Olympinonsense

[John Wright]

If you DID watch the Opening Ceremony then you'll appreciate

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree. The point I was making yesterday wasn't particularly clear so I will try to do better on that now.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s was positive in many ways, not least in accommodating a wider range of people and making contraception widely availabile. It also fundamentally changed the rules of the game in terms of sexual competition.

For a start, the link between sex and reproduction altered fundamentally. The vast majority of sexual interactivity suddenly had little to do with the idea that offspring were the mark of surviving as the fittest. Elements such as vague expressions of love, notions about fun, manifestations of identity and character of lifestyle, which had always been a part of the equation, were multiplied a hundred times over and in a matter of weeks. Given that we are just four or five decades on, such interpretations historically are still exceedingly short-termist. Oddly to question any of them from a non-religious perspective is rare in the extreme.

It wasn't, back in the 1960s; everything was up for questioning from secular leftist positions, from the new consumerism to to what extent authoritarianism and one-party rule was an inevitable consequence of Marxist doctrine in practice. The popular ascription of authoritarian tendencies to what we were about was a gross travesty and a convenient projection on behalf of those who were doing very nicely out of co-opting alternative culture at the time..

Arguably, the new elements favoured the young, the athletic, the good looking. They also diluted the significance of aspects of choice and selection that were earlier seen as crucial to survival - long-term relationships, support via guaranteed income, economic interdependence, reliance on instinct and thought rather than technology in regard to family planning, serious approaches to life rather than carefree ones, especial consciousness of health, and in the absence of social and media influence more emphasis on the self-contained family unit inside community. Such things in the bigger picture look like a good way to run a country.

There was a lot of talk about "instinct" and trusting in "the natural" about at the time as well, which unfortunately omitted the larger part of an equation, including the mediating structures and ideas flowing therefrom that determined conformist attitudes in society, and the manners adopted by which these attitudes were being rebelled against, which had to do with containment and deflection into harmless or easily blameworthy activities and beliefs.

My belief is that the new liberalism was overdue in respect of fair treatment to all individuals and it was, rather like the cooker and the washing machine, fantastic as a mechanism for potentially making lives easier. I don't think that the strengths it accentuates as a replacement for earlier strengths are necessarily those which enable societies to advance if they are in essence the fundamental character of those societies. That is particularly true if they are inextricably linked to their economic organisation.

The extent to which the "new liberalism" was accepted - and I know you don't mean new liberalism in the sense of market relaxation, privatisation etc - was the result of a considerable struggle within the bourgeoisie, between "old school" believers in deference, family, church, and sport, one the one hand, and new ideologues of the Right who saw the opportunity offered by increased working class living standards afforded by postwar Keynsian demand-management economics (and the co-option of trade unionism) as far as co-opting ordinary people into having a stake of loyalty into the state of class relations remaining as they were. Hence home ownership rather than collective provision, (seen as top-down, homogenising, depriving of individual input), and the one thing that imv constituted the turning point in qualitative terms, the Major government's introduction of the Lottery, and its implicit statement that anyone can now have something for (virtually) nothing, that luck is a matter of chance, open theoretically to anyone and therefore all.

These are imv the specifics, from which theoretical outcomes can be deduced that are not, again imv, essentially in conflict with Marxist orthodoxy, whatever that means... Interestingly, the Dalai Lama has often put it (to the Chinese leadership too) that there is nothing wrong with communism if underpinned with the sorts of spiritual values - which see through identity to deeper organic interconnections than are expressed at any given sociohistorical stage - that he espouses - and he, of all people, should know!!! It was that spiritual dimension that was missing in our "personal is political" equation, I still maintain, these 40 + years later. It was too easy to diss at a time when capitalism's golden new dawn seemed permanetly entrenched, ("hairshirt advocists" etc), but, that's another story....

[Lateralthinking1]

It wasn't, back in the 1960s; everything was up for questioning from secular leftist positions, from the new consumerism to to what extent authoritarianism and one-party rule was an inevitable consequence of Marxist doctrine in practice. The popular ascription of authoritarian tendencies to what we were about was a gross travesty and a convenient projection on behalf of those who were doing very nicely out of co-opting alternative culture at the time..

There was a lot of talk about "instinct" and trusting in "the natural" about at the time as well, which unfortunately omitted the larger part of an equation, including the mediating structures and ideas flowing therefrom that determined conformist attitudes in society, and the manners adopted by which these attitudes were being rebelled against, which had to do with containment and deflection into harmless or easily blameworthy activities and beliefs.

