SOAP (Shout Outs Are Professorial) Box

Madame,

My thanks for keeping the Ship of Blog ably afloat in my absence, although it doesn’t look like we had any bites on the gender issues, lol.

This week I cast the net wide to hopefully respond to all your questions back to 3/28! This will of course mean massive busting of brevity guidelines. :)

Should we think in civilization terms rather than American terms?  Yes, although Western civilization, while more than a bit weak, is nowhere near as dysfunctionally weak as America, and some parts of that civilization are fairly robust in comparison.  We focus on America because its dysfunctionality has the capability to drag the rest downward with it.  In maddening fashion, when what that civilization needs is a healthier and saner America to help stabilize it, it gets instead a sickly and somewhat arrogantly irrational one that greatly magnifies the problems.

The other nations of Western civilization have their own problems with illusion, etc., but they are often far less marked than ours (ask our semi-bewildered—and taken for granted—neighbors to the north what they think of our politics and economics, for example).  The difficulty with using Toynbee’s methodology too strictly is that we now have, effectively, a global civilization (at least in the economic sense, but some other aspects as well), and a number of sub-civilizations, of which Western is one, and America the prime component of both the overall global and the Western sub-one.  This particular bit of uncharted territory leaves all sorts of misty variables.   Will the up and coming sub-civilization in the East (these directional terms are subjective as all hool, I know) come to dominate the world civilization, and will China as the dominant member of that civilization dominate the whole?  Is America’s dysfunctionality and self-injuries (economic, educative, infrastructural, etc.) forcing an unwanted change, and ahead of time?  Do the old patterns of rivalry and advantage mean less now?  Can ever greater integration be reconciled successfully with local control and representation?  These questions I pose here barely take a feather to the surface, let alone actually scratch it. :)

If I were so endeavoring as to try to climb inside the mind of Toynbee and extract what he would say to do immediately to avert us from our present course, it would, I believe, pull out the answer: ENGAGE.  The system, for all its arrogant and dismissive blustering, is actually afraid of an engaged populace that can 1) hold its parasitic elites accountable, and 2) ennoble those who don’t really want to be parasitic elites but feel trapped by a self-serving and unresponsive system.  When the heretofore apolitical CITIZENS are actually talking to each other about the REAL issues, and looking for a way forward, when the discussions are not mostly about sports or any of the other of what have become the system’s diversions, a step will have been taken.   Those of us who have been engaged already in some manner should not foist our views, but merely challenge anything that is strictly emotion or repeated hollowness.  In that we can say to them: “Look to your senses of what you see and hear, THEN ask yourself these three questions: 1) What ACTUALLY happened? 2) Who ACTUALLY benefitted? and 3) How did they ACTUALLY benefit?”

And yes, dearest Madame, it would behoove us all to find a way to move in the same direction, even if at times it has to be for different reasons.

Humans find it difficult to learn from history, even their own, for many reasons.  A prime one is that they find it PAINFULLY (human drivers: avoid pain and pursue pleasure) difficult to objectively look at past actions and learn lessons, and besides, many (most?) think that whatever happened then is not comparable to now, that THIS is NEW.  And that we live in the present and shape our future, not dwell in the past. “The past is gone; forget it.” “You can’t do anything about yesterday; set your sights on the future and live in the now.”  And any number of personal prescriptions which coalesce for societies and civilizations as well.  There is also the nagging fear that if they spend too much effort on understanding the past, it will take up too much of their time, may take too much of their lives, even control their lives—and the lives of their societies and civilizations.

As for cooperation, we in America in particular are still stuck in the driven masculine philosophy of hyper-individualism and maniacal competitiveness.   That view, which even John Locke abhorred, is not only a millstone on us, but it is a mostly unexamined one (and any embryonic examination is aborted by knee-jerk cries about socialism, etc.).

Your Lord Acton quote from April 4^th: How we are on such track to fulfill it.  The things that time has run out on, that we need to do at last?  They are legion!  While America and Western sub-civilization, and especially the global one, still have many powerful reserves of strength and ability, and there are a good number of quite positive things, it would be fantastically obvious to an extraterrestrial observer of a few things of what we need to do:

Cease militarization (times have rarely been systemically safer) and divert those resources to productive and vitally needed things.

With an interdependent, although not yet integrated, world civilization, understand that if things get better elsewhere, things probably get better for you (Mexican immigration is a prime example).   The reverse is often true as well.

Acknowledge that if you don’t preserve and enhance the biosphere, nothing else you do will matter, for it is the basis of nearly everything, including civilization itself. 

With that:

Stabilize climate and quit focusing so much on measuring it and debating it. Even in the highly unlikely eventuality that changes have manageable or occasionally beneficial effects, it’s like performing an experiment on your own heart and lungs—with no chance of a transplant.

          Stabilize population, and begin to reverse to a sustainable level.  This will be helped by the below.

          Eradicate poverty as a systemic feature (personal choices are different); it affects your global civilization in innumerable and interlocking economic, physical, security, social, psychological, emotional, moral, and even spiritual ways.

          Restore earth’s ecosystems to sustainability, and emplace a sustainability ethic.

          Win the vision of the above as the goal of earth’s peoples.  When they can envision a Star Trek like future, the intractable problems of today will become addressable.

As for our own Western sub-civilization, and in particular the American centerpiece, I’ve already submitted my answer on that.  And so have you.  Americans and Westerners need a consensus vision.  It WON’T come from our “elites.”  And another thing: a society or societies can’t just try to respond to problems (“challenges”); it/they need a positive vision to aspire to, for mere pain avoidance does not always work exactly well for societies (--or perhaps it works too well; otherwise, we wouldn’t keep kicking the can down the road or choosing to embrace illusion or diversion).  One overcomes pain and accepts sweat and toil when the objective is motivating.

Of course, Toynbee is watching us now to see if our response is adequate! :)

You are right to be concerned about the loss of skills and know-how.  Although this process began a pretty long time ago in this civilization, and in particular, America (see the novel “Brickie” for a good illustration), we have already lost much.  And in much the same way that we today scratch our heads at how “the ancients” did various construction and other things, so will any post-civilization societies if it comes to that.

A centrist voter unfortunately often is confronted with the realization that if he or she DOESN’T vote, the really bad (perhaps destructive) candidate will win, instead of the “merely” moderately bad or corporate-serving, say-anything candidate.  A nauseating task, to be sure, but it buys time to either reform the parties from within, or to do the near-impossible and form a viable third or fourth one. 

Of course, what we really need are voters who quit following political ads (even though they “know they’re bad,” they can’t resist the temptation, and end up falling under their sway in one way or another, even if just emotionally).  And we need candidates who are Jesse Unruh-like: Elliott Ness and The Untouchables when it comes to political corruption. 

Once again, it all comes back to the people and their response to the challenges of their society, doesn’t it?  Boy, that Toynbee guy was smart. :)

At what point did we lose our soaring ideals?  That’s a WAY subjective question, but here’s my 1.75 bits: when we institutionalized the way we responded to this civilization’s apparent challenges.  A previous (and abhorrent) aberration—a standing security-industrial complex after a conflict was over—became an accepted and self-fulfilling norm.  We then piled on more aberration by slowly sucking the vitality out of the middle class and working class and transferring largely undeserved wealth upward, in supposed service to “making things better.”  Along the way, we, as Vance Packard tried to warn us, dissolved our sense of community and replaced it with consumerist isolation, hyper-individualism, and diversion. WHILE we allowed ourselves to be exploited, and all while we disengaged from political and historical awareness and other despised things of a “liberal” education.  In doing so, we played into the hands of those who were intent on worldwide exploitation and solely-profit and predatory capitalism.  As our situations deteriorated in reality but the flickering illusions we chose to believe provided our willing diversion, we became enormously susceptible to those things you mentioned: “cobwebbed corners of delusion and anger and closed mindedness.” Why? Because we are little different from past peoples (Germans are only an obvious example, and they at least could claim some actual outside influence) who, when they choose to exert any thought at all to them, are ready for demagogues to provide them simple answers for their uninformed or misdirected anger.  These things are gradual processes, although momentary crises accelerate the progression.

As for the last two paragraphs of your most recent post, that’s a full head of Medusa-snakes that I will address in my next post, as I see that this posting of mine has turned into the veritable Magnum Opus. :)

Out of Balance

“In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.” ~Buddha


Professor J,

And if they believe them to be true, they will defend them, argue about them, and ignore evidence to the contrary. Where does that leave the search for truth? That path is choked with weeds while the well worn trails are the ones to and from our previously held opinions and strongly held beliefs. For many those ideas don't even qualify as convictions since they have arrived at them without much thought. We all too often simply repeat what we've heard without doing any research or deep thinking of our own. After that we surround ourselves with those who think like us, thus cutting off the chance to have our views challenged or defend them. We also lose the chance to realize that everyone who occupies a different stance is not possessed by demons.

I know that's a revelation, for some.

It's as if given the choice between sight and blindness, we'd simply CHOOSE not to see. An easy way to walk over the side of a cliff.

We've lost our lightness, our ability to let fresh ideas permeate stagnant thinking. Even in embracing the past we embrace only a particular staid comfort but not lessons that might be found there related to our current challenges. Where along the way did we lose our soaring ideals? At what point (if the good historian would be so kind as to pin it down) did we retreat to our cobwebbed corners of delusion and anger and closed mindedness? Where did we lay our imagination and drive? I'm a firm believer of the rights of the individual and think we have far too much mindless conformity, but when was it that we let someone make cooperation and community into dirty words?

Here's a nice word: Balance.

We keep coming back to that, don't we?

We politicize perfectly reasonable ideas of community and cooperation. We politicize fresh air and clean water. A child's education is decided upon by political factions playing tug of war with everything from funding to banned books. In the center, though, where most of us live, we can see the nauseating selfishness and game playing on both sides. While Hedges brings up point after point that I can agree with in theory, isn't the problem with some things (like government provided health care for instance) that we cannot afford them? Of course we could afford lots of things that would be beneficial for all of us from healthcare to free higher education if we weren't spending so much on our misplaced priorities, which he outlines nicely.

Maybe we should start by having everyone reread the Constitution AND the Bible (though of course we can't mandate that). Is it just me, or do a lot of people seem to be confused about what they BOTH say? 

The soap box is all YOURS, Prof! ;)

Allowing the Absent Prof to Speak for Himself

 Yes! He's been traveling...again. One could get jealous. So instead of me trying to fill in for him, I've decided to lift straight from his blog archives. We are more than happy to tackle gender issues here, and it is an ongoing theme on The Professor as well. Debate, anyone? :)

 The Over-Feminizing of Males and Maleness

Prior to the last half of the last century, did American men need to get in touch with their feminine side? Probably. Certainly there was a long legacy of excessive yang energy, of unexamined aggression and arrogance, minimized cooperation, and other things too prevalent in Western civilization for hundreds of years.

Not so much anymore, socially for sure. At least for average males who are NOT wealthy.

It’s not just that the pendulum has swung too far: it’s brought with it an amnesiatic estrogen-laced mist. It’s bad enough all the estrogen producing and testosterone suppressing things in the environment, food and water, etc. But the cultural imposition only magnifies it to a thoroughly unreasonable extent. Case in point, as recently chronicled by Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Teri Polo's character in ABC's "Man Up!" tells her husband after he complains that they 'need more hazelnut creamer’ and frets about how to communicate manhood to their 13-year-old son:

‘I'm sorry, honey, but your grandfather fought in World War II, your father fought in Vietnam, but you play video games and use pomegranate body wash.’"

Ouch. Touche. Inditement. Robert Bly and others in the back to men movement would only amplify this condemnation were they to speak at this point.

Even male comedians reinforce this social feminine dominance. Married men are routinely depicted as surrendering their wills to their wives on nearly everything. And that argument for change is pointless (and argument with the woman, futile).

Who the HELL said that was okay? Sure, we don’t need to return to a time of overwhelming male dominance. But we don’t need female dominance either. How about establishing some real balance, real social equality? And we sure don’t need this emasculatingly ABSURD idea that women can dictate to men what is PERMISSABLE, especially in the realm of maleness. “My wife/girlfriend LETS me do X. My wife/girlfriend won’t let me do THAT. My wife/girlfriend won’t let our son do X. My wife/girlfriend says it’s only okay to do Y.” On and on, ad nauseum. And so many men, an apparent majority, acquiesce, and start to lose their zest for life, to live someone else’s idea of their life, and not their own.

Having women DEFINE what is male is a bad idea. Emasculated men going along with it is even worse. The good points of nurturing and love we should keep—our children are probably better off for it. The excessive “rescue and protection” aspect that gets its spur from femaledom should be junked.

All that’s just a few minor things for starters. This is BIG.

Anti This and That

Professor J,

You (sort of) answered my question about whether you thought (while channeling Toynbee) that these issues pertained to Western civilization or to the U.S. mainly. I've noticed that how to define "civilization" is a frequent discussion where Toynbee's ideas are concerned. If we don't change our ways I'm imaging the U.S. as the Titanic taking a lot of other countries with it (to varying degrees) in a failing downward suction. It isn't a pretty picture, is it?


"This country once prided itself on experimentation and flexibility. It has become rigid" (p.150) Wolin is speaking about the rise of conservatism and I see his point. His greatest fear seems to be the Christian Right and he makes reference to them when speculating where a demagogue may come from. Of course he doesn't have much faith in what he sees as a frail and toothless liberals either: "The American left has crumbled and sold out to a bankrupt Democratic Party."

"Wolin warns that ‘apolitcalness, even anti-politicalness, will be very powerful elements in taking us towards a radically dictatorial direction." This attitude is spawned by the nonsense spewed on the 24 hour news channels, cable "talk" shows (where no one talks, but there is lots of yelling) and talk radio, much of which is unlistenable for someone looking for an exchange of ideas and solutions. Compromise is a dirty word. Seeing the other point of view means that your mind has been poisoned. Respectful, reasoned debate is considered a bore. Everyone spends vast amounts of time skewering the opposition and ranting about what they are against. Few offer up reasonable solutions, fresh ideas, and a vision for the future beyond the mayhem that will ensue if the other "side" wins.


 Given that, what would you say to a young person of voting age who doesn't see the point of casting a ballot? Young, thoughtful, centrist seem increasingly turned off by the lack of REAL discussion about ideas. They are drowning in a sea of information, most of it useless and having little to do with vital issues that need to be addressed. They fail to understand why, when we have such massive problems in need of urgent solutions, we are wasting time listening to the nonsense that is wheeled out night after night as "news." More about that to come...

"The economic difficulties are more profound  than we had guessed and because of globalization more difficult to deal with. I wish the political establishment, the parties, and leadership , would become more aware of the depths of the problem..." (150)

Oh, Mr. Hedges...we all do. 

The Slide

Madame,

So noted and well said!

The American corporate imperium: As Hedges relays Wolin’s words on page 148, it will not be changed by the normal measures.  To Wolin, “in inverted totalitarianism, consumer goods, and a comfortable standard of living, along with a vast entertainment industry that provides spectacles and appealing diversions, keep the citizenry politically passive.”

Wolin tells Hedges that “the political passivity bred by a culture of illusion is exploited by demagogues who present themselves to a submissive population as saviors. They offer dreams of glory.”  Wolin warns that ‘apolitcalness, even anti-politicalness, will be very powerful elements in taking us towards a radically dictatorial direction. It testifies to how thin the commitment to democracy is in the present circumstances.  Democracy is not ascendant.  It is not dominant. It is beleaguered.  The extent to which young people have been drawn away from public concerns and given this extraordinary range of diversions makes it very likely they could then rally to a demagogue.” (149)

Hedges points out to us that “pundits on television news programs discuss politics as a horse race or compare the effectiveness of pseudo-events staged by candidates.  They do not discuss ideas, issues, or meaningful reforms.” (149) Wake up words for us in this (ever longer) political season.

In fact, Hedges says it is likely that any future growing discontent and protest will only bring more direct and indirect control and repression. And “widespread frustration and poverty” might “lead the working and middle classes to place their faith in demagogues, especially those from the Christian Right,” Hedges posits to Wolin, who replies that it all might even lead to classic totalitarianism. (148-149)

As you can tell, to return to Toynbee, we are failing pathetically in our civilization’s (or at least America’s) response (or lack of response) to its challenges, and our “elites” are becoming parasitic in the extreme.  We are failing to respond to environmental extreme stresses, to economic extreme stresses, all amidst selfishness, denial, and embrace of illusion—made all the more alluring by abetting technology.

There are two ruling guidelines about the progression of events (the march of history):  

1. It’s unpredictable.  Things occur that are wildly unforeseen or even gradually transformative, and sometimes those make possible ways to transcend the road to ruin.

2. Countries, peoples, and civilizations that expect to be saved by number 1 usually aren’t.

Artful Dodgers

Professor J,

As is so often the case, scattered pieces of information come together to reflect back to us just how closely we are following perilous patterns that we've already seen played out on the pages of history. A few posts back I referred to the rise of a passion for crafts of all kinds and how that industry has exploded over the past few years. Arnold Toynbee outlined how the chasm  between the elites and the rest of the culture grows over time, exponentially near the end. During the Gilded Age we still found wealthy women engaging in the same kinds of handicrafts as women in the lower classes. They were doing this even though for them it wasn't a necessity but offered only intrinsic value. Today, we are very unlikely to see wealthy women (magazines and reality television now provide us with all the glossy details of their lives) engage in such things.


We are putting ourselves in nearly the same situation as the Romans. We've had a vast cultural heritage. But we have done our best to abandon that culture at home and abroad possibly losing knowledge that might make it easier to recover from a worst case scenario future. Gone with that knowledge are the traditions and spirit of community that centered around the skills needed to make things and the handing off of those skills from one generation to the next.

It's been replaced by the bonding of shopping and sports. Skills that will not serve us well in the future. We are seeing, thanks to a variety of factors, a resurgence of interest in doing, making, growing, things ones self. I think people have realized just how dependent they've become and with that comes the nagging fear of helplessness and an uncomfortable level of dependency.

Hedges writes, "Corporations determine who gets heard and who does not." quoting Wolin on p. 149. Not only do they determine whose ideas, thoughts, and opinions get a public voice, but also whose taste and style set the standard of conspicuous consumption which the rest of the culture, even the poor, try to emulate. Constant advertising and celebrity worship keeps many grasping for the elusive brass ring of status, though it's more likely to be in the form of a luxury car or designer bag. We are chained to those flickering images on the cave even when they are enslaving us in debt.


Often times those masters of conspicuous consumption put their lack of respect for history and culture on display as in the recent story from 60 Minutes, Even in Tough Times Contemporary Art Sells, about the 1%  and their love of voguish art. It made an interesting comparison to the critics of Thomas Kinkade whose opinions were often published this week in articles about his death. His work represented a world (however inaccurate in its nostalgia) that people felt they could understand and that they found comforting. In complex and uncertain times it only makes sense that art representing a more understandable world would appeal to the general population. It stands in stark contrast to the contemporary art being hailed as visionary (and I'll agree some of it is) by the elites who seem intent on detaching everything and everyone from the past. What art is, and what makes it good is subjective. Modern art often has something to say, but the pieces represented in Morley Safer's story seem to represent an unmooring from any kind of anchoring traditional standards.

I am honestly not trying to drag you too far off course! But  all things are connected (at least in my feminine brain) and current things must be noted as they occur. ;)

Conveying Toynbee

Madame:

It is good to be back in the blogging saddle!

Talk about presaging my thunder!  You have jumped to how I was going to begin formulating my concluding comments on this chapter.  Your questions hold intricate complexity!  I won’t respond to them all (or fully) this week, but we can make a beginning!

“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” Time and again Arnold Toynbee brought up how civilizations are challenged, and how they respond.  Or, sometimes, how they fail to, at least adequately and realistically. Civilizations begin their suicidal progression, in Toynbee’s view, when the moral backbone of the society or societies within that civilization begin osteoporosis. That is, when the elites who supposedly lead the culture care more for themselves than their society and become visionless parasites, sucking out the resources in a take-take-take exploitation, while giving very little.  The classes below the upper class are essentially only exploited in one fashion or another.  This was common in the (later) Roman elites.  It has also become all too common in ours. 

