On Things Written Over the Last Two Weeks

(A brief message from Joe Brew)

This is a two-part entry.
-Part 1: A brief response to recent posts / an attempt at framing the nature of our debates systematically.
-Part 2: Introducing recent email subjects into the blog conversation.

PART ONE
ON LIMITATIONS AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION

Eric’s comments on “limitations” were right on. They also serve as a perfect intro to highlighting some of our differences of opinion (which could guide later conversation). As he pointed out, the basic premise of our economic thought, religious thought, humanitarian thought, political thought, etc. is that we must have more for more. More money for more people (economy), more salvation/life for more people (religion), more medicine/water/food for more people (humanitarianism), more democracy for more people (politics). These seem to be the basic tenants guiding our society.

Permit me, for the sake of stimulating argument, to lay down what I believe to be our disagreements regarding these 4 categories:
-ECONOMY:
WILL essentially believes that the creation of new wealth (more wealth) is a far more effective means of alleviating economic ills (poverty) than the redistribution of existing wealth. Economic responsibility, to Will, means getting rich, investing, and spending money on good things.
Based on ERIC’s “limits are good” theory, I can assume that he allies himself more with the redistribution camp. He thinks we should invest in less non-essential things and spend less money.
SETH’s comments that “I think weaning ourselves of the excessiveness that has become a cultural norm will help to bring us back towards sanity too.,” and “I wonder how many people would be willing and able to give up their cars altogether, stop buying goods made in sweatshops, or obtaining stuff they do not need in the first place,” make me believe that he also has anti-capitalist views (pinko).
Joe, the group’s archetypal communist, remains the group’s archetypal communist, but with many doubts.

-RELIGION:
WILL does not believe in God and thinks that believing in God is a major problem for the world.
ERIC does not believe in God and thinks that believing in God is a major problem for the world.
SETH believes in God, believes in the usefulness of belief in God, and believes that others should believe in God (?).
JOE does not believe in God, but thinks that believing in God might actually be good for the world.

-HUMANITARIANISM:
I think we all agree that more food, more medicine, more water, etc. for more people is a good thing. ERIC’s recent statement that we need to cut food production by 50% by 2050 call for more commentary.

-POLITICS:
-I think we’re all left-leaning idealists who assume that democracy is a good thing which can and should be implemented on a global scale (?).

PART TWO
ON THE NECESSITY OF BAD DECISIONS

Recent email discussion has been dominated by the questions of
-good decisions versus bad decisions
-planning versus impulsiveness
-letting things happen versus intentionality

These questions have been brought up in relation to several dilemmas, notably those of some of us having been in disagreeable situations which we chose to “ride out” despite the fact that we were unhappy with those situations. We have touched upon the pedagogical value of sadness and the importance of not giving up on situations just because we don’t like them. Likewise, we have brought up the value of re-making life in whatever image we like whenever we like (existentialism, baby!), and the silliness of trying to learn “life lessons” rather than enjoy ourselves when life is too short for lessons to be useful.

What I am wondering is this: are our life choices motivated by genuine internal desire (want) or by imposed external expectation (fear). In more concrete terms, has Eric chosen consciously to “eat rice, think alot, write alot, read alot, sing alot, sleep alot, and travel a lot,” or is he simply doing these things because he, like the rest of us, is trained to act like the person others think he is? Am I in France studying for a Masters Degree immediately after graduation because this is the life I want, or because this is the life I let happen to me?

We often evoke the “magic button” scenario as a litmus test for determining our satisfaction with the lives we lead. But in most cases, the “magic” button is in fact not magic at all. Religious or not, we all believe in our ability to choose*. What I’m essentially asking is, why don’t we exercise this power more often?

*maybe