'Thinking Outside the Box' in 2012

[RenewableCandy]

In terms of sustainability Prince Charles' problem is that he's a prince, and the expectation of higher consumption than the average which that entails creates a cognitive dissonance between his role and his aims. What he needs to do is create a more radical approach which challenges the expectation that he should, as a prince, carry out ostentatious consumption -- although in doing so he'll probably block any chances of being King because he'll alienate himself from the establishment.

Gandhi led a simple life and managed to lead a country...it could be done, given the right situation.

[emordnilap]

Keela. Maybe it's best to get away from this idea of hypocrisy and think more in terms of culpability. The less culpable you can become, the better - but no-one can become perfect.

[biffvernon]

Hypocrisy is really not something to get hung up about.

The Fallacy of Hypocrisy. The fallacy that, if what I do falls below the standards of what I say, my argument can be dismissed without more ado. The fallacy arises from the obvious discomforts of a contrast between good words and bad deeds, like those of Measure for Measure’s Angelo, upright in public, outrageous in private.

And yet, if an argument is a good one, dissonant deeds do nothing to contradict it. In fact, the hypocrite may have something to be said for him. For instance, he may not be making any claims at all about how he lives, but only about his values in the context of the argument. There is no reason why he should not argue for standards better than he manages to achieve in his own life; in fact, it would be worrying if his ideals were not better than the way he lives. He is not dazzled by his high personal standards; he does not make an icon of himself as the model of high moral standing. He is not defended by his sincerity from the possibility of self-criticism. His ideals are not limited to what he can achieve himself. What matters is whether his argument is right or not. With accusations of hypocrisy in the air, difficult questions about real problems short-circuit into ad hominem quarrel.

Hypocrisy is a bad thing with good qualities. Sincerity is a good thing with bad qualities; it shines a light on the simple certainties of your feelings on the matter, rather than on the awkward realities of the case. Some of the most intensely savage people this planet has ever produced were noted for their sincerity and their incorruptible and austere lives. There was Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), largely responsible for the reign of terror during the French revolution, but, in his own life, he was the “Sea-Green Incorruptible”. And there as Conrad of Marburg (d. 1233), thin with fasting, who, in imitation of Jesus, rode on a donkey from place to place on his mission to discover and burn heretics and witches. For ground-breaking catastrophes, we have to turn to the incorruptible. We are safer with those who are not preoccupied with admiration of their own moral standing, confident that they can think no wrong.

If required to choose between sincerity and hypocrisy (writes the theologian David Martin), “Give me a friendly hypocrite any day”.

http://www.leanlogic.net/

[UndercoverElephant]

Hypocrisy is really not something to get hung up about.

The Fallacy of Hypocrisy. The fallacy that, if what I do falls below the standards of what I say, my argument can be dismissed without more ado. The fallacy arises from the obvious discomforts of a contrast between good words and bad deeds, like those of Measure for Measure’s Angelo, upright in public, outrageous in private.

And yet, if an argument is a good one, dissonant deeds do nothing to contradict it. In fact, the hypocrite may have something to be said for him. For instance, he may not be making any claims at all about how he lives, but only about his values in the context of the argument. There is no reason why he should not argue for standards better than he manages to achieve in his own life; in fact, it would be worrying if his ideals were not better than the way he lives. He is not dazzled by his high personal standards; he does not make an icon of himself as the model of high moral standing. He is not defended by his sincerity from the possibility of self-criticism. His ideals are not limited to what he can achieve himself. What matters is whether his argument is right or not. With accusations of hypocrisy in the air, difficult questions about real problems short-circuit into ad hominem quarrel.

Hypocrisy is a bad thing with good qualities. Sincerity is a good thing with bad qualities; it shines a light on the simple certainties of your feelings on the matter, rather than on the awkward realities of the case. Some of the most intensely savage people this planet has ever produced were noted for their sincerity and their incorruptible and austere lives. There was Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), largely responsible for the reign of terror during the French revolution, but, in his own life, he was the “Sea-Green Incorruptible”. And there as Conrad of Marburg (d. 1233), thin with fasting, who, in imitation of Jesus, rode on a donkey from place to place on his mission to discover and burn heretics and witches. For ground-breaking catastrophes, we have to turn to the incorruptible. We are safer with those who are not preoccupied with admiration of their own moral standing, confident that they can think no wrong.

If required to choose between sincerity and hypocrisy (writes the theologian David Martin), “Give me a friendly hypocrite any day”.

http://www.leanlogic.net/

Interesting point, but I think it means we have to distinguish between "honest hypocrisy" and "dishonest hypocrisy." The honest hypocrite knows and acknowledges his failure to live up to his own standards, whereas the dishonest hypocrite pretends to others and himself that he is not, in fact, a hypocrite.

It's better to be an honest hypocrite than a dishonest hypocrite or a person with no/low moral values, perhaps.

[kenneal - lagger]

Judging by all the helicopter shots and the other clips used in that video someone with a lot of money and power is trying to do a hatchet job on a dangerous revolutionary who might bring the current system down.

[emordnilap]

Hypocrisy is really not something to get hung up about.

True but you have to get hung up on it, then get over it.

[DominicJ]

Gandhi led a simple life and managed to lead a country...it could be done, given the right situation.

Ghandi was an accomplished politician.
He did lead an exageratedly simple life, later on, in his youth he was a well educated lawyer, with interesting views on Africans....

Him wearing a simple homespun robe is rather like Blairs "I'm a normal guy"

"An example demonstrates popularity of Gandhi, importance of participation of people in the freedom movement and Gandhi's words on worth of sacrifice. While he was popularising Khadi in rural Orissa, an aged poor woman who was listening to a speech by Gandhi fought her way to where he was, touched his feet and put a one-paise copper coin in front of him. Gandhi accepted the coin and thanked her. He said to Jamnalal Bajaj about it as:[44]

"This coin was perhaps all that the poor woman possessed. She gave me all she had. That was very generous of her. What a great sacrifice she made. That is why I value this copper coin more than a crore of rupees.""

Thats just a blatant rip of a much earlier story, in which a woman gives a pomegranite, and is judged to have given more then the king, who gave gold, because the pomegranite was all she had.

[the_lyniezian]

Also similar to Jesus' comments on the "widow's mite".

[emordnilap]

There is no reason why he should not argue for standards better than he manages to achieve in his own life; in fact, it would be worrying if his ideals were not better than the way he lives.

That's a core point I've made to others: many people are not allowed to achieve their ideals. Such as, recycling is admirable; re-using or not using is far, far better but, in many cases, unavailable.

[Potemkin Villager]

I do find it extremely worrying as well as incredibly amusing the way that all attempts to engage folk in the sorts of issues raised by mobsey are so comprehensively avoided by the introduction of all sorts of endless school boy debating society philosophical and religious red herrings.

The quite politically reactionary and unimaginative element that engage in this practice seem well old beyond their years. They are clearly a large part of the problem posing in the guise of disinterested seekers of answers. In reality they only wish to demolish any "dangerous" ideas not in accord with their own comfort zones and thus do everybody a disservice.

Obvious candidates for some pointless political appointment.

[mobbsey]

I do find it extremely worrying as well as incredibly amusing the way that all attempts to engage folk in the sorts of issues raised by mobsey are so comprehensively avoided by the introduction of all sorts of endless school boy debating society philosophical and religious red herrings.

As Voltaire said, "Love truth, but pardon error".

Unless you can accept the truth of our "predicament" (and I use the term 'predicament' deliberately -- "problems" have solutions whilst "predicaments" prefigure an unavoidable change in conditions) then you'll never move-on and change yourself. There's too many people making grand plans for everyone to follow, whilst carrying on the same practices in their own life (flying, mobiles phones, credit cards, etc.), but really they're nothing more than trying to bargain with the truth of our situation; they're trying to preserve the illusion power and affluence by making another, "greener" version.

That's not a new idea -- over 2000 years ago the Roman poet Horace said "in vitium ducit culpæ fuga"... or, "in fleeing one vice we are sometimes caught by another"

I've been saying this stuff since before I took up "peaking" as my main occupation in 2002; since before even PowerSwitch existed (and on a continuum between pomposity and abuse, PowerSwitch is probably the most begign! -- which is why I'm here). I'll probably be saying the same stuff in another 10 years. That's because I've been on this track for a lot longer than most, and have a lot more experience as a result.

I looked at/took up green consumerism and lifestyles in the late 80s/early 1990s, tried living that approach full time after giving up my last "proper job" in 1991 -- and had rejected the concept by the end of the decade (that's partly what led me into this line of thinking around 2001/2). Since then I've looked to the "nonconsuming" option -- to a change that's led by basic skills and human self-organisation. If I stress skills like foraging and fire-lighting instead of carrying bug-out-bags, or hand-power instead of PV, then it's because that's the approach that I'm trying to live day-to-day -- it's not aspirational, this is what I do. And my conviction to keep saying this, irrespective of the complaints, stems from my discovery/enjoyment of the practical benefits and social/psychological strength of this approach.

That people can't relate to what I say it isn't my problem, it's theirs. And if they plough their time and effort into creating grand schemes and gadgets to edify their affluence then they will, in the end, come to realise the folly of that. Then, as Voltaire notes above, I'll still be willing to help.

[biffvernon]

+1 but

I'll probably be saying the same stuff in another 10 years

you're still an optimistic then?

[mobbsey]

you're still an optimistic then?

Patient.

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm reading "Fleeing Vesuvius" at the moment and it has solved a problem for me with the funding of our Eco Hamlet. In thinking outside the box it introduces the concept of Equity Partnerships as a way of dealing in, selling, developing or renting land. It will make the sales price of plots in the hamlet much more affordable and save me paying a lot of Capital Gains Tax. We don't want a lot of cash for our project but a pension would be a good thing and better for everyone concerned.

I recommend the book, with its contribution from our own Chris Vernon (clv101), very highly.

[emordnilap]

I recommend the book, with its contribution from our own Chris Vernon (clv101), very highly.

I recommend it too, though I would, wouldn't I? Luckily, there are contributions from Richard Douthwaite.

I love the chapter by Orlov about the boat building.