|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 21, 2007, 9:30 am
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fundamental divide between the mobile and the rooted isn't
>>>>>> likely to be bridged with a conceptual framework devised solely by
>>>>>> either side. Tactically the rooted will tend towards stockpiling
>>>>>> and fortification, while the mobile will tend toward lightness,
>>>>>> speed and mobility. One side will seek penetration, while the
>>>>>> other side will attempt repulsion. I'm not sure how one uses the
>>>>>> strategies of one side to accommodate the other side without it
>>>>>> being seen as a victory for one and a defeat of the other, unless
>>>>>> one of them is co-opted eventually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the problem when people refuse to comprimise. Certainly
>>>>> there are things which should not be open to comprimise, tho'
>>>>> they'd make for a very long thesis, so I'm assiduously avoiding any
>>>>> sort of partial listing. A great many things, however, and perhpas
>>>>> even most things, should be subject
>>>>> to comprimises, because the sort of "winners-versus-losers"
>>>>> situation you mention merely deepens dissatisfaction overall,
>>>>> causing mroe problems than it solves.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that both exist at all in the same jurisdiction already
>>>> points to some kind of compromise or, at least,an extermination
>>>> still underway. My point is that these seem to be antitheses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, extermination is IMO the worst possible situation, but it's
>>> unfortunately what often happnes (usually?) when a majority deems a
>>> minority to be nothing more than a pain in the butt.
>>>
>>> Re: thesis:antithesis, yes, but the only way to avoid such pairings
>>> (or to be perhpas more exact, triplicities, of thesis, antithesis,
>>> and synthesis/neothesis) is to eliminate complexity. Monothesis,
>>> monoculture.
>>>
>>> Stability versis mobility, security versus freedom, and so on - most
>>> people see them as disconnected oppositions, but that's not the fact.
>>> We're all mixtures of things that seem, on the superficial first
>>> glance, to be dichotomous, and one thing cannot be eliminited without
>>> excising part of what it is that makes us human.
>>>
>>> Kind of too tired right now to go into that much more in detail, but
>>> I think that's the gist of it.
>>>
>>> In a way, nomads are like the birds - if you make a place for them,
>>> they can enrich your life. OK, that sounds awfully
>>> warmfuzzy-touchyfeelie, but really, life is enriched when we open
>>> ourselves to different experiences. ANd it's often the apparent
>>> dichotomies that enrich a culture.
>>
>> I think we're in agreement, but I would add that an elevated scarcity
>> of resources for subsistence sharpens the divide...IOW, if you're
>> hungry enough....you'll eat those birds. Seeds are for bait!
>
> True. Also, add in a *perceived* scarcity of resources. Many battles
> (both literal and figurative) are fought because two or more groups
> *believe* that there isn't enough to go around.
>
> I'm reminded of several times (in various places I've lived0 where some
> sort of "mega-storm" was predicted, and accompanying shortages of items
> such as toilet paper, meat, bottled water, etc., were also predicted -
> it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, because some people would rush out
> immediately and buy the store out, leaving nothing for others. IOW, the
> shortage was created by the poeple who panicked first.
>
> THat's always a problem, perceptions.
I'd add that this is true, but usually in a particular *place*, which gets
back to the traveler-settler issue. I sure a bunch of people have died over
the millennia of our 'nomadic' history because one group wanted to reserve
an area and its resources for their exclusive use, and were prepared to kill
for it. That's how countries are made.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap