I think this illustrates the "yea" and "nay" phenomena, by which some portions of the population have used to excite division and control.
Whether or not the world is a better place than it used to be, is completely and entirely irrelevant to me.
Because neither option focuses on making the "world a better place" in the future. Whatever ones view on this is, i still fail to see its relevancy
to whether or not the amazing world we live in will continue to improve because of our actions (extension of viewpoint 1, or the world is getting
better and better), or if we will learn from our mistakes and suck it up and help each other stand when we fall (extension of viewpoint 2, or the
world is going to #). Either way, i still see improvement to be made. You speak of Mother Culture defining opinions, but it does this in two
directions, the "yea" and the "nay." You do say to forget the "good ol days" and i agree, but it seems you have not when taking and asserting
your "nay" standpoint. Please correct if im wrong
I do agree it is quite difficult to make such a point without basing it entirely on the past
Both views have value, to me, however it is what we will do with them that matters. the saying "actions speak louder than words" seems applicable.
does your OP mean there is nothing else to do? or what? i feel both sides of this (and many other "yea/nay" duality based dividers) should be more
focused on right now, and on how what we do "right now" will affect the future. How "right now" compares to the past subjectively is completely
irrelevant to this beyond as a basis to learn from our mistakes and our victories.
Basically, where do we go from here? How will we get there?
Solely because of the inherent progression of cycles (time) do i find such questions to be significantly
more pertinent to "reality."
reminiscing about the past (either from the yea/nay position) will essentially lead to "no action" or the half-full glass of water slowly
Will we fill it up for the next person?
The past is the past, the only relevance it has is that it was the product of those decisions that brought us to where we are now. One standpoint
leads people to think that nothing of value can attained through change and that personal decisions have nothing to do with "how things are," the
other standpoint leads people to think there is nothing of value right now and that it is the fault of nebulous "others." Obviously extremes with
the ubiquitous "exceptions to the rule," but that is the general direction the viewpoints go. Neither position is likely to "grab the bull by the
horns" and take it upon themselves to improve
the world around them, regardless of how it compares to the past, because the "way things are"
is not viewed as a product of personal and communal decisions.
So, a bunch of rambling for a simple point (what else would anyone expect from me?
); how things compare to the past (positive or
is irrelevant to how we are going to make the world a better place in the future. Change is constant, so how will it be guided? will it be by
complacency? will it be by competition? will it be by hatred and anger? will it be by happiness? or will it be by true conscious and mindful
action, no matter what is contained within the perspective?