> They must become schizoid to work all day for a company that
> kills and destroys, has no ethics- is driven by profit motive
> only and then be able to go home and try to feel good about
> themselves. Or they decide that what is done in the business
> world is different from what they do in their private lives
I don't know anybody like that, and I don't know any companies like that.
Being part of the system (including being a consumer) is a matter of shades
of grey not black versus white. The choices we are confronted with are not
so clear. The need is to look at issues with a fresh perspective, and
somehow see past current cultural and political distortions.
> And, IMO, it's just as schizophrenic to say that the social and
> political aspects of sust. ag. should be discussed as a separate
> issue, away from the biologic.
Sure these are interrelated, but you have to know what is being discussed,
define terms, and jointly understand the structure of the issue, to discuss
things successfully. Use of loaded terms is a common powerplay, a way to
control the dialogue. It is evidenced by use of poorly defined words of
indeterminate scope like patriarchy, oppression, wise-use, sustainability,
right-to-life, etc. The purpose of these things is to reinforce
partisanship, not to illuminate.
The way it works is to get people to give assent to the hidden meanings of
the term, in a blanket sense, often by reference to lofty ideas like holism
or righteousness, or based on someones authority. There is no defined set
of hidden meanings. The content is determined ad-hoc by the people in
charge. When an individual disagrees with some small component, all of a
sudden they are anti-life, racist, or anti-wisdom. The word is like a
trojan horse, with all sorts of ideological exotica packed inside. When
someone takes issue with one hidden item, an emotional attack is launched,
publicly fueled by the emotive, common-language meaning of the word, rather
than the complex hidden meaning.
> It is this kind of disassociated thinking that has gotten
> us in the crisis we're in- social, political, economic,
> ethical and spiritual. These must all be considered as a
> whole, for they are inseparable and affect each other.
Being human is what has gotten us into trouble. IMO, we have got to analyze
these issues in a spirit of rational love, as humble scientists picking
apart the system to understand it's workings. The trouble with an emotional
approach is that it is too susceptible to the vagaries and manipulations of
partisans. Charismatic leaders who urge us to swallow opaque concepts
whole, without inspecting the parts are to be distrusted.
> It's not us and them- you're reading too much into my words.
> You may need to search yourself to see if you have a prejudice
> somewhere that leads you to this when you read words that
> disagree with your position. I know I struggle each day to
> convert my prejudices.
I feel like Sanet is loaded with misunderstanding and propaganda. I am
probably mistaken to some extent, but that is how I feel. I struggle all
the time to reconcile the things I read here with my technical and personal
> I hope that you will some day realize that we can no longer
> disassociate if we wish to survive and prosper- real prosperity,
> not money and possessions. And please do not cry, "Foul" every
> time someone talks of all aspects of an issue. We need to be
> doing more of this.
Disassociation in analysis of ideas is not so dangerous as the
disassociation of people. I am going to tell you what I think is true, and
I am going to cry foul when I feel you are being unfair. I agree, we need
to keep talking about all aspects of these issues.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: