I appreciate Joel's and Eric's comments as well, but I think both of them
missed the point of the article, which focused on the difference between
Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism to that of Western thinking. The article
focused on the role of Eastern philosophies in helping Communist China
achieve a vision of a harmonious society through ecologically sustainable
economic development. These religions promote long term thinking and
communal interdependency (as opposed to short term gains and strong
individualism in Western cultures). The Eastern philosophies are there today
because of either religion, culture or both. The Western philosophy on the
other hand tends to focus on individualism, social status (as defined by
wealth) and is short sighted (because there is no generational thinking). As
religion and culture continues to erode in the West, the more individualism
mentality and activity are enforced and the less likely sustainability is to
be achieved.
I'm not sure there is an opportunity to teach the "spiritual skills" within
the various "traditions" to the masses to encourage the curbing of excesses.
While Joel looks to his faith as a moral compass, there are many Americans
without faith or some other type of ethical guidance.
The Enlightened, though individualistic, were not without morality. The laws
of nature were their philosophical compass, guiding much of their thinking
and thus their personal activity.
Behavior can be controlled in two ways: legally or socially. When community
is strong (and individualism weak), peer pressure and cultural traditions
can guide individual behavior. When community is weak (and individualism
strong) laws must guide individual behavior. The stronger individualism
becomes, the greater the number of rules or laws required to guide behavior
within an "acceptable" boundary.
But the question then becomes what is an acceptable boundary, and who makes
that decision? Is that boundary acceptable because an individual says so, or
because a community says so. Is the decision good for the individual or good
for the community? This is where the difference between the two political
camps (the Democrats and the Republicans) is most pronounced today.
The foundation of the U.S. was set out as a Republic, based on the rule of
law, the Constitution, and guided by morals. Overtime we became a
representative democracy, a government based on the rule of men, who could
change at their will, the law. At the same time America experienced
religious and cultural erosion. This evolution has lead us to where we are
in America today.
This brings us back to the point Karl North has made time and time again on
this list. In order to bring about any sort of sustainable change, it must
be done from the collective "we" pushing for a political or economic change
(or in the case of this article a collective philosophy which guides
collective decision making). But is there really a "we" in America? I think
that's what the article was trying to get at.
--Martha
_______________________________________________
For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please
visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/
RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for:
[email protected]
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins
Questions about the list? ask [email protected]
free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
