Potemkin wrote:Then we basically agree with each other as to the nature of the problem, Qatz. Where we differ is concerning what we should do about it. You want to return to a pre-lapsarian Eden - namely, the pre-neolithic hunter-gatherer phase of human development, whereas I believe that we can never go back to that way of life, and that doing so would even be undesirable. Modern civilisation must be sublated, in the Hegelian sense, rather than abolished tout court. After all, before we can find ourselves we must first lose ourselves. And why throw away all of the intervening progress?
First of all, I don't really recommend 'returning' to anything. I am simply suggesting that that is where we are going no matter what we do.
If one believes that civilization is finished, and that so is the human species if we don't take measures, than the only question is how humans should handle the inevitable transition.
For my entire life, what has been recommended to virtually every major problem that civilization has been revealed to cause - pollution, nuke war, fabricated racism and ignorance, the destruction of family, community, self esteem- is a slow transition.
Likewise, the main purpose of Academics during my lifetime is to drown out any public comprehension of their plight with an esoteric vocabulary which suggests, to the unread, that there are these magical solutions that the Gods have proposed and that only the Literati can understand. This is a way that Academica reinforces civilization's taxonomy - by reverting to an unnecessarily inaccessible vocab. (You're soaking in it. Relax! It's Hegel.)
And this slow slow slow transition is always recommended in order to ensure that the merchant class has time to adjust their rackets to capture maximum profit along the way.
ceci n'est pas le point de vue de l'élite
(this is not the elite's point of view)