Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
MikeC
Posts: 79
Joined: Mar. 19 2015
From: Panama (living in South Florida)
|
 RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
I have no interested in getting into a political argument here. But just to clarify I'm not a conservative nor a liberal. I hate but extreme positions. I'm somewhere in the middle. Leaning to one side in some issues and to the other for other issues.
Miguel, you are an idealist and an optimist. I'm not criticizing you, there is nothing wrong with that. I don't have a lot of optimism about our society. Just a little bit of hope for future generations.
I do believe that PC started as a good thing but it has degenerated into media manipulation of events and justification for bad actions. I think people should be able to express their opinion whether I agree with it or not. If someone wants to be a bigot, a christian, muslim, atheist, racist, whatever... they should be able to as long as they don't violate others' rights.
I also don't like the current vilification of success. This has always been the land of opportunities. I hate the current position of people seen as victims and victimizers. A lot of rich people have gotten were they are through hard work and sacrifices. Some have done it through crime, abuse, etc, but not all.
Anyway, I'll stay out of this discussion. I came to this forum to make friends and learn more about flamenco. I have no interest in getting into political arguments.
Peace to all
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 27 2015 16:07:47
 |
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to MikeC)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MikeC
A lot of rich people have gotten were they are through hard work and sacrifices. Some have done it through crime, abuse, etc, but not all.
This applies to wealth that wouldn´t supercede common income for more than maybe 3 or 4, or maybe even 6 times.
Possession over such proportion cannot be grounded on work, but on outsmarting or other kinds of taking advantage of fellow people.
Ruphus
PS:
Forced to pay immense penalty money to scam, I am currently due to selling some items of value.
From there, an hour ago I had a talk with a friend whose been brought up in a religious culture that is totally capitalist from ground up.
So, raised in a culture that has completely inhaled the exploitation of all and every move regardless, this friend suggested to help me sell items of quite considerable value under the precondition of him being made partner in the deal (not just being compensated for efforts and maybe given some cash on top).
It appeared impossible to make him understand that friends don´t deal with each other like marketiers.
He can´t even imagine ways like the one I grew up with, where people help each other for the sake of it and regardless of how much pecuniary value their support / sheltering action might be accountable for the fellow.
On the same token in general, exploitation has been removed from people´s perception in capitalist society.
It has been made a self-evident, integral, vital part of life that literally goes without saying. As if community paradoxically couldn´t be without taking advantage from each other. (The friend today: "How am I supposed to earn some money then?" Answer: "NOT by dusting off from your friends!")
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 27 2015 19:32:24
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to MikeC)
|
|
|
quote:
A higher tax on gas is probably not the solution.
There is no "one" solution to the problems we face on the environmental front, Mike. In my opinion, a gasoline tax would be a good beginning, however, and a stiff one, increasing over a five-year period. It would result in fewer miles driven and less pollution, it would create a fund sufficient for repair of transportation infrastructure, it might even be directed into creating alternative modes of public transportation, and it might spur development of sustainable energy resources.
I am not sanguine about the prospects of stemming the problem of global warming writ large any time soon, as you will have noted in my previous post about the inevitability of China and India's continued economic growth and rise of a much larger middle class. To quote:
"There is a paradox in cutting both population growth and resource consumption in today's world. Stated simply, it has been unequivocally demonstrated that as families' standard of living improve and they move up the economic ladder, they have fewer children. This has been demonstrated time and again. Yet, the numbers that must move up into the middle class for this phenomenon to have a real effect in countries like China and India require continued high rates of growth (such as China's average 9% to 10% over the past 35 years) and the huge consumption of resources that accompany such growth."
China and India will likely nullify any gains the U.S. may win in energy conservation. But that is no reason to sit back and do nothing, nor is it a reason to mock others with ideas by suggesting it is like "moving deck chairs around on the Titanic." Man did not climb the evolutionary ladder from knuckle-dragging to walking upright by refusing to alter his behavior as surrounding circumstances changed.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 27 2015 21:39:44
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
quote:
Bill, Tax on gas; improving infra structure, extending public transport?
