Erik, in brief, I can only say that none of us know - and that we all bring our baggage to the departures lounge. So, I will go back, check the links, think through it (or attempt to) again. I have a lot of respect for Eisenstein although, personally, I am on a somewhat different trajectory. I also have no respect or much time for most conspiracy theory because I’m simplistic enough to find Occam’s razor a valuable tool. In addition, I spend comparatively little time online and just about no time in cities, I am almost always surrounded by trees and vegetation - so my tuning is different than that of many. Ahhh, but once upon a time I was as urban as could be! Even miss it on occasion, but would not trade what I have now for what I thought I had then.
Gotta say that Charles Eisenstein is well worth reading and far from a conspiracist. His thinking is both deep and holistic - and, not to be overly dismissive, worth more than all those links to various other writers put together. Guess I’m saying that I think the caveat should be replaced by a recommendation.
I dunno Jonathan. I think arguments can be made both for and against him as a closet (even to himself) conspiracist. I am not the first to make that argument, as he himself points out (which is an interesting way rhetorically to begin a piece). At the end of his article, I also thought it was quite significant than when he called on us to pay attention to "both sides", he only provided links to the conspiracy side. I followed those links just to check em out. The one I spent the most time on had some OK stuff, both worthy critiques and valuable information, but was also full of what I consider unenlightening or unhelpful mixtures of outsider science, widely discredited claims, and New Agish religious rhetoric (the war of light and darkness, etc). I was actually surprised his links were as extreme as they were. I admire his project, but it seems wobbly to me. There are more caveats I could add, but this will do.
I think Eisenstein's idea of how to look at conspiracy as true myth is right on, but I feel like he doesn't critique the excesses of the mythologizers, pathological and self-serving and otherwise, as much as he justifies their (understandable but...) rejection of conventional authorities.
I can't stop sharpening my Occam's razor either--it can cut you if you don't watch it, but it just comes in so dang handy so much of the time...
I do and did appreciate the correct use of quote marks, very appropriate! (Lot of redundancy in that sentence. Please excuse.)
OK, so I understand your caveats about Eisenstein’s thesis better now. Could just be “confirmation bias”; that is, I broadly agree with your point. However, I do find his general approach to the coming times both refreshing and insightful. He takes subjects and turns them on their sides so you can see their inner workings better than most thinkers - and feelers. He’s very human.
Erik, in brief, I can only say that none of us know - and that we all bring our baggage to the departures lounge. So, I will go back, check the links, think through it (or attempt to) again. I have a lot of respect for Eisenstein although, personally, I am on a somewhat different trajectory. I also have no respect or much time for most conspiracy theory because I’m simplistic enough to find Occam’s razor a valuable tool. In addition, I spend comparatively little time online and just about no time in cities, I am almost always surrounded by trees and vegetation - so my tuning is different than that of many. Ahhh, but once upon a time I was as urban as could be! Even miss it on occasion, but would not trade what I have now for what I thought I had then.
Gotta say that Charles Eisenstein is well worth reading and far from a conspiracist. His thinking is both deep and holistic - and, not to be overly dismissive, worth more than all those links to various other writers put together. Guess I’m saying that I think the caveat should be replaced by a recommendation.
I dunno Jonathan. I think arguments can be made both for and against him as a closet (even to himself) conspiracist. I am not the first to make that argument, as he himself points out (which is an interesting way rhetorically to begin a piece). At the end of his article, I also thought it was quite significant than when he called on us to pay attention to "both sides", he only provided links to the conspiracy side. I followed those links just to check em out. The one I spent the most time on had some OK stuff, both worthy critiques and valuable information, but was also full of what I consider unenlightening or unhelpful mixtures of outsider science, widely discredited claims, and New Agish religious rhetoric (the war of light and darkness, etc). I was actually surprised his links were as extreme as they were. I admire his project, but it seems wobbly to me. There are more caveats I could add, but this will do.
Unfortunately, “both sides” is now regrettable phrasing.
Yes, hence the quote marks.
I think Eisenstein's idea of how to look at conspiracy as true myth is right on, but I feel like he doesn't critique the excesses of the mythologizers, pathological and self-serving and otherwise, as much as he justifies their (understandable but...) rejection of conventional authorities.
I can't stop sharpening my Occam's razor either--it can cut you if you don't watch it, but it just comes in so dang handy so much of the time...
I do and did appreciate the correct use of quote marks, very appropriate! (Lot of redundancy in that sentence. Please excuse.)
OK, so I understand your caveats about Eisenstein’s thesis better now. Could just be “confirmation bias”; that is, I broadly agree with your point. However, I do find his general approach to the coming times both refreshing and insightful. He takes subjects and turns them on their sides so you can see their inner workings better than most thinkers - and feelers. He’s very human.