Toynbee would also consider empires to be signs of present and future decay, another manifestation of the parasitic elites.  They create inflexible bureaucratic structures doomed to fail.   Hedges tries to remind us of all this as well: “Imperialism and democracy are incompatible. The massive resources and allocations devoted to imperialism mean that democracy inevitably withers and dies.  Democratic states and republics, including ancient Athens and Rome, that refuse to curb imperial expansion eviscerate their political systems” and only make those systems tools of totalitarianism, whether classic or inverted. (147)  Our Framers, well educated in the classics of Rome and ancient Greece, knew this well—and feared it greatly.

Toynbee said the “elites” in declining civilizations stifle dissent or true solutions, and instead only perpetuate confusion and obstruction to weaken and suppress those who, although they might change things for the better, in the process might upend the elites’ status.  It is obvious to many, even a majority, of the educated that the civilization is declining, although the privileged elites will come to the wrong conclusions or go into denial about the why (because a prime reason is them).   This means alienation for an increasing number of people who would otherwise be productive, because they do not feel loyalty to the power structure anymore, a power structure they feel is exploitative of them without letting them have any meaningful measure of influencing their futures.

Toynbee often spoke in the language of Marx (gasp!), even though he wasn’t really talking about Marxism per se.  In our post-Marxist language, Toynbee would say that the working classes and (shrinking) middle classes within the civilization become jaded, apathetic, resentful.  At the same time, an increasing number of the poor residing outside the civilization—poor people who often only see a system that is exploitative and arrogant—become envious, angry, and desperate.

Instead of meaningful and effective response, Toynbee says, “elites” in declining civilizations manipulate emotion to appeal to a past that didn’t really exist, or at least, not in that fashion, and certainly the perceived change is little fault of any of the scapegoats shoved forth.  This evasion, denial, and deflection can also help foment cults or other instances of radical fanaticism, both within and outside the civilization. 

Just because civilizations are subject to internal and/or external pressures does not mean they have to fall.  Indeed, it may even strengthen them, by bringing to the forefront great untapped energies, belief systems, creativity, and determination.  Once again, to Toynbee, it is all about the response.

SOMETIMES, Toynbee says, a new unified perspective arises and creates the seed of a new civilization.  Sometimes, however, the civilization just disintegrates, often with help from external entities that absorb its remnants or the parts of the civilization’s views they find appealing (of course, those entities erase those parts they do not find appealing).

Civilizations are often arbitrary concepts. Criticisms of Toynbee tend to center on disagreements over what he considered civilizations, and what he didn’t, and where dividing lines were, and some of the criticisms appear valid to me.  However, what critics don’t do well, in my opinion, is criticize his central concepts.

More on Toynbee (and Hedges!) next time.  My challenge will be to not veer too off the book path as we briefly explore this very rich mine of ore! :)

...And More Questions

Dear Intrepid Reader,

In an effort not to overwhelm our wayward professor when he returns, I'm (okay, I'll say it) cheating a bit and borrowing heavily from another recent 99% Housewife post. I'll end with a few more questions for the prof that I omitted last week.

Good Natured Sustainability

My city and county have declared April, "Sustainability Month." I can see some of you rolling your eyes which is why I think we need to have this little talk.

Let's lay politics aside for a moment.

I have a theory. Maybe it's crazy. I think people like clean. Clean water. Clean air. Clean parks and streets. Clean food. Somewhere along the way though, the left claimed the environmental moral high ground while the right rejected over regulation and claimed to be the friend of small business (yes, yes, Professor I know you dislike those categories).  Let's face it. Both sides can get a bit surly defending their positions and the extremists at both ends make me cringe. (I'm defining the extremists here as those on one end who would say we shouldn't kill anything and that humans are a disease the planet is plagued with, and those on the other side who think we should conquer, kill, and destroy at will with no thought of the impact on the natural world or future generations.)

Me? I'm occupying a garden. I'm recycling, reusing, and reducing all I can. I'm keeping backyard chickens and setting up a bee hive.

Do you want to argue about that?

Me either.