Yes. Also people driving less, as well as the potential to sink some funding into developing renewable, clean energy.
One has to begin working on the problem of the environment somewhere, Ruphus. It's not enough to sit back and proclaim the magnitude of the problem without establishing some reasonable plan of action. I'm no idealist. I have noted a couple of times in this thread alone that China and India probably will nullify any environmental gains the United States may make. But we will still be better off than if we were to do nothing and make no gains at all.
So, Ruphus, what are your realistic plans for attacking the problem of the environment? Note that I emphasize "realistic." You will not solve the problem by confiscating wealth from the rich. That would be politically impossible, and even if you did, they are only a small part of the overall problem. The vast middle class with its cars, motorcycles, expanded travel opportunities which allow them to leave their footprint everywhere they go, and a general inability to focus on the problem is one (although not the only one) big issue. If you cannot get people to behave the way you think they should, what would be your solution? Would you impose governmental control to force society to operate in ways you deem appropriate? And if so, who would watch and hold those in control accountable? What would you do about climate-change deniers and their legion of followers? Anything? Nothing?
And what about China and India, and the rest of the developing world? How do you bring them into line with your ideas? And what would be your course of action if they were to refuse to act in accordance with your plan? Would you favor a supranational governmental structure similar to the United Nations (but with much greater enforcement powers) to impose environmental regulations and control? And who would hold such an organization accountable, even if its members could agree on a course of action?
You have found my proposal for a sharp increase in the gasoline tax to be an insignificant gesture, akin to, as you put it, "Starting to build a canoe when seeing someone drowning." Insignificant though it may be, I consider it a realistic beginning. Nevertheless, I look forward to your thoughts, particularly as they pertain to realistic measures.
Anyway, just some random thoughts as I relax during lunch at the American Embassy in Palau. By the way, from my office I have a beautiful view of the sea, looking out to the reef and beyond, framed by some lush foliage and a couple of coconut palms. It puts one in an environmental frame of mind.
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2015 3:33:55
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to runner)
|
|
|
quote:
Koestler's proposal was to control aggressive behavior, not to control reproduction. End of story (unless you begin your own Koestler/ eugenics thread).
Your final sentence was priceless! You're so cute when you pout.
__________
Yet nobody talks about it anymore. We need a minimum order-of-magnitude reduction in human numbers, and two and three order-of-magnitude reductions would ensure a viable long-term future, if tied to social mechanisms to ensure that the numbers stay low. Full equality for women, including full control over their own fertility, would do for starters; the best way to get to that goal would be the near-complete withering of religious "enthusiasm". Arthur Koestler also prescribed the prophylactic use of a drug to reduce testosterone levels in young men as another way to curb many social and, by extension, environmental pathologies.
__________
If you look at the paragraph you wrote on page one you'll see your comments were made in the context of population control.
What you said actually kind of scares me. To state we need an order of magnitude reduction population and then add as a final idea in that paragraph the idea of controlling hormones. I'm sure you did not mean anything seriously and were musing on about this idea, but to connect population reduction and a way of reducing sexual drive in the same paragraph raises a question about what the real effect of a mass hormone treatment in men would do.
First, hormone reduction IS in FACT a way of controlling population in a eugenical sense when applied on a massive scale. Second it begs the question of who will have the power to administer and control the hormone therapies? Third, which populations will subjected to hormonal therapies and who will decide which countries or which regions? And lastly if certain populations are weakened by hormonal therapies what will stop a group of non hormonally effected males from wiping them out ?
When you think deeply into the problem it becomes apparent that a mass application of hormone reduction can become a weapon of the powerful to wipe out innocent people. Weaponizing a medical treatment becomes a form of eugenics. That is what eugenics is.
