(Author’s Note – I’ve placed the first two, previously-posted thoughts at the start for coherence. Please scroll down to Thought Three.)
We measure climate change as an abstract idea balanced against the real problems of our lives. We see the truth of climate change, just as we understand that Earth is roughly spherical. We laugh at both flat-Earthers and climate change deniers.
We also understand that our ways of life cause climate change, but in the scales, living as we do has weight, while climate change, being but an understood idea – such as, say, Murphy’s law – has none.
But the truth is that we live by delusive ideas, while climate change is reality.
That’s one thought. Here’s another.
We currently measure that weight of our lives (whose mass of problems out-weighs the problems of climate change) as insignificant relative to the vast weight of corporate and political power.
The truth is that governments and corporations are abstractions without weight, while our lives (though pursuing delusion) have weighty footsteps. We create the effects of the will of governments and corporations by our own actions. They have no physics to do so. Governments and corporations do not cause climate change. We do, one by one.
So, we use the abstract thought that corporate and government power seems vast to make it conveniently purposeless to act morally ourselves. We sign petitions to corporations and governments to improve their non-existent behaviour and we vote in democracies for the least-worst candidate for utterly abstract power.
Al Gore’s – An inconvenient truth remains and it rules our lives.
We are deluded, because –
Firstly – we ordinary people are the causal physics of climate change.
Secondly – only ordinary people and one by one, can stop causing climate change.
Governments, corporations and their disseminators – the BBC and our particularly chosen newspapers – are voices in our heads – coercing bad behaviour.
Why lobby governments and corporations to behave better, when it is only through us, the lobbyists, that they can behave at all?
Once upon a time, church; temple; mosque… – that is, perennial, ancestral tradition – out-weighed the ephemeral coercion of power.
We cannot conjure those social commons from thin air. Neither can we easily revive them from enclaves of dying embers.
It all points to ourselves – as Tolstoy mentioned, The Anarchists are right in everything. And as another religious leader similarly advised, the kingdom is within you.
Cultures are not the state of things, managed by elected representatives. They are methods of settlement managed one by one by ourselves. Culture stops when people stop culturing.
Currently, developed economies are cultured by monopoly-controlled tools of retail park, ring road, family cars, industrial agriculture, centralised networks of procurement and distribution and similarly centralised networks of politics and information. Even so, it is only by, and through real people, and one by one, that monopolistic (mostly oil-powered) systems can be applied.
So-called mainstream political and information networks (such as the BBC) are the political and information networks of those tool-controlling monopolies.
People have, for the most part ceased to consider themselves as cultural contributors and instead – by both employment and purchases, have become vehicles – conduits or carriers for the culturing suggested by those networks of politics and information. A bargain has been struck. Consumerism provides networks of bottom up requests – in exchange for top down responsibility. The transaction asks that citizens shed responsibility for the culture in exchange for statutory rights to quality of cultural supply.
The flaw in the contract is that the top down responsibility is actually a top down right. Responsibility has been shed from the contract. There is no-one responsible for either the helm of the ship, or for the sailors’ application of instruction from the bridge.
It remains true that people, one by one, apply the tools, which make the culture. Without that application of one by one, the whole monopoly infrastructure of super market, retail park, family car, suburbia and so on, will collapse. That network is an idea. People provide the physics, the market signals and the money.
However, the consumerist pact has shed ethics from actions by acceptance of the ethics of a network, which we pretend has ethics, but in our hearts, know has none. It is a common misconception that rights carry a balance of responsibility. They do not.
Since all our acts have consequence and so a moral, the shedding of that moral leaves our acts bereft of meaning. We become defensive, confused, belittled and cynical. We have rights, but are nostalgic for responsibility. Responsibility is the source of self-worth. It places us in the larger world. Without it, we cannot be happy.
The network is unaware of the physics of its actions, because all physics passes through the intelligent senses of people – one by one – all of whom have signed the pact –firstly by the ballot of shed responsibility and secondly by accepting the consumer right of purchase.
People are unaware of, or are at any rate, are contractually careless of the physics of their actions. Democracy and consumerism have merged as a single entity.
The vulnerability and dis-placement, which comes from punctured self-worth have been easily exploited by political and information networks. The use of scapegoats by both politicians and journalists is an ancient technique to bond a vulnerable “us” against shadowy causes of that insecurity. It removes our gaze from the true causes of our unhappiness to a fictitious place, where all can be well. By nostalgia we can be worthy and great again – today we are an anachronism in a sea of immigrants, work-anxiety, red tape and liberal-left spongers.
We are unhappy because we have shed responsibility – that is personal ethics – in exchange for extensive statutory rights. Many have sought an answer in accumulating further rights – that is permission to vilify scapegoats of immigration and red tape. Having expelled immigrants and having shed social and environmental responsibility, will we find happiness at last? – Since we’ve not expelled the cause of our unhappiness and have also accumulated still more of its causes, we will, of course, become still more unhappy.
Plainly the road to happiness is the road towards regained responsibility, in which we have – not a right to a new Great Britain– but the ownership of our own small and intimate actions. Those small actions are just human-sized – of personal responsibility. They are fitting. They are curious and interesting. They directly involve those we love. They contribute to the whole.
Thought Four is the inconvenient truth that the political/corporate/media/consumer partnership is hell-bent on suppressing.
Since Thought Four is both simple and true, every mainstream newspaper and broadcaster has reverted to ancient devises of irony, or sarcasm to suppress it. That is how we diminish truth. Of course, the distraction of post truth has also proved useful.
In politics, we’ve seen how injection of some simple truth by Jeremy Corbyn has stimulated that reaction of all three – irony, sarcasm and post-truth from New Labour and Conservative politicians and most tellingly, from the BBC. The same treatment is given to truths voiced by Plaid Cymru and SNP politicians.
Here’s a curiosity – that vilification has not been directed to the same degree at truths voiced by the Green Party.
Is that because the party is thought to be firstly- an insignificant threat, secondly a cross-party and so party-less concern, or thirdly because the truth is just too difficult to answer? Inconvenient truth is generally vilified. Have we a tiny chink of light? – a still, small voice?
A FRIVOLOUS THOUGHT
Here’s a frivolity – the happiest peoples in a recent survey –
1st Norway – population 5.314 million
2nd Denmark – population 5.58 million
3rd Iceland – population 332.5 thousand
4th Switzerland – population 8 million
5th Finland – 5.5 million
Now Scotland has 5.37 million, while Wales has 3.06 million.
Scotland and Wales seem to have very good population sizes to achieve happiness as independent nations.
Plainly the UK is much too big to ever achieve happiness. It’s heaving mass of people are insecure, xenophobic and nostalgic for what they cannot achieve – that is a population “about the size of Wales”, which shares common values. Now, if London should break from the UK as a new city state, its population is 8.67 million – on the large side, but still – just about possible for happiness.