Weltanschauung

The Philosopher’s Stone

zenothestoic@protonmail.ch

Tag: Pacifism

  • Extinction Rebellion

    Extinction Rebellion

    I find it hard to criticize any of the aims of Extinction Rebellion. Almost all of what they advocate accords with my own deeply felt convictions on what is wrong with our world.

    I have no experience of “activism” and instinctively I have steered clear of trouble all my life. Not for me, banner waving in Parliament Square. Let alone getting mown down by a fireman’s hose or injured by a rubber bullet. But someone has to do the job I suppose.

    I am greatly opposed to violence in any form but these people profess pacifism. I have always been a fan of Mahatma Gandhi.

    I am only peripherally aware of what Extinction Rebellion has achieved so far. I don’t know the people involved and can not judge their sincerity or true motivation. But what I can do is to admire their vision. And to wish there was a political party I could vote for whose agenda included these aims, so close to my own heart.

    Take a look at their vision. Can there be a man of any religious conviction at all who could quibble with these stated aims? Can there be a woman of any decency who can deny that all of this and more is needed to create a just world of which we can be proud?

    Is any of this achievable in practice? The naysayers, the cynics, the greedy will deny it. But denial does not make such aims foolish or impossible. It would of course require a complete reversal of our evolutionary instincts but we can not grow as a species without abandoning vicious Darwinism.

    Without further ado, let me quote some of my favorite passages.

    We catch glimpses of a new world of love, respect and regeneration, where we have restored the intricate web of all life. 

    We rise in the name of truth and withdraw our consent for ecocide, oppression and patriarchy. We rise up for a world where power is shared for regeneration, repair and reconciliation. We rise for love in its ultimate wisdom.

    We live in a world of fear, where dog eats dog and man’s insatiable lust for power and material possessions runs unchecked. We live in a world where the likes of Donald Trump are allowed to preach racism and violence. We live in a world where almost half of the richest nation on earth voted for a man of ignorance, deceit, and violence as their leader.

    Our world values something we call “economic growth” above anything else. A world where beauty and natural resources are trampled and destroyed so that titans of industry can accumulate ever more. So that corrupt politicians and their supporters can continue to fill the troughs out of which they gorge themselves.

    We need to bring about a world where we aim for growth in happiness, not the economy. An environment where what we care about is the eradication of poverty and suffering above all else.

    My detractors will trot out well worn tropes, the trickle down effect being chief among these. But try trickling down to the people in Grenfell Tower. Try trickling down to the victims of Robert Mugabe or the human detritus so despised by the American presidency.

    I am not a believer in Christ, but try reading the Beatitudes and see if you can spot any similarities with the aims outlined by Extinction Rebellion.

    Take a look at the Eightfold Noble Path and dare to tell me I am wrong to feel the way I do.

    For thousands of years good men (and women) have seen the “truth”. For thousands of years we have ignored and trampled such people underfoot.

    If we are to rise to Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point, it is time to start listening. And time to act. Peaceably, but decisively. NOW.

  • So, ecumenism is bad for society?

    So, ecumenism is bad for society?

    I was sad to come across a post on the internet entitled “The Ecumenical Slope” whose author is both anti ecumenism and pacifism and who appears to believe that such doctrines destroy “character”.

    The author states that ecumenism is “evil”.

    I find such attitudes deeply disturbing since in my own book, any movement which tends towards peace on earth is a good thing. Peace is beneficial, which is why, mercifully we no longer worship Thor or consider battle as glorious. Well, most of us anyway.
    Not, apparently, the author of that blog.

    When I make my case for ecumenism, both secular and sacred, as can be well imagined, the author turns to insult to re-enforce his position. Thus in effect making my point for me – the human tendency towards violence is something which we should urgently address. Futile as that cause may seem.

    I would not have bothered to think about the matter but my mind turned towards it when I heard this afternoon of the continuing strife at the Hurlingham Club – a posh venue for the spoilt upper middle classes in London, to which my family and I belong.

    I won’t go into the details but the sorry saga at the club has taught me a thing or two about human nature. In particular, that humans are born to fight. And furthermore, that in order to bring about a better society we must resist conflict at all costs.

    Ecumenism is an attempt to foster better understanding of each other and closer, less harmful relationships. It can refer to religious groups or simply to people in general. It says a lot about our world and human nature that there can exist people who argue against ecumenism and pacifism. Who argue, in effect, in favour of conflict and dissension.

    I confess that I am constantly irritated by individuals and by society in general. That I am disappointed and disturbed by human nature. I am constantly having to remind myself that my views and my own wishes are not something that I should foist on others and often have to think carefully and back off on any particular initiative I might have which looks like it will lead to conflict.

    A typical example is a recent initiative I lead to introduce choral music to our decrepit and decaying local church. And to obtain a key so that I could open the church for private contemplation. I was met by resistance and refusal and was faced with two choices: walk away, or take the matter up with higher authority against the wishes of the local church wardens. I decided to walk away. Parties become entrenched in power and entrenched in their ways, believing that they represent the community; perhaps they do but one suspects that they represent only that section of the community with which they find themselves in agreement. Such is our nature.

    I chose to walk away. And so with the author of that curious blog. When he offered insult in return for my well meant and peacefully phrased comment, I recognized it was time to walk away and leave him to his views, however much I disagreed with them.

    I can honestly say that I have no idea how to deal with aggression. I am very unclear what could or should have been done in 1939.

    But I am ever more clear that wherever and whenever possible, I will walk away.