Your problem is you don't understand biology, apparently Koestler didn't think it through either. To chemically control testosterone may reduce aggressive behavior, but changing the hormone level really controls the desire and ability to reproduce. Why do you think hormone reduction therapies are given to child molesters? It reduces sexual desire.
The result of lowering testosterone is a reduction in sexual drive, reduction in sexual drive results in less reproduction. Less aggressive behavior is a byproduct of less sexual drive.
I think this is totally germane to the thread which is in part about the problem of population growth and what to do about it. And the thread is Ruphus' and he does not seem to be voicing any discontent with my comments. I'll thank you to not tell me what threads I should or should not start. If Ruphus finds my comments inappropriate to this topic I will gladly retract them.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2015 14:00:31
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to MikeC)
|
|
|
Naturally, the topic of reducing the human plague on the planet is very sensible and just has to be very difficult. (Alone already whether watching it on makro or micro level, and so forth.)
But it is definitly contra productive in the long term to defy what apparently nature is introducing to get rid of its lethal parasites. Now, that we have feeblemindely led to and allowed the demographic eskalation.
However, Runner, it would be nice if you´d be a bit more handy and crediting with the pals and Stephen who has recognized a certain point that is just as essential as on the other hand commonly unrecognized. The exploitation through pathological greed and its countless medusa hair.
See how Bill presents his points. I don´t agree with Bill on basics of causality (though having him in the boat as friends of an integrity like of Emilio Zapata, which is where Bill can´t but leave his school behind for), but I really like how he on principle keeps a goodwilling and democratic attitude with his disputers.
Always trying to be pragmatic (though not able of always being congruent, due to paradox and bluring policy of the political / ethical aggression that he has come to take for benign commonweal <- if I got this one right from the dictionary). Forgive me Bill, just ought to throw this tomahawk at your stake, hehe.  >hides away<
And I love his and Stephen´s questions above as they tickle my involuntary passion in this topic. Notwithstanding how complicated and partially vague the answers be that I can give, and how challenging for my Pidgin English.
Todays been an exhausting day in the world´s worst traffic etc., but I shall enjoy the trial to express my opinion and estimation to these questions tomorrow.
And it would be truely nice to have your support, Runner; only please let´s try to be cooperative and goodwilling. Not just because of these people being interesting and fine chaps, but before all as it helps all of us to perceive messages (about no less than the most significant topic on earth) in a relaxed climate.
And maybe more even potential side readers for whom eventual following of controversies may transport valuable info or hints to check out about.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 28 2015 17:02:49
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to MikeC)
|
|
|
Here we go.
Unlike from what the privileged proclaim through bluring opinion makers, their way of conduct does effect the whole of the world elementarily.
Not "just" for their 1% of population up from next year owning / occupying more than the rest of the earth´s people. But because of policies they impose on the world that are aligned to serve their own preservation and expansion.
By nature of the matter, power serving privilegeds will be power against community and common interests like on environment.
It is a power that alienates instances meant to be for the whole of people, like states or international orgs, turning them into executives of minorities. It is a power that prevents a free development of science and recognition, of technological efficiency and general benefit. It is a power that not only groundworks for selfish aims of a few, but always on short-term / neglecting long-term perspective.
It is intrinsic regime of sabotage and triviality, no matter whether in patent or latent dictature of privilegeds.
All the countering of anthropolgical, intellectual and material state of humanity comes from it.
It is this triviality´s reign that bestows paradox on human potential.
This triviality has us in a dumbness that was already outdated in stone age.
When we are being told that it was only natural to be seeing retard phenomenons like felony, war and susperstitious fanatism around us at this time of intellect, then this is complete nonsense. Phenomenons channeled by trivial policies and their repercussions, and way under level of our potential culture.
Same counts for other paradox like wilful destroyal of 50% of all food, favouring / installing of technologically inefficient standards and wilful bringing about of hardship and need to entertain capitalist marketing.
