Jump to content
Forum Roportal
jet li

Civilizatia noastra vazuta de Daniel Quinn

Recommended Posts

A citit cineva carti de Daniel Quinn ? Eu am citit "Ishmael" si "The Story of B", mi-am dat seama ca viziunea mea despre lume e similara cu ce am gasit scris in ele, dar autorul lor explica mult mai bine ca mine

 

Daniel Quinn separa oamenii in "Leavers" si "Takers". "Takers" suntem noi, iar "Leavers" sunt toate celelalte culturi de pe Pamant, pe care noi le distrugem oriunde le gasim. "Cultura" nu inseamna numai niste dansuri si costume interesante, inseamna totul, iar cultura noastre este aceea a "stapanilor si detinatorilor a Tot ce exista pe planeta" , si daca s-ar putea si in Univers, totul e al nostru si trebuie sa ne serveasca. Aceasta cultura a cuprins intregul Pamant, cu mici exceptii.

 

Avem mitul nostru care spune ca intreaga lume ne apartine, sa o cucerim si sa o folosim, si aceasta e povestea pe care ne-o spunem singuri si am ales sa o jucam. Cartea "Ishmael" observa mitul crestin al creatiei, dar religiosi sau nu, toti suntem prinsi in acest mit al puterii asupra naturii, si ne uitam cu mila la oamenii "primitivi" care au scapat si traiesc inca in diferite zone, consideram modul lor de viata "fragil" desi au supravietuit pentru sute de mii de ani, si probabil ar continua sa o faca si fara noi.

Cultura noastra nu are sanse sa dureze asa de mult. Intr-adevar nu putem sa redevenim vanatori culegatori, stiinta e buna si trebuie pastrata, in rest suntem total deconectati de la realitate

 

O poveste din lumea noastra a "stapanilor" : http://www.storyofstuff.com

 

Daca ii ceri unui "leaver" sa iti spuna cum a ajuns el si tribul lui sa traiasca, povestea lui incepe cu inceputul universului. A noastra incepe doar de 10000 de ani, perioada dinainte nu ne intereseaza si nu e importanta, o numim "preistorie", nu are legatura cu "noi"

Unii spun "selectia naturala, noi cei mai destepti am invins !". Nu este asa, natura promoveaza intotdeauna diversitatea, un sistem cu un milion de specii poate supravetui la aproape orice, un sistem cu doar cateva specii nu. Ne asemanam mai mult cu un organism mutant care transforma totul in el insusi.

 

Nu e nimic "rau" in noi ca oameni, asa cum ne spun religiile. Un lup nu e "rau" sau "gresit", un cerb de asemenea, in intregul Univers nu gasim nimic "rau" sau "gresit din constructie", totul este perfect.

Dar noi avem posibilitatea de a ne alege propria "poveste" si cea pe care o jucam acum este gresita. Nu e nimic in neregula cu noi. Germanii cand Hitler a ajuns la putere apoi a pornit razboiul, nu faceau altceva decat sa isi joace propria poveste a "rasei superioare"

 

Dar e nevoie de o intreaga carte pentru a explica mai bine, aici niste citate din "Ishmael", si am atasat si cartea :

 

A, a spus celălalt, dar posedat de această aroganţă prostească, oare va supravieţui Adam

p

ismael_ro_1.1.pdf

Edited by jet li

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Din "My Ishmael" de Daniel Quinn :

 

Terpsichore este unul din locurile pe care ai vrea sa le vezi in Univers (zise Ishmael).Aceasta era o planeta unde oamenii au aparut in modul obisnuit in comunitatea vietii. Pentru un timp ei au trait la fel ca toti ceilalti, mancand ce era prin preajma. Dar dupa cateva milioane de ani in care au trait in felul asta, au observat ca exista un mod foarte simplu prin care sa ajute cresterea din nou a hranei lor favorite. Am putea zice ca au gasit cativa pasi simpli care duceau la acest rezultat. Nu trebuiau sa faca acesti pasi pentru a supravietui, dar daca ii faceau, mancarea lor preferata era intotdeauna mai usor de gasit. Acestia erau pasii unui dans.

Cativa pasi de dans practicati doar trei sau patru zile pe luna le-au imbogatit cu mult viata si aproape ca nu cereau nici un efort. La fel ca si pe Pamant acesti oameni nu erau un singur popor ci mai multe, si cu trecerea timpului fiecare din ele si-a dezvoltat propria abordare a dansului. Unii continuau sa danseze trei sau patru zile pe luna. Altii au hotarat ca e bine sa aiba mai mult din mancarea favorita si dansau la fiecare a doua sau a treia zi. De asemenea altii nu au vazut nici un motiv pentru care nu ar trai in cea mai mare parte cu mancarea lor favorita, asa ca dansau cativa pasi in fiecare zi.

Lucrurile au continuat asa pentru zeci de mii de ani printre oamenii acestei planete care se vedeau ca traind in mainile zeilor si lasau totul pe seama lor. Pentru acest motiv ei se numeau intre ei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow....

Impresionant ? :) Dupa mine toata lumea ar trebui sa afle despre aceste idei ale lui Daniel Quinn, ne permit o vedere de ansamblu. Cred ca din povestea de mai sus se intelege ca dansul acela inseamna agricultura.

 

Aici niste linkuri :

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2962

In a 1927 interview with the magazine Nation’s Business, Secretary of Labor James J. Davis provided some numbers to illustrate a problem that the New York Times called “need saturation.” Davis noted that “the textile mills of this country can produce all the cloth needed in six months’ operation each year” and that 14 percent of the American shoe factories could produce a year’s supply of footwear. The magazine went on to suggest, “It may be that the world’s needs ultimately will be produced by three days’ work a week.”

 

Business leaders were less than enthusiastic about the prospect of a society no longer centered on the production of goods. For them, the new “labor-saving” machinery presented not a vision of liberation but a threat to their position at the center of power.

Today “work and more work” is the accepted way of doing things. If anything, improvements to the labor-saving machinery since the 1920s have intensified the trend. Machines can save labor, but only if they go idle when we possess enough of what they can produce. In other words, the machinery offers us an opportunity to work less, an opportunity that as a society we have chosen not to take. Instead, we have allowed the owners of those machines to define their purpose: not reduction of labor, but “higher productivity”—and with it the imperative to consume virtually everything that the machinery can possibly produce.

 

http://harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915

Agriculture is a recent human experiment. For most of human history, we lived by gathering or killing a broad variety of nature's offerings. Why humans might have traded this approach for the complexities of agriculture is an interesting and long-debated question, especially because the skeletal evidence clearly indicates that early farmers were more poorly nourished, more disease-ridden and deformed, than their hunter-gatherer contemporaries. Farming did not improve most lives. The evidence that best points to the answer, I think, lies in the difference between early agricultural villages and their pre-agricultural counterparts—the presence not just of grain but of granaries and, more tellingly, of just a few houses significantly larger and more ornate than all the others attached to those granaries. Agriculture was not so much about food as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It benefited some humans, and those people have been in charge ever since.

 

Cea mai proasta inventie a omului din toate timpurile este banul. Dupa ce a aparut banul omul nu s-a mai multumit de exemplu sa prinda peste cat sa aiba ce manca el si ai lui, ci a inceput sa prinda tot ce putea, pentru a-l vinde, apoi altii l-au cumparat chiar daca supravietuirea lor nu depindea de acel peste, in felul asta oamenii transforma cu adevarat natura in bani.

Cu tehnologia de azi efectele acestui comportament sunt devastatoare. Vedeti proverbul din semnatura mea :)

Edited by jet li

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inca niste citate :

Karl Marx recognized that workers without a choice are workers in chains. But his idea of breaking chains was for us to depose the pharaohs and then build the pyramids for ourselves, as if building pyramids is something we just can't stop doing, we love it so much

 

 

Because revolution in our culture has always represented an attack on hierarchy, it has always meant upheaval--literally a heaving up from below. But upheaval has no role to play in moving beyond civilization. If the plane is in trouble, you don't shoot the pilot*, you grab a parachute and jump. To overthrow the hierarchy is pointless; we just want to leave it behind.

 

*or yell and wave signs and write songs about what a bad job the pilot is doing (i said that)

 

The people of your culture cling with fanatical tenacity to the specialness of man. They want desperately to perceive a vast gulf between man and the rest of creation. This mythology of human superiority justifies their doing whatever they please with the world, just the way Hitlers mythology of Aryan superiority justified his doing whatever he pleased with Europe. But in the end this mythology is not deeply satisfying. The Takers are a profoundly lonely people. The world for them is enemy territory, and they live in it like an army of occupation, alienated and isolated by their extraordinary specialness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frumoasa interpretare si trista in acelasi timp.

Am citi fragmentul din "My Ishmael" si parca m-am simtit din nou copilul caruia-i citea bunica povesti...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People are fascinated to learn why a pride of lions works, why a troop of baboons works, or why a

flock of geese works, but they often resist learning why a tribe of humans works. Tribal humans were

successful on this planet for three million years before our agricultural revolution, and they

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men,

we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents.

Without a prison, there can be no delinquents.

We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves.

When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket,

he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift.

We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property.

We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being

was not determined by his wealth.

We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians,

therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another.

We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know

how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things

that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.

 

John (Fire) Lame Deer

Sioux Lakota - 1903-1976

 

 

We do not want schools....

they will teach us to have churches.

We do not want churches....

they will teach us to quarrel about God.

We do not want to learn that.

We may quarrel with men sometimes

about things on this earth,

but we never quarrel about God.

We do not want to learn that.

 

Heinmot Tooyalaket ( Chief Joseph), Nez Perce Leader

 

http://www.sapphyr.net/natam/quotes-nativeamerican.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×