So many of us are ill informed, Jean. And how can we expect to do what's right when we're allowing ourselves to be fed misinformation, with mainstream media one of the worst offenders?
We have to acknowledge that western society has supported a genocide. What does that say about the values that those at the top are trying to convince us to adopt?
This is a time when moral clarity is needed, and we can't have moral clarity without accurate news.
Indeed. And it is our responsibility to determine what is and is not accurate news by exposing ourselves to as many resources as possible, along with learning critical thinking skills.
Noam those privileged intellectuals with the so-called freedom lose their freedom being lost in individualism lost in individuation- separating inseparable subjects AND adhering to the reward system that their security depends upon. The rest are kept busy as consumer producers seeking security in reward systems that ensure we respond in accordance with those external rewards so that their security needs might be met. We must have basic security needs met first Noam, before we are free to meet our needs free of material needs not met by external material reward systems. Our real basic material security needs- a home-education- health care are poorly met by our external rewards. Our psychological spiritual needs for meaningful lives are crippled or canceled out by our reward systems. Meaningful pursuits only come when we have the freedom to follow or intrinsic interests for intrinsic internal rewards. Few have that freedom even fewer exercise that freedom. Intellectuals and academics are some of the most trapped of us . Imprisoned by external reward system. They built their careers and indeed egos based on external rewards that are killing humanity.
The quote by Kavanagh is right on the money but it excludes the huge roll our competitions for external rewards plays in how we have manufactured scarcity of material needs and intrinsic interests.
Certainly, there are layers upon layers of conditioning that form a human being. I believe that Chomsky was referring to the contempt many "intellectuals" feel towards those they consider their "inferiors." As you imply, unless basic needs for survival are met, people have little chance of achieving their best. And, indeed, our society encourages people to seek external rewards for validation (money, goods, praise, fame) and ignores the intrinsic joys of simply enjoying the here and the now.
Chomsky was and still is a celebrity. Much like Bertrand Russel was. They had freedom of expression far greater than most academics. They must toe the lines-use the correct political terms-say the right politically correct things to say-complete a certain number of papers. To stay too busy pleasing to think. Their status depended upon how they pleased the status of the institution. But it's more than that. Their notions of education is SCHOOLING thinking in the terms-the steps-the limits of that. Bertrand Russel had independent wealth as an Earl. He could afford to get fired from universities as he did. He wrote a beautiful piece about how unfree university professors were- never able to say what they mean-mean what they say but to keep status-but to gain status-tenure-ship they had to be politically correct. Chomsky writes from the position of having the status-the freedom to do so. Chomsky enjoys that status without discussing it like Bertrand Russell did. (I have not read everything he has written or heard everything he has said-but he is not known for sharing such things) It's a shame because that's the stuff of insight. The status of guaranteed annual income is the stuff that frees intrinsic thinking.
Writers given a pad and paper in prisons have a home-food- shelter and even health care have been able to write with all the material status they needed. I Will Never See The World Again is a masterpiece by Ahmet Atlan. Chomsky was asked why he had contact with Jeffry Epstein. He abruptly declined with "it's none of your business". His fans may think his contact was based on research into celebrity or pedophilia. I say celebrity attracts celebrity. Rubbing elbows with billionaires is sadly attractive to so many. The greatest piece of writing Chomsky could ever offer would be to describe the conditions-circumstances that allowed him to write so freely and those conditions that impaired him. The word insight is thrown around loosely. It really means sharing something deep and personal-not political-not even clever at all.
I am very familiar with Chomsky's body of work and his contributions. But that does not take away from a single word I carefully crafted to add nuance and context to your piece.
So many of us are ill informed, Jean. And how can we expect to do what's right when we're allowing ourselves to be fed misinformation, with mainstream media one of the worst offenders?
We have to acknowledge that western society has supported a genocide. What does that say about the values that those at the top are trying to convince us to adopt?
This is a time when moral clarity is needed, and we can't have moral clarity without accurate news.
Indeed. And it is our responsibility to determine what is and is not accurate news by exposing ourselves to as many resources as possible, along with learning critical thinking skills.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Jean.
Here is how I answer the quote from Noam Chomsky.
Noam those privileged intellectuals with the so-called freedom lose their freedom being lost in individualism lost in individuation- separating inseparable subjects AND adhering to the reward system that their security depends upon. The rest are kept busy as consumer producers seeking security in reward systems that ensure we respond in accordance with those external rewards so that their security needs might be met. We must have basic security needs met first Noam, before we are free to meet our needs free of material needs not met by external material reward systems. Our real basic material security needs- a home-education- health care are poorly met by our external rewards. Our psychological spiritual needs for meaningful lives are crippled or canceled out by our reward systems. Meaningful pursuits only come when we have the freedom to follow or intrinsic interests for intrinsic internal rewards. Few have that freedom even fewer exercise that freedom. Intellectuals and academics are some of the most trapped of us . Imprisoned by external reward system. They built their careers and indeed egos based on external rewards that are killing humanity.
The quote by Kavanagh is right on the money but it excludes the huge roll our competitions for external rewards plays in how we have manufactured scarcity of material needs and intrinsic interests.
Gotta keep the wheels of industry going and the profits coming in before all else, lol!
Certainly, there are layers upon layers of conditioning that form a human being. I believe that Chomsky was referring to the contempt many "intellectuals" feel towards those they consider their "inferiors." As you imply, unless basic needs for survival are met, people have little chance of achieving their best. And, indeed, our society encourages people to seek external rewards for validation (money, goods, praise, fame) and ignores the intrinsic joys of simply enjoying the here and the now.
Chomsky was and still is a celebrity. Much like Bertrand Russel was. They had freedom of expression far greater than most academics. They must toe the lines-use the correct political terms-say the right politically correct things to say-complete a certain number of papers. To stay too busy pleasing to think. Their status depended upon how they pleased the status of the institution. But it's more than that. Their notions of education is SCHOOLING thinking in the terms-the steps-the limits of that. Bertrand Russel had independent wealth as an Earl. He could afford to get fired from universities as he did. He wrote a beautiful piece about how unfree university professors were- never able to say what they mean-mean what they say but to keep status-but to gain status-tenure-ship they had to be politically correct. Chomsky writes from the position of having the status-the freedom to do so. Chomsky enjoys that status without discussing it like Bertrand Russell did. (I have not read everything he has written or heard everything he has said-but he is not known for sharing such things) It's a shame because that's the stuff of insight. The status of guaranteed annual income is the stuff that frees intrinsic thinking.
Writers given a pad and paper in prisons have a home-food- shelter and even health care have been able to write with all the material status they needed. I Will Never See The World Again is a masterpiece by Ahmet Atlan. Chomsky was asked why he had contact with Jeffry Epstein. He abruptly declined with "it's none of your business". His fans may think his contact was based on research into celebrity or pedophilia. I say celebrity attracts celebrity. Rubbing elbows with billionaires is sadly attractive to so many. The greatest piece of writing Chomsky could ever offer would be to describe the conditions-circumstances that allowed him to write so freely and those conditions that impaired him. The word insight is thrown around loosely. It really means sharing something deep and personal-not political-not even clever at all.
You may find this interesting: https://iep.utm.edu/chomsky-philosophy/
I am very familiar with Chomsky's body of work and his contributions. But that does not take away from a single word I carefully crafted to add nuance and context to your piece.