-
The mantra after manchester has been growth. As if growth was a holy grail. But growth is exclusively of sense for a pragmatically paradox outlay, serving an exploiting minority. Other than that growth is of no sense to menkind or the world. To the opposite.
Growth, whether as a call for combine expansion (and its according ways of preparing turn-over ground) or as a call of clerics for an enlarging host of worshippers, only aims at imperial fancy in total neglect of reason and wholy regards.
Its bait, the promise for either improved living standard / woking positions for the people, or a reservation in paradise, a contradictive hoax. Resulting truth from both: Monopolism, impoverishment and overpopulation.
-
So, what could be helpful to escape an ecological collapse; and what would be realistic?
A question making my head explode. Countless points and about zero chances.
Right. A most effective scene would be a rise of the people world-wide, taking over and taking measures right away. Gathering international scientists in congresses, first of their individual subjects (economy, ecology, technology medicine, you name it) then in open ones to tackle priorities, methods, logistics and organisation.
What a dream ... Yes, yes, hardly imaginable how to get all that input categorized and into flow, and it would take some precious amount of time, even if they all worked at their limits, but once a rough table was there and action started ...
Mind-blowing to think of the potency, with all available means in the hands of a wholy targeted intelligentia. And economically, the procedures, scrapped from the current, exessive parasite margins on each and every instance, allowing for operations so much more powerful than they ever could be now. Whereas public funds freed from those 60% of draining into mafia pockets, then in a position to powerfully contribute to the international eco-rescue whilst able to properly serve their citizens.
Redistributing the world to people and to natural refuges. Putting technology and production into full efficiency for men, environment and future. What a dream.
Right. Not going to happen.
Not now and not without foregone information of international public.
What would be realistic?
In a world and its official institutions controlled through plutocratic systems, I only see the ants path available.
You and me adequately alarmed and thus involuntarily spreading the urgency among our private surrounding. At home, work and spare time. Live and online. Where ever just possible.
How chances are this way?
That is not the question. It just seems the only choice of approach.
If it could contribute to in the end hundreds of thousands of demanding people filling the streets of major cities ... If decidedly enough to make elites concerned about the preservation of their regime, major industries could be giving in into accepting investments into environmental measures.
It is a shame to see such relevance dependent from widget efforts, but that is how it is.
Reason, ideal, superiour concerns or general prospects are not represented in pharaonic reign.
Only individual regards of trivial intellect.
A total delirium of moguls in global milking machines.
One more reason why we pedestrians need to be aware.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2015 14:00:01
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to MikeC)
|
|
|
About arguments presented.
Causality and priorities must be regarded.
In view of population in China and India, it needs differentiation, between necessities and disproportionate agendas.
There is much too much trivial vanity concept going on in these countries, aiming at catching up with what is deemed as attributes of industrial status.
From there for instance the Chinese center point of building up shiny new metropoles, instead of improving the overall situation.
Still, the vast of theirs and Indian population lives rural, and there it is where ecological solutions appear most realistic. By de-centralized solutions of infra structure, intelligent agrarian production and energy supply.
Then there is their upcoming middle-class´demand for individual cars.
Were automotive concepts of reasoable and long-term characteristic, even a suppling of these countries middle-class with vehicles would not be of the destructive ecological effect that it is.
But now that the automotive concept keeps sticking to combust engines, the delivery to demand means an environmental issue.
And while it may appear only sensitive to accept this new mass of prospective car owners as understandable, it is blindfold patronage.
A main motivation of this customer segment is prestige.
And how meaningful are matters of prestige when they accelerate a situation of no survival, where in the end car driving be the least of practical concerns?
The situation has changed from those of the last century, and even people in the underveloped regions will have to understand that it is time for a change of methods and paradigm.
Jeez, I just so wished the Chinese administration would finally feel urged enough to even just release some educational campaings and decrees to stop their people´s blatant consume of wild-life that is currently emptying the earth´s last natural habitats!
