They warned us about "the graying of America" and this is what that looks like. Younger folk elected the current USA administration in hopes of real change (ending the war in Iraq for starters), but it's an aging population that's dictating the agenda right now, and that means lots of talk about hospitals and end of life care.
Not that we don't need reform in this area, obviously we do, and it affects all generations, not just the aging boomers.
But what about the future? Any interest in that? I'm in a holding pattern as my areas of focus aren't generating much debate. My issues are admittedly esoteric, have to do with... well, if you've bounced around in these blogs, you already know the score.
Yakking with Koski on the phone this evening reminded me of Teilhard de Chardin's philosophy. David was talking about how "the future" should be a religion, how it's a cultural mirror ("even George Jetson had a boss he didn't like, went to work every morning"). Kill the future and you've killed the present (rendered it meaningless). So true.
In Teilhard's view, we could project God as the future, such that drawing closer to God would involve the birth of our "next self" (this connects to my little homily below, about shedding old snake skin, practicing jihad per what Jesus was teaching).
I think boomers still have the potential to pull out of their self-absorbed state and think more "big picture". We need to honor our heritage, including our Native American heritage, and think about the future of Planet Earth, not just about personal mortality.
Given all the pressure to "get on with it" in my corner, I experience some frustration so have been venting a lot on Synergeo lately, letting off steam. I'm like a train on a siding someplace, waiting for some other train to go by.
John Brawley was asking why I don't try my hand at fixing the Wikipedia page on Synergetics but I'm more inclined to pass the torch at this juncture. Here's what I wrote (excerpts from a couple different postings, skipping some of the more colorful technoinvective):
I put some hours in the notes, the discussion, easily accessed, giving how I'd develop it, but I didn't start that page and have no agreement with the original author to assume ownership, plus there's that link to Synergetics Coordinates, an orphan page in that no one claims it or seems to know what it's about, least of all Cliff, though it seemed to start out with his name all over it.I'm picking on Stanford because that's the home of the Fuller archive. Some of us were supposing Synergetics might get some more explicit attention, but for the most part we're getting a lot of dime store psychoanalysis of Fuller, not much focus on his Mite or the concentric hierarchy -- all very teachable, but apparently of little interest outside of my hypothetical Coffee Shops Network (newfangled philosophy talk, dressed up in business clothing).
It's just a disaster.
What I'm thinking is people at Stanford, instead of swilling in gossip and taking cheap shots, should write something coherent and intelligent, prove they're a school worth attending...
...Sure I could dive in and take over that page, but a big part of me doesn't want to lift a finger, rather use this as evidence that "leaving everything to Kirby" just means Kirby digs [a] deeper and deeper grave for everyone doing that....
I'm waiting for the gulag professoriate to step up to the plate. There's a vast army out there of people calling themselves "philosophy teachers" and pulling down a paycheck, charging tuition. At places like Stanford.
Anyway, with Wikipedia that crummy, more people who really want to learn the stuff come to my website (grunch.net) or visit Trevor's, learn the real deal.
