Mine Olde Mind

Well, this is the last of the "list" posts. I hope through some of this you have found interesting thoughts and what not. Any who, let us begin.

Look at today's society... what do you see...

• suburbia
• dead-zones
• garbage in the pacific
• erosion out of control
• shopping malls the size of football fields and larger
• soaring gas prices
• mediocre health care
• In a Nutshell--- EXPLOITATION

Exploitation-

the closest thing that the 1877 dictionary has to exploitation is "exploit" which is listed as "a heroic deed". In the 2003 dictionary, it does include a similar definition but adds- "to make unethical use of for ones own profits".

It is clear that in every way, our society has turned a heroic mission into a profit making machine. Yes, agricultural expansion is a heroic mission... until you turn it into a machine that degrades soil. Yes, insurance is a good thing... until it so corrupts the health care system that you can't afford insurance or doctor's bills, and definitely not both. Yes, gas is a good thing...until so much of it is consumed that there is no longer an affordable way to travel.

In a nutshell, We are running ourselves into the ground, full force, without heeding any of the warnings. Our society, our culture is built on exploitive philosophy. There is only so much you can take without giving back. There is only so much you can give back (waste/garbage) with out taking something. Anyway, this concludes a series of thoughts based on society. I am a member of that very same society, but I am different. I will be different. If more people were different, then society would be different, and there would be no need fr me to stand on my virtual soapbox.

WARNING: HOT TOPIC

• the work of producing crops and raising livestock; farming (Webster's 2003)
• the art of cultivating the ground; husbandry (Webster's 1877)

Holy COW!!!! (no pun intended) Have we as of yet seen such a discrepancy between definitions??? This goes from ART to WORK. What a tremendous shift.

When did this happen??

When American began to over produce (around WWI it really hit home, though it had been tough on farms since then) they switched to monoculture rather than sustenance farming, the excess of which were occasionally sold at market. After the WWI farming boom (caused by people in Europe were waging a war and had not time to fight, therefor opening that market to American produce) there was a farming depression. Farms were hit hard by the fall out of prices when the war ended effectively beginning the great depression over a decade early for farm families. Many factors play into this, such as an unregulated banking system, and an unregulated stock market, but in the end it led to thousands of small farms being converted into large land holdings. These large land holdings were worked by fewer people due to the efficiency of mechanization. Larger and larger machines worked the land until all hell broke loose and the top soil just blew away. (The Great Dust Bowl)

Do you see what happened??? People, real people, not people on machines, not people in offices far far away, but people, whose life and livelihood depended on that soil... LEFT. They were uprooted just as the land was. That is when the switch happened. That is when "cultivation" turned into "production", that is when art turned into work and husbandry into farming.

The Dust Bowl

Democracy-



The official definition of this term is:

• 1.) government by the people directly or through representatives. 2.) a country, etc. with such a government. 3.) equality of rights, opportunity and treatment. (2003, Webster's)


• 1.) government by the people. (1877 Webster's)

let us make this brief for the sake of efficiency and understanding. Notice how the 1877 definition leaves it as it is. It takes nothing away, it adds nothing. It is, if you will, a pure definition.

If this was left as it is...think of how different our world would be. Elections by popular ballot rather than electoral colleges (which FYI, is an outdated system, only invented to appease a petulant South wanting representation for slaves who didn't vote [3/5 compromise]). No "party" lines of division. There would be more choice. Probably too much choice, which is why we have the system we do today. Is there such a thing as too much choice... yes, but only if you can't handle it. In a society and a nation as large and encompassing as ours, it would be difficult to pull off to say the least.

Even though, I can think of no practical system (I can come up with theoretical systems all day long) of government for our nation that would work better than the one we currently have, I till believe that when we vote we are choosing between two evils, and merely trying to pick the lesser of the two. That is not democracy. Somehow, the cream of the crop is not getting picked, they are not even running. What has happened to statesmanship?? Where have the patriots gone?? They are now, most often, the silent ones, who know better but stand aside and do nothing to stop what happens. Other times they are part of advocacy groups and lobbyists because that is the only way to be heard in this day and age. (which I believe is sick and wrong). So what are we to do about all this?? We the PEOPLE, are to govern, we the PEOPLE are to elect what officials we want, not just elect the officials that run. We the PEOPLE need to get off of our lazy, government dependent rears and start playing an active role in the direction of our country. We the PEOPLE, need to be the ones who decide whether or not a bill goes through, not the dollars being pumped into Washington, not the lobbyists screaming in politicians ears, we the PEOPLE can play a part in our government and we need to.

I am not going all "hippie"~"peace rally" on you, I am simply stating that action needs to be taken. We need to get out of our own little box that we live in, and pay attention to what is happening on the hill. We need to care. We need to show that we care, and we can do that with our votes, with our wallets, with our feet, and with our voices. We the PEOPLE, can show that we care. Indifference is what has gotten our society to the low level in which it stands. This is our battle, the nation is our field, go and make your voices heard.

For this post, I have yet to really determine the reasons for why it is the way it is. Lets start with some statistics.... over 50%.

50% of marriages fail, they end in divorce. Worse than that even, the percentage is the same within the church.

Why do marriages fail? I have no idea, it is just the way it it. Maybe it is too hard for some couples, maybe they didn't realize what it would take to love this person their whole life unconditionally. I know that so far in my marriage, it has not always been roses and roasts (eg, good for the both of us). I have decided each day to love this man, and that is what it is is a decision.

I believe that though society and culture are relatively neutral entities, and that the individual is in charge of what he/she does, our society and the acceptance of divorce within it has made marriage a sham...something returnable. Please don't get me wrong, I understand that there are cases out there that involve abuse, and I believe that physical abuse is not to be tolerated. However, any other situation, you have had a say in whether or not you marry that person. You know what the word implies. It implies forever, your whole life, together, good times and bad. I believe that problems can be worked out, it may take years and lots of prayer, but they can be worked out.

Our families these days are separated by miles and miles; children blown to the four winds are not there to care for their parents as they once were able to. It is, after all, an individualistic society. Now, most of our cherished old are put into "homes" that are not home to them, visited rarely by those they brought into this world. I think this is one major, let me stress MAJOR, problem with the way our society thinks. A wealth of knowledge, experience and love is captured within that dear individual, grown over a lifetime it is ready to be shared in its completeness. We, however, have lacked the necessary attention span to be there and to listen.

Lastly, It is the same individualism of the parents (pursuing career, etc.) that often affects the coming generation. Children, often to their parent's dislike, must be put into daycare so that the parents can work to earn a living in this country. What happens is, by the time the parents pick the kids up from daycare, and get home, and have supper, everyone is too tired to do much of anything as a family. This leads to parents not knowing their children, and children not knowing or much respecting their parents. As always there are rare exceptions to the case.

These conclude some observations on family life in our society. In brief, it has degraded as our individualistic society has flourished.
(disclaimer for those who would care: I have seen each of these situations within my own family. Note also that I have not used any superlatives. There are always exceptions to rules, I merely observe and record things of note that might make you think.)
(note also that I know the necessity of some of these conventions but none the less they do harm the family unit within our society. [eg. daycare so that parents can put food on the table])

My dear friends I know this is an odd title for this next topic; a topic in which I would like to discuss the discrepancies between a class based and a community based society.

Class based Society
You may be thinking of the caste system in India when I say class based, or perhaps even feudal Europe, but I highly doubt you would be thinking of modern day America. Even if you would consider our nation within the limits of this classification, you might think it still better than other nations since our classes rest between the poor and the rich; after all America is the land of opportunity, so whose to say the poor of yesterday aren't the rich of today.

I will give you the fact that yes, a poor man has the capacity to rise, but have you considered that perhaps if the poor were secure of their ability to survive in this world, they would keep their way of life similar to what they already achieve just less the woes of money. I have found that money, though a neutral entity, can just as easily have a negative impact on our lives while being perceived as positive. Allow me an example to clarify.... So there is this somewhat poor, not totally destitute man who goes to a tax prep agent to have his taxes done. Walking out of the building he is some $300 richer (which if you know anything about those places is equivalent to a high interest loan to be paid back with an arm and a leg) for the time being, but upon paying back the tax prep agent with the tax refund he actually gets, it turns out that he is worse off than he was. So you see in his mind that was a wise decision because he had money for the moment, but in reality if he had just sat down and read the little tax book carefully he could have saved himself the preparers fee and the interest. It is this mind set of the somewhat poor that will eventually be the downfall of their lifestyle. It is unsustainable. Even on their meager wages one could become financially secure. Note I say secure not successful. I do believe that there is a tyranny in success. It is the pressure of the wealthy to be rich. To live lavishly, to be that person in society, probably all the while being untrue to themselves. Such is a product of a class based society.

Origin of the class based society

In all honesty I can sum this up in one sentence but to make certain I am perfectly understood, I will give it more room to breathe. Private property has created the class based society. (there it is in one sentence and now I will explain why) With the creation of private property, there was a creation of mine and yours. With that manifestation there are inherently differences between mine and yours. These differences are eventually what culminated in classes. Prior to private property, everyone was feasting or famishing together. There was a commonality between the one person and the other. They were part of a community. They were connected, and yet I believe still free to be individuals. I will discuss the competition between community and individualism later on in this blog.

The starkest, most visceral example of the sudden change between community and private property can be seen in places like Africa, when trade reached it coasts, and also in our own history in that of the Native Americans and what the overwhelming push for one's own piece of creation did to their way of life.

Communal Society

I would like to say right off the bat that I am NOT an advocate of communism. Community and communism are two very different things. They focus around the same concept but communism is far to extreme to be beneficial in this world of gray.

I believe that community is an ingredient this country is sorely lacking in it melting pot.

Community as defined by Webster's Dictionary:

• any group living in the same area or having interests, work etc. in common; the general public; a sharing in common (2003)
• society; common possession (c.1877)

Again I would like to draw attention to the discrepancies between the 19th and 21st century definitions for the word community. Have you ever considered that if people helped one another - were in community with one another - the world would be a far better place. Do you not see how vehicular traffic, wealth discrepancies, and cultural differences have torn our sense of community as ravenously as an eagle shreds it prey. Think again of the example I used above of the Native Americans. As they accepted technologies they became dependent on those technologies rather than on their knowledge, and so were tyrannized by success (technology, successful trade in their case as well). [NOTE: I like technology, I just think it is abused today to do some of the basic things that we really don't even need it for just are too lazy to do ourselves]

Community and Individualism

Above I had brushed lightly over this topic, but now I would delve into it further. Let us again start on a common basis by referring to Webster's Dictionary:

• individuality; the doctrine that the state exists for the individual; the leading of one's life in one's own way. (2003)
• individual existence or essence (c. 1877)

Somehow, I am not surprised to again find discrepancies between the centuries. But let us go further. Comparing these definitions, in their respective centuries, to the above mentioned definitions for community, we may easily draw the following conclusions.

1. Even while being individual, there is a greater separation of people (and therefore of minds, and society) in the 21st century then in the 19th.
2. In the 21st century definition, the "state" is mentioned as being for the individual. Though the government is not mentioned at all in the 19th century definition I would like to argue that the state being for "the individual" goes entirely against what our founding fathers set up this nation to be. Is it not proven by the preamble of our own constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" (I have bolded the non- individualistic key words in the Preamble)
3. May it also be of note that the 19th century definition is one of independence yes, but more of a self-sufficient independence. (individual existence or essence= not reliant on anyone for what gives you existence, yet that does not mean that you are individual to the point of being separate from your community)

This is how I can that when there were once community societies, there were still individuals. There was not a competition between them. In our individualistic society today, however, if there were a strong force of community, it would be a battle in our own subterfuge society because the idea of community (as I perceive it) is so totally at war with individualism as it exists today.

What I would like to suggest to you today is that if people helped one another, then perhaps the poor would have a better, happier condition of living than the rich. Perhaps having only enough money to get by, but having the regions wealth in friends, good neighbors, and commonality with ones surroundings, would become the new rich. The true rich. I know for a fact that money cannot buy happiness, but more often brings with it greater suffering than one can see from the shiny exterior. True wealth, True success lies in things not related to money. It lies in relationships, in hard work, in perseverance, and in a community not only with ones surroundings but with one's God. That is the most important factor yet.

Today I would like to discuss the issue of specialization and what it implies. First let us define specialization.

• "to concentrate on a particular branch of study or work" ~Webster's Dictionary (2003)
• "Particular, noting something more than ordinary" ~Webster's Dictionary (circa 1877)

Is it not interesting to note how the definition of specialization differs from what it once meant to be special. Our modern perception of the world is that everyone has one place to fill. Their specialization. This perception inherently leads to the degradation of mind and society.

The Degradation of Mind...

You may indeed be wondering how on earth being specifically good at something could be a bad thing, and lead to such consequences as I have mentioned. Let me make clear the being a "Jack of all trades, but master on none" is not what I advocate. I have found that those (typically, as always there will be exceptions in our diverse world) who are specialists, are little good at much else. What I am trying to say is that "concentrating" on that particular branch of study, may indeed limit you in other ways. You may be good at that thing, but hardly worth the air it takes to keep you breathing at far many others. It is the idea of being a well rounded person. It is not limiting your mind to a speciality or concentration but being open to try and learn as many things as one possibly can.

The Degradation of Society...

This indeed is a result of the degradation of one's own mind, for a society is collective of all the minds within. Each is somehow reflected upon the society in which it resides. When we specialize within our society, we create a vacuum of the other necessary skills that we need to live. He who is good at plumbing for example is rarely good at weaving fabric. Of course this is a theoretical example but the point remains. Each person should be able to be self sufficient. When they lose their self sufficiency, they lose their very freedom. In some way or another, they would always need more than they themselves could provide. This is the result of specialization. People no longer believe in having the capacity to "not be" a consumer. It is indeed a cyclic struggle.

The change occurred when??

Thomas Jefferson envisioned this nation a nation of small farmers, each independent yet working together. He saw this life as the ultimate free life. Alexander Hamilton, however, saw this nation as a commercial opportunity where trade and commerce had a chance at becoming the major way of life. Needless to say, Hamilton had a greater influence over Washington than did Jefferson in the matter of how to develop commerce. Even though only 4 years passed between the time Washington left office and Jefferson took office, the Hamiltonian view of commercial development had been unleashed and like a wave just kept coming.

I believe this was the fundamental turn of our country from self sufficient freedom to today's commercial specializations.

What changed??

As noted above, the definitions of specialization (2003) and special (1877) respectively differ enormously.

• First, the modern definition includes the words "study" and "work", which inherently infers that there is already some specialization occurring. This sort of "double specialization" is what makes the difference between mastering a trade and specializing in a trade.
• Second, note that the 1877 definition includes the phrase "more than ordinary" which implies that you ordinarily give "note" to something anyway. This is mastering a trade without specializing in it.

In the end, it can be summed up by stating that society and people, have taken mastering a particular trade too far, which has resulted in the need for someone else's specialization (consumer market), which in turn has caused the loss of self sufficient independence and cooperation.

If this resonated with you I would like to recommend further reading. Please note the selection under the list on the right.