Not to think of their potential efforts to motivate Geman car builders towards environmentally friendly engines.
In fact with the Geman automotive industry now mainly depending on the Chinese market, the Chinese government could enforce technological progress to the mass product like no institution before.
But seeing how Deng Xiao Ping´s change has in the same time established a strong corruption similar to western conditions, public / long-term concerns might well be a corresponding stepchild.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 29 2015 14:10:34
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to Ruphus)
|
|
|
at a glance .... more negativity and circular argument? runner original post sounding a bit nazi ish, was meant, obviously as sarcastic "in vain to consider" type solution so why go on with him about it?
And everyone else doesn't get the carbon air grab and recycle thing?? Just a few of those things built ANYWHERE on earth...reduces green house gas, ie STOPS OR REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING, coupled with renewable fuel that generates more carbon to grab later...problem fixed. No need for extra tax, robbing from rich to feed poor, or crying about china trash....the extra greenhouse gas just dilutes for the machines once again. Sure they might have stinky country with trash and famine...couple nukes will clean that up eventually. Once china hacks our social media facebook tweets, interupting our morning coffee, 1st world govs will have green light to attack from it's peeps. Meanwhile feeding the poor is a separate problem to tackle with something like GMO's. Global reforestation can be fun, especially for guitar builders in the future, save the snails (Carlin) but with the co2 machines, arbitrary for global warming concerns.
So cheer up. And if house is burning down, let fire dept. do the job, don't cry you don't have a bucket of water. Later rebuild with insurance $ you been paying for all along... so yes go down to the pub and have a few on me.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 30 2015 14:51:51
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
And everyone else doesn't get the carbon air grab and recycle thing?? Just a few of those things built ANYWHERE on earth...reduces green house gas, ie STOPS OR REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING, coupled with renewable fuel that generates more carbon to grab later...problem fixed.
I am unable to resist trying to put a few numbers to this.
The prototype unit gets 100 Kilograms per day of CO2 out of the air. It takes up about 12 by 20 feet, 3.7 by 6.5 meters, or 24 square meters. Let's say (perhaps optimistically) they will scale up the efficiency by a factor of 100, that is 1000 Kg per day on a footprint of 2.4 square meters.
The USA alone emits 164-billion Kg of CO2 per day. So you would have to cover 164-million x 2.4 square meters of land to keep up with USA's emissions alone. That's 394-million square meters.
Tesla's Gigafactory to build batteries is planned to be about 1100 by 300 meters. So there would need to be installations of CO2 grabbers with the area of 1200 Gigafactories to keep up with the USA's daily emissions.
Elon says the Gigafactory is going to cost $5-billion. That's $15,151 per square meter, about ten times what it costs to build a house in Austin. But a house is mostly empty space, and the CO2 grabbers will be chock full of stuff, not particularly cheap stuff compared to house building materials. So let's guess the CO2 grabbers might cost half as much per square meter as the Gigafactory. That multiplies out to $3-trillion, a quarter of the Gross Domestic Product of the USA.
That's about six times the annual U.S. defense budget or four times the market value of Apple, the largest industrial corporation by market capitalization.
That is not to say it could not be done. But it wouldn't be a walk in the park to raise that much money, nor to undertake a project of that magnitude.
I haven't factored in any cost for the chemical plants that would convert the CO2 and hydrogen (which also has to come from somewhere that doesn't exist now) into hydrocarbon fuels that would pay for the CO2 grabbers construction and operation.
Let me make it clear: I like the idea of a CO2 grabbing solution that plays into the present hydrocarbon economy sustainably. But I don't think it takes "just a few" CO2 grabbers, and raising the capital would take a while--if it could be gotten off the ground in the first place.