The extent to which the "new liberalism" was accepted - and I know you don't mean new liberalism in the sense of market relaxation, privatisation etc - was the result of a considerable struggle within the bourgeoisie, between "old school" believers in deference, family, church, and sport, one the one hand, and new ideologues of the Right who saw the opportunity offered by increased working class living standards afforded by postwar Keynsian demand-management economics (and the co-option of trade unionism) as far as co-opting ordinary people into having a stake of loyalty into the state of class relations remaining as they were. Hence home ownership rather than collective provision, (seen as top-down, homogenising, depriving of individual input), and the one thing that imv constituted the turning point in qualitative terms, the Major government's introduction of the Lottery, and its implicit statement that anyone can now have something for (virtually) nothing, that luck is a matter of chance, open theoretically to anyone and therefore all.

These are imv the specifics, from which theoretical outcomes can be deduced that are not, again imv, essentially in conflict with Marxist orthodoxy, whatever that means... Interestingly, the Dalai Lama has often put it (to the Chinese leadership too) that there is nothing wrong with communism if underpinned with the sorts of spiritual values - which see through identity to deeper organic interconnections than are expressed at any given sociohistorical stage - that he espouses - and he, of all people, should know!!! It was that spiritual dimension that was missing in our "personal is political" equation, I still maintain, these 40 + years later. It was too easy to diss at a time when capitalism's golden new dawn seemed permanetly entrenched, ("hairshirt advocists" etc), but, that's another story....

Yes, there are many standard oppositional patterns which have been shaped by those "mediating structures and ideas flowing therefrom that determined conformist attitudes in society". The most authoritarian requirement for conformity is not, as generally perceived, in one philosophy or another, although some philosophies are a darn sight better than others, but in the designed consensus that any individual viewpoint must be contained within the generally accepted boundaries of battle.

I look at Ron Paul in the United States. I don't want that policy at all but it challenges us to think in very different ways. For British minds, it needs a bit of effort to fully comprehend it. And what it tells us too is that there are just so many political angles that still have never been negotiated, let alone accommodated. For example, we are now all very lazily in the mindset that sees sharp distinctions between individual or family or community and governing state. It is so prevalent that one could say that there is no scope for anything else. There is no sense of the former simply being microcosms of the latter, which personally I think would be a far more logical perspective, and that would certainly help to shape different dialogue, policies, behaviour, measures of success.

There has never been a time when the steadiness of traditional conservatism has been decoupled from religion and hence unshackled from that burden, or when aspects of the sixties revolution have been permitted to settle beyond an adolescent response to the rigidity of earlier eras, with all the predictable mayhem, or when the aforementioned conservatism has been aligned at the very least with social democratic economics. The natural corollary of deference is surely greater equality and respect.

I agree that the lottery is informative. In many ways, it is the Olympics again. Theoretically anyone can win but the more well off stand more chance of winning. And the winners have to be in a tiny minority - how many people could have a wonderful life if £28 million was divided into hundreds? Instead, what is offered is as elusive as moon rock but attractive to many on a shallow level because it comes with extra glitz. Part of the reason why decisionmakers have power is that they operate in the skies and invite people in rather than ever being willingly brought down to earth. The reason is that most folk are a bit in the skies in their heads.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, there are many standard oppositional patterns which have been shaped by those "mediating structures and ideas flowing therefrom that determined conformist attitudes in society". The most authoritarian requirement for conformity is not, as generally perceived, in one philosophy or another, although some philosophies are a darn sight better than others, but in the designed consensus that any individual viewpoint must be contained within the generally accepted boundaries of battle.

I look at Ron Paul in the United States. I don't want that policy at all but it challenges us to think in very different ways. For British minds, it needs a bit of effort to fully comprehend it. And what it tells us too is that there are just so many political angles that still have never been negotiated, let alone accomodated. For example, we are now all very lazily in the mindset that sees sharp distinctions between individual or family or community and governing state. It is so prevalent that one could say that there is no scope for anything else. There is no sense of the former simply being microcosms of the latter, which personally I think would be a far more logical perspective, and it would certainly help to shape different dialogue, policies, behaviour, measures of success.

There has also never been a time when some of the steadiness of traditional conservatism has been decoupled from religion and hence unshackled from that burden, or when aspects of the sixties revolution have been permitted to settle beyond an adolescent response to the rigidity of earlier eras, with all of the predictable mayhem, or when some of the aforementioned conservatism has been aligned at the very least with social democratic economics. The natural corollary of deference is surely greater equality and respect.

