or higher plane of existence like Plato's ideas are. It is an underlying law of nature, you might say. But it is not at all separate from nature.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
missed some spots
andrew777777777 4 years ago
what is leaving? nonaction of the mind, or rather no mental action which is dualistic, divided? perhaps it is the friction which destroys pure undivided energy
addy5438 4 years ago
"leavers" are Daniel Quinn's name for the tribal peoples who existed before civilized "takers" ate up all their land and culture with the civilized "nature must be conquered and controled" attitude.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Yeah, and if you don't mind seeing your children die of disease, it's all cool. No one is stopping you from returning to the wilderness to hunt-gather.
It's just that the rest of us don't want to make that trade off, because we value the freedom that civilization affords, rather than the freedom of living under the rigid tradition of tribalism and working constantly for our own survival.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
Allah was originally a moon god. And Yahweh, probably a war god.
burnvictim77 4 years ago
... and just when I think I have lost hope for a future a kid like you comes along ;-) you are a brilliant young man :-)
jusguyz 4 years ago
I really dug this video. What song is this? I think 'civilization' is both good and bad. Our consumerism is slowly destroying the earth, and our rapid population growth which will ultimately lead to the Malthusian hypothesis becoming true. However, "civilization" also means better medical care, higher quality of life, etc.
AppleCider99 4 years ago
somehow I think we can walk away from civilization while still retaining the knowledge we've gained about nature. the trick will be to transform it from technical manipulation to intelligent relationship.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
its the same difference between classical economics and planetary ecology. the former is about more digits, more stockpiles, more efficiency, more (cheaper, quicker, grosser) food, and more war. the latter is about more harmony, more sustainabiliy, more humanity, "more" quality, and more peace. its from big macs to vine ripened tomatoes.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
But what did Quinn say about the difference between farming and full scale agricultural civilization?
redliterocket4 4 years ago
I forget LOL. I really don't think we can walk away from civilization. Can an individual or group of individuals? Yes. But to walk about from it completely would be to ignore the potential technological and economic progress which would make our lives better...but simultaneously make our lives worse. The same technology that may cure AIDS will allow us to create new forms of warfare :(
AppleCider99 4 years ago
uh.... farming works in harmony with the planet? farming flows with the tao. full scale agricultural civilization doesn't flow anywhere but up. and only for so long.
zzz33333 4 years ago
oh yeah i think i should have said few thousand years since we became civilized. but back then, we didn't have the technology to kill more than eachother. nowadays we can kill everything on the planet without much trouble, and that has only been possible very recently, like since the end of ww2. so i averaged the two factors together and came up with a few hundred...
redliterocket4 4 years ago
time is just an abstraction anyways, right? the calendar is the bedrock of civilization. remove that and the whole thing would collapse... i think.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Liked it Matthew (glad to see youve changed up format), though some of the papers flashed a bit quickly and I had to pause....maybe I'm just slow =/
normonics 4 years ago
i had to pause too! but that's ok! it wasnt thathard
zzz33333 4 years ago
I'll check them out, but you know we needn't necessarily read what the physicists have to say about the mind. We could also see what cultural historians and mystics have to say: William Irwin Thompson's book "At The Edge of History" is pretty good. So is Gary Lachman's "A Secret History of Consciousness," which is basically the cliff notes to Jean Gebser's "Ever-Present Origin," which is a bitch to read but well worth it.
redliterocket4 4 years ago
Nice. I just have one question, down leavers, does it say humans? i didn't understand very well that :P but I guess it Did said that
jnk0312 4 years ago
so good dude. its like a mini DQ crash course. I'm thinking about adding "read Ishmael" on the end of all my videos from now on.
superfrodies 4 years ago
this is real good
zzz33333 4 years ago
thanks yo! we need to collab on somehting
redliterocket4 4 years ago
on what though?? something like this? what could it be? i sleep in this question.
zzz33333 4 years ago
im trying to think of the best way to get a lot of people's attention without also having to poop on the message
redliterocket4 4 years ago
its a tough question.
zzz33333 4 years ago
groundbreaking. this is amaizng. this is amazing. you should post this to gimmeabreakman's "social unrest" contest. only if you want to. it'd win for sure. it'd have to. not that you want to win. but this is amazing.
zzz33333 4 years ago