Hi Yuyutsu,

Sorry, I wasn't aware that this thread was focussing on the world, not just Australia.

But are you saying that Shudras or dalits are living on welfare ? Paid by the Indian government ? I didn't know that.

I have to say that I find that whole caste system disgusting and vile: regardless what a shudra might think of himself or herself, they are as worthy as any Brahmin, and yes, in my view, they each have only one life. I find it disgusting that one person can be born, and live their entire life, in affluence, while so many others will be born, and live their entire (one and only) lives in utter poverty.

Hinduism strikes me as a completely idiotic religion, and on those grounds, I despair that India will ever rival China. I wouldn't be surprised to see Indonesia race past it, economically and socially.

Not because Indonesia is mostly Muslim - after all, there are nearly as many Muslims in India as in Indonesia, but because Indonesia seems to take its religions a little more casually than other countries. On that score, obviously Pakistan will remain a basket case through-out my life-time, and probably India as well.

Anyhow, to get BTT: Actually, I've had a vague suspicion for thirty or more years that there were, in patches of Aboriginal society, tendencies in the direction of caste systems. Certainly, putting that together with the lifelong welfare population, is it possible - I ask this especially of Big Nana - that many Aboriginal people think they are, indeed, a sort of Brahmin care, and that white (social workers, nose- and arse-wipers generally) have a permanent role as glorified shudras.

As a friend of many years in the field noted, many Aboriginal people that he associated with were quite convinced that they should be paid full, lifetime, salaries for being Aboriginal. Is that close to thinking they have some innate or God-given position high up in a caste system, or what ?

It ain't me, babe !

Joe

Craig:
“I seem to have a knack for being unclear!”
On the contrary you’re lucid and eloquent. In my experience here the problem is partly word limits (necessary of course), but mainly that we tend to be at cross purposes. Each poster is inspired by a different set of ideas—Gary Johns by his neoliberal think-tank.
I agree btw wholeheartedly with the rest of the paragraph from which I’ve quoted you here, which my own research interests tend to reflect.
I did look at your link and have some knowledge of the field, and my response above was indeed partly a critique of it—see, I also have a knack for being unclear.
Addressing the subject again apropos your last to Yuyutsu, if I may. I’m not groping in the dark for the same thing, as it seems to me we must get our priorities in order. We claim to be civilised and our first priorities ought thus to be renewal and ethical standards. These are abused and in jeapody thanks to our open-ended mode of production. Striving for the life well lived without addressing these priorities is foolheardy and unconscionable. In any case the only good life available to us is constrained to a rubric and dependent on positive thinking.

TBC

Cont:

Now this is interesting:

“…That is what we call envy and in today's world, where the group is enormously large and where it is not readily apparent how hard anybody works, but very easy to see the outward signs of prosperity, it has become a powerfully negative force in some people's lives, even those who should, by any material measure, be satisfied with their lot”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like an apologetics of the vast inequities which divide humanity? That is that we should be grateful with the quality of life we enjoy and not be drawn into negative impulses like envy?
I agree with this to a point. I couldn’t in all conscience own a private jet or a mansion for instance, and I see through the folly of acquisition and wealth for their own sake.
But in the global context these inequities between nations and individuals are to a large extent ‘dependent’ upon those disparities, nor are the respective conditions adequate or sustainable.
As I said above, I’m not advocating ‘redistribution,’ it’s not about wanting to share out the booty; it’s first about ‘living and renewing sustainably,’ and ‘then’ about the life well-lived. We are the only species capable of appreciating these fundamental requirements, yet we continue to exploit our global habitat as if there were no tomorrow. Can’t you see how talk of a life well-lived is incongruous in these delinquent circumstances? This is the point I’ve been labouring to get across. It’s not about envy. I despise the trappings of wealth. I despise the profligate of any demographic. But preaching contentment, letting Caesar have is due as it were, is no longer a Christ-like submission to God’s will, but an irresponsible betrayal both of posterity and any coherent ethics based on what we now know about the world.

(...continued)

The caste system degenerated into strict and enforced social boundaries where one could never escape their family's caste. This was obviously wrong: individuals CAN escape their caste, either with supreme effort and determination, divine grace or the help of a competent guru. Such supreme effort and determination, however, cannot be expected of the general public and competent gurus do not tend to be born in Australia where the tall-poppy syndrome prevents them from developing their potential.

--- so far my previous post, cut by exceeding my posting quota ---

<<But are you saying that Shudras or dalits are living on welfare? Paid by the Indian government?>>

First, Shudras and dalits are distinct different groups.
Second, I did not say anything like it and previously, historically, it was never so.

Shudras in Australia live on welfare because their natural source of income has been replaced by machines.

<<they are as worthy as any Brahmin>>

So is a 7-year old as worthy as a 70-year old, but the 70-year old no longer needs to learn reading and writing in school.

---

Dear Craig,

Thank you for your kind words.

Cont:

Even supposing we ignore our calamitous situation—strive for the well-lived life ‘for the moment,’ and at the expense of future generations (and other life on Earth); hedonism implicitly condones this—this is still more problematic than you suggest.
I agree with you that ‘doing’ requites much better pleasure than consumption—“of the fruits of someone else’s work”? This again looks like a veiled apologetics of neoliberalism—though I take you to be promoting creative work—but you seem to forget that consumerism is not really a choice.
We are enjoined to consume conspicuously from the outset and everything is geared to exploit desire and foster appetite. We can hardly blame the uneducated and wretched if they heed the marketing and their own programming.
Even supposing one sees through our utterly materialistic lifestyles—and a minority does, bless them, preferring to raid supermarket bins and eat road-kill than play the consumer game (I have more respect for these activists than those who seek diversion in religion or ‘qualitative’ hedonic pursuits)—there is little scope for living a modest life dedicated to doing anyway.
All forms of doing have been commodified, they are subject to fashion and there is a range of increasingly sophisticated, soon to be obsolete or defective, products dedicated to every hobby and pursuit. We live to consume, to service the economy, and not the other way around. A truly creative dimension to our lives is all but lost, nostalgia, and even the remnants are necessarily conceived and pared back as commercial prospects. It seems to me then that your notion of the well-lived life is idealistic and even naïve—as well as ethically negligent of the facts of our moral and material insolvency. At bottom, we are too conditioned in any case to be persuaded away from the feast in numbers—my daughters are hooked to fashion, cosmetics etc., indeed only one out of my six is at all resolute. Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse tried to persuade us down a more fulfilling path and failed spectacularly.
I say all this in the spirit of genuine striving for answers to the problems that beset us.

Perhaps Gina Rinehart could open her gold lined purse to let out a million dollars she receives every half an hour, a billion would not be missed, this would help many unmarried mother's children, perhaps a certain Duke could spend more time helping unmarried mothers and children in poverty than bedding minors, the part time fun of the super rich.
Poverty is a world problem whether unmarried, married, single male or female, this will not change while the elite control the dollars and Governments will make sure they keep this control over those struggling, Nothing will change, people are people, there are those that know how to manipulate the free dollars by handouts from taxpayers and there are those that will manipulate all to earn and keep their billions.