We don't have to agree on ideology. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh both need to eat more salads.  Right away, there is something we can all agree on. Wouldn't it be fun to force them to tend a community garden together? (I can only imagine them wondering whether to plant Twinkie or Oreo seeds) So what if we just let the folks who believe Gore drive less because they are afraid of overheating the earth? Let others drive hybrids so we are less beholden to foreign oil producing nations. Let church groups and religious organizations clean up the city park because they want to show love to the community, or recycle because they want to be good stewards of all they've been given. Let some plant backyard gardens and keep chickens for the economic value or just for the fun of it.  Let others visit the local farmer's market to help out local small businesses or set up backyard compost bins because they hate waste. Heck, don't even bash anyone for doing any of those things because they are trendy. We can all move in the same direction for different reasons. (I know; this is becoming my mantra.)

Who knows? Maybe arguing less and working more would keep a lot of unnecessary hot air from being released into the atmosphere.

And THAT is good for all of us.

 How very 99%.
--------------------------------------------------


Professor J,

"History not used is nothing, for all intellectual life is action, like practical life, and if you don't use the stuff well, it might as well be dead."  Arnold Toynbee

Why don't we learn from history?  Why don't we learn to cooperate?

"A wise person does at once, what a fool does at last. Both do the same thing; only at different times."~Lord Acton 


Acton's quote goes along with my question last time about what you imagine Toynbee might say we should be doing NOW?  What things might he (or you) say that time has run out on? What do you envision us trying to do "at last" that we should have tackled already?

Welcome back Answer Man! I had a lot more questions but thought I'd take it easy on you. ;)

Admissions of a Wandering Heart

 Faithful Readers: It's Monday and you will notice that my questions are still hanging out there while our gallivanting prof is out of pocket again this week. So I did what any lazy blogger would do and dug out something from my own archives that encompasses questions and travel. Don't worry fearless ones, he will return to his blogging post next week.

The Housewife looks for answers in Delphi.

I will confess to never having been homesick. I have been desperately ill and wanted to be home, but it isn't the same thing. Never once when traveling have I missed anyone at home, not even children (there goes the Mother of the Year Award). Such is the lure of a far off sunrise. Sometimes when traveling I hear other people speak of how eager they are to give a loved one a gift they have purchased for them.

"Can't we just ship it to them and stay here?" I think to myself. Isn't it the thought that counts? (There goes the Friend/Wife/Daughter of the Year Award.)

The proximity of other interesting places fills me with a particular form of want. When first I went to Italy I thought how easy it would be to get to Greece. Later when I traveled in Greece I thought how easy it would be to go to Turkey. England makes me think how close I  am to Scandinavia. Central America lures me south to the Amazon and Andes...and so on...

Sometimes snippets of poetry, the odd movie line, or fragmented ideas from favorite books swim to the surface in my mind. Things like "set sail for ports unknown" or " I'm going out exploring one day, you watch." I come alive in strange places. I'm inspired. I'm hopeful. I'm ambitious. I imagine that I will come home and do all the things I've been putting off. I'll make art. I'll write more. I'll do tai chi in a park at sunrise.

Then I return to my house.

I put tiny  soaps from the hotel in the bathroom closet. I do laundry. I hoist my suitcase to the top shelf of the office closet and as I do dreams slip out of it and disappear into the ordinariness of the everyday. I suddenly think how hard it is going to be to find a tai chi class in the south. And how fierce the mosquitoes are at dawn.

There must be a way of capturing that feeling of possibility I have when traipsing around strange cities and making it last past the moment I put my key in my own door and wonder if the house always smells like this...

The reason for the change in familiar surroundings, I am at a loss to explain. Perhaps my muse is an elusive creature frightened off by the enthusiastic greeting of my dogs when I enter. Maybe everyday life just crowds out creativity. Could it be that my creative seed just longs to be scattered to the four winds instead of making dinner?

I'll bet there is a soul killing agent in laundry detergent ."Guaranteed to get out the stain of the quest for adventure no matter how deeply it is set in."

Okay, that's a bit dramatic.

But see what happens when I spend too much time at home?

(There goes the Housewife of the Year Award.)