I agree that the lottery is informative. In many ways, it is the Olympics again. Anyone theoretically can win but the more well off stand more chance of winning. And the winners have to be in a tiny minority - how many people could have a wonderful life if £28 million was divided into hundreds? Instead, what is offered is as elusive as moon rock but attractive to many on a shallow level because it comes with extra glitz.

This really deserves a more respectful reply than my immediate intention to go out and enjoy a local lager and some jazz singing dictates, but, in short, I really think we have to decouple all of our identifications with/sympathies for the rich and powerful, and the system they run and manipulate the population for on their own behalf, getting away with what they can. Watever benefits it ever gained "ordinary people" (horrible term) was mostly a result of decades if not centuries of sacrifice and struggle, and if it is anyone it's our ancestors with whom I most sympathise for the many ways in which "we" have allowed their sacrifices to be betrayed.

Did anyone watch "London - The Modern Babylon" on BBC2 last night? that wonderful 106-year old Hackney resident really sewed it up.

[Northender]

The BBC interviewer asked the victorious Ugandan who has just won the marathon ... ' you moved yourself away from your family to live in Kenya to train for this event, tell us all about it ... '

Needless to say the poor breathless chap looked down at the ground, shook his head repeatedly, and then simply walked away ...

That reporter deserves the stiffest of reprimands. Anyone with the TINIEST degree of initiative would have interviewed the chap during the last 100 yards of the race as he approached the finishing line.

[JohnSkelton]

That reporter deserves the stiffest of reprimands. Anyone with the TINIEST degree of initiative would have interviewed the chap during the last 100 yards of the race as he approached the finishing line.

Brilliant!

[John Wright]

Nah. Alternative comedy ony works in the hands/mouth of a skilled comedien

[JimD]

From the BBC website:
'A celebration of sporting achievement, of the country's passion, heritage, and a rarely witnessed can-do culture. It has delivered a project Sebastian Coe called "the most complicated task Britain will ever undertake".'

Is it surprising that even quite sympathetic people get fed up of sportistas and their hubris?

[John Wright]

Jim, yes I have to say I'm not impressed by coe-blurts.

[mangerton]

Jim, yes I have to say I'm not impressed by coe-blurts.

Quite. Sounds like a load of Coe-bblers to me. Has this clown forgotten - does he even know - that this country fought two World Wars within the last 100 years? And that's just one example.

If that's the best the House of Lords can do, then the sooner it's abolished, the better.

[amateur51]

Quite. Sounds like a load of Coe-bblers to me. Has this clown forgotten - does he even know - that this country fought two World Wars within the last 100 years? And that's just one example.

.

Yes if only he'd acknowledged it as the latest extraordinary feat in a long line etc etc, but no

If that's the best the House of Lords can do, then the sooner it's abolished, the better.

A tad unfair on the House of Lords - it's the individual who's the dollop in this case, not the institution - but i know what you mean

[teamsaint]

From the BBC website:
'A celebration of sporting achievement, of the country's passion, heritage, and a rarely witnessed can-do culture. It has delivered a project Sebastian Coe called "the most complicated task Britain will ever undertake".'

Is it surprising that even quite sympathetic people get fed up of sportistas and their hubris?

Quite. Most of us witness his "can -do" culture every day..it's just that most people don't get gold medals and fortunes for their efforts.
At least coe won't be seen or heard in public much more after its all finished...will he ?
Oh well

[Flosshilde]

At least coe won't be seen or heard in public much more after its all finished...will he ?
Oh well

Oh yes he will - he's going to be 'legacy tsar' or some such nonsense.

There was some ex-sports person on the news this morning talking about sport in schools & the importance of 'physical literacy' He did say that it wasn't only sports that could develop such a thing, & that dance could help too, and that sports needn't be competitive. Appparently it's all going to be done in primary schools by volunteers, & Coe was going to be overseeing it all as part of his job as 'legacy tsar' - I'm sure he'll be volunteering his time :weep:

[Lateralthinking1]

Is the economic legacy safe with Coe?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hague-and-coe-sports-firm-in-3m-writeoff-6264613.html

Can he be a leader of integrity?

Lord Coe, director of AMT-Sybex Group, which is the IT supplier to the NHS, and IT is one of many areas that the bill could lead to lucrative new opportunities for health contractors. He has one of the worst attendance records in Parliament, less than 10 per cent but voted for the health bill.

[amateur51]

Can he be a leader of integrity?

Lord Coe, director of AMT-Sybex Group, which is the IT supplier to the NHS, and IT is one of many areas that the bill could lead to lucrative new opportunities for health contractors. He has one of the worst attendance records in Parliament, less than 10 per cent but voted for the health bill.

Thanks for this, Lats - what a toe-rag Coe is!