More power to the Carbon Engineering guys. There's a lot to recommend their way of thinking. Maybe they can start small and roll up into real players in the CO2 game. That would really be great. I hope they can. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that they will.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 1 2015 4:11:01
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Keeping abreast of things? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
at a glance .... more negativity and circular argument? runner original post sounding a bit nazi ish, was meant, obviously as sarcastic "in vain to consider" type solution so why go on with him about it?
And everyone else doesn't get the carbon air grab and recycle thing?? Just a few of those things built ANYWHERE on earth...reduces green house gas, ie STOPS OR REVERSES GLOBAL WARMING, coupled with renewable fuel that generates more carbon to grab later...problem fixed. No need for extra tax, robbing from rich to feed poor, or crying about china trash....the extra greenhouse gas just dilutes for the machines once again. Sure they might have stinky country with trash and famine...couple nukes will clean that up eventually. Once china hacks our social media facebook tweets, interupting our morning coffee, 1st world govs will have green light to attack from it's peeps. Meanwhile feeding the poor is a separate problem to tackle with something like GMO's. Global reforestation can be fun, especially for guitar builders in the future, save the snails (Carlin) but with the co2 machines, arbitrary for global warming concerns.
So cheer up. And if house is burning down, let fire dept. do the job, don't cry you don't have a bucket of water. Later rebuild with insurance $ you been paying for all along... so yes go down to the pub and have a few on me.
The point here is to keep Ruphus busy so he does not get into trouble on the street. It does not matter what we say as long as Ruphus is entertained.
I can relate to Ruphus, myself in a culture where I am an viewed as an outsider, a fun novelty item to get drunk with and at times an unwelcome presence despite my better efforts to communicate. I'd almost rather have a nasty argument in my own language and be understood than be thought of as a dope who speaks Japanese like a 4 year old.
When you get stuck in a place where you are not understood it does wild things to your perceptions of the world. But I see these environment problems as solvable, or at least workable. I don't dwell on the negativity aspect of it, but I'm learning that Ruphus may in fact have to process this information this way in order to feel normal. The same way I feel compelled to contest every micro-point in a conversation that I feel is wrong. When you are separated from your main culture and not only that, but isolated from in-person contact with others from your culture you begin to interiorize things you might otherwise process with other people around you.
I think the isolation prompts you to seek out places where you can socially process information that in your immediate environment you cannot express to others, for social, cultural or language reasons. So I see Ruphus' need to express the ideas not so much as mass negativity, but as an effort to be heard and to be acknowledged as a person who is processing information he thinks is important.
The culture that I'm surrounded by tends to talk around subjects; there is implication by context, cultural prompts to read between the lines. Some things are said in oblique ways and to say them straightforwardly is a social mistake. But I'm an American and no matter how much I strain to pick up on the markers and face saving guides in conversations I still feel like blurting out the obvious solution or judgement to a situation. But I can't because it could be rude or considered strange. The need to keep certain things to oneself and to respond in accord with the customs of a dominant culture is a source of constant stress and I can sort of transfer that to Ruphus' situation, and it's not entirely bad to listen to him explain his concerns. I think it must n some way clear his head to know that he has been read and somewhat understood.
I think we all live in these situations in compartments of our lives, but at this time Ruphus (and I) live in a kind of cultural sequestration. I know if I were in the US and I were in a situation where I had to maintain a high level focus, decorum and respect for a speaker in a meeting that after the meeting I might go have a drink and relax and say to the person behind the bar or next to me, "Wow I just came from a stuffy meeting!" Then that person might tell a similar story about a work meeting and then both of you are processing this idea together which makes you feel not so alone.
For me stating strong view points and seeing conversations through to the bitter or better end feels like a drive I have because in this culture I only get a small aperture to express my opinion through. The opening of the window is sized both by language skill and cultural limits of what can be said in social situations. I could bore you with examples, but writing them down would bore you and me.
So if Ruphie wants to go on about the degradation of the environment, just feed some of it back and read some of it and it will help him process this and feel a bit less alone.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 1 2015 8:22:09
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.15625 secs.
|
Printable Version
