Yep, sounds right to me. I've been reading WHY THE WEST RULES by Ian
Morris. It's about WHY civilizations rise and fall over the past 10,000
years. It's based on archeology, environment history and such stuff. You
would enjoy it.
As you say, its one step at a time. That's why watching America in the last
20 years is interesting. It take one bad step after another to finally make
it crash. At any point it could start taking good steps and save itself,
but it doesn't look good for that.
Finally after enough bad decisions, boom! It collapses and is a surprise to
From: [address removed]
[mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf
Of richard bell
Sent: Saturday, December 22,[masked]:31 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: [Ethics-Philosophyl-Group-of-East-Portland] response to Richard
I think you're correct that society improves one step at a time....but
it also regresses the same way. That's the mechanism of all change.
"Traditional" Christmases might have been events of fornication and
drunkenness....but so was daily life. Perhaps it's the "any excuse for
a party" school of excess.
I don't think the disapproval of Puritans can be be read as an even
handed critique. They attacked all "excess" rather across the
board....that it had a "religious" format no doubt was particularly
inciteful...but a flower in your button hole could get one pilloried or
Rather than a "moral" yardstick I'm more prone to Marxist (economic)
(cui bono...who benefits?) measurements.
The poverty, starvation and deprivation so prevalent in earlier eras was
a product of individuals lacking opportunities to easily survive, much
less better themselves. Feudalism and it's mercantilist aftermaths were
I agree that all change is fought by those with positive positions in
the status-quo. Even within destitute families....those with even
marginal power or influence might resist any change for the better that
might dislodge them from their positions...."repressive" "conservative"
and "regressive" positions are often held by the very poor and
destitute....who might see ANY change as threatening. who might be most
most likely to lose status from progressive social directions.
Religion isn't a different type of social power....it's among the
"non-wealth" influences....those who do not covet power and influence
(eg. stereotypical Quaker or Buddhists) are less likey to abuse
religious influence....for by enforcing extreme views that power is
wielded and held.
Always a pleasure, richard
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on
this mailing list
This message was sent by richard bell ([address removed]) from
Ethical Philosophy Today: Philosophy? Psychology? PC or BS?.
To learn more about richard bell, visit his/her member profile:
Set my mailing list to email me
As they are sent
In one daily email
Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] |
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version:[masked] / Virus Database: 2637/5478 - Release Date: 12/22/12