About Social Forestry from afar. Part VI. Why is SL not your usual movement? Part 1. Globalization and Forestry

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Many readers are accustomed to a certain form of existence of various movements and projects aimed at creative activity, and therefore they try to see something similar in the project "Social Forestry" (hereinafter SL), and when they fail to do this, they fall into confusion, or they still push our project into the framework of familiar and understandable ideas. Therefore, I decided to describe my vision of what should be understood by Forestry, how you can look at it and who its participants are. However, you don't need to think that these are some very simple things, believe me, they reveal the SL project deeply enough, and therefore the story will be divided into several parts and in itself will be quite detailed.

The first thing I want to say is that it is NOT NECESSARY to look in the SL project for signs of a political party, public organization, movement, subculture, and everything else that you are used to. Perhaps there are external similarities, but according to the nature of ALL completeness of actions, there is almost nothing in common. For this reason, it makes no sense to talk about the usual forms of participation such as “you are a supporter (ally) of the movement or not, and if a supporter, then you must do this and that”, and about the presence of some unique teaching inherent only to us and no one else (and even more so no "only correct" doctrine), there is no specific activity by which it would be possible to distinguish "us" from "the rest."

Everything is completely different, and now I will tell you my version. At the same time, I strictly demand not to consider it the only correct one, because the fact that I am now the curator of the project does not mean that I fully understand its essence. Nevertheless, every year I understand more and more clearly what it consists of, and I clearly understand the whole story better than observers. Begin.

Naturally, from afar …

About globalization and forestry

By globalization in a broad sense, I mean the objective process of uniting all souls in the Universe into a single entity. However, this definition is too broad; it is unlikely to have any practical meaning in the next few billion years. Let's put it in a simpler and more practical way: the unification of all people, or rather, different cultures, into one single culture common to all, that is, the integration and unification of all types of non-genetically transmitted information. This process will not stop only at the unification of culture, but we do not need to look further.

In a narrow sense, globalization is a process of mutual penetration of all spheres of activity of people from all over the world, up to the creation of a single language of communication and a universal logic of social behavior for all in the sense that any nationally determined differences disappear. Differences in the same spheres between people and communities can remain only objectively determined, for example, by geographic location, when the canons of construction will remain different for equatorial regions and regions beyond the Arctic Circle. But, say, the way of teaching basic disciplines will become conceptually the same, when the reason for a small difference can only be the teacher's subjectivity. Such a definition is not for nothing called "in a narrow sense", because it reflects only a possible part of globalization, elements of which we can observe already today, and, moreover, it is not entirely clear whether the process will really follow the path of creating a single language of communication, or it will be something completely unexpected (such as telepathy), it is also not clear whether there will be a unified education system or it will be transformed into something that is now even difficult to imagine. This is also not so important, the main thing for us is to grasp that part of the process that we are observing right now and will be observing, probably for several thousand years. It was from these positions that I proposed such a definition "in the narrow sense": the mutual penetration of all spheres of human activity into each other.

Globalization is an objective process, but I invite the reader to think about why this is so. You can start these reflections, for example, by realizing a simple idea: people interact, and in the course of this interaction they find suitable solutions for, in general, quite the same and typical problems for people. These suitable solutions spread in society and become traditional, while the unsuitable ones gradually go to the evolutionary graveyard. To solve some problems, people from different countries join forces, developing a solution that is common for the whole world. So, for example, mathematics throughout the world as a whole is the same up to the typical designations of the most used formulas and constants. The difference, of course, is also there, but not as strong as, say, in the sign language of various peoples. Further, I ask you to think about this topic on your own, taking into account the presence in the culture of elements that cannot become common for all people (some everyday problems of the inhabitants of the tropics will never become similar to the same problems of the inhabitants of the Arctic climate, and a villager does not always solve the same tasks that the inhabitant of the metropolis, although, I think, in the process of globalization, either one or the other will disappear).

Despite the objectivity of the globalization process, it allows for management, and this management will be subjective. As an analogy, take the objective process of growing up a child, you must admit that he will grow up regardless of your will. However, you can influence the nature of this growing up very strongly, and this will already be your subjective control of the objective process. Very, very much depends on this management, I think you will not argue with this strongly. Try as an exercise for yourself to come up with other examples of objective processes, where the result of the process will strongly depend on subjective management. Here are a couple more examples from me: combustion of hydrocarbon fuel is objective, but the control of this process allows you to create engines for cars; fruit growth is an objective process, however, you can take control of it by creating orchards and getting the desired result, even breeding new crops.

So, globalization can be managed in different ways and you will get different results. You can enslave the whole world through usurious loan interest, you can take the theory of the "golden billion" as a basis, you can go to conciliarity and God-rule, you can make all people believe in some kind of invented god and enslave the world on his behalf. There are many options, the difference between them is colossal, but all these options are different subjective versions of the same globalization process. The choice of options is made by people themselves with their full consent, even if they do not know about it or do not take into account their importance. For example, the position "what can I alone do?" or “my house is on the edge - I don’t know anything” - this is a voluntary choice of such participation in the process of globalization, in which a person actually allows to do anything with him and he will endure it, and then even help those who will use his patience with parasitic goals. By this, he voluntarily agrees to the implementation of the scenario of usurious enslavement, confirming this consent by actions to maintain this form of parasitism (taking and giving loans, making deposits), as well as an active consumer position. You can also voluntarily give up this position at any time, even if the person does not know how to do it. But when the intellect is deliberately "cut off" so that it is impossible to think about such tasks, then yes, it will not be possible to voluntarily abandon the role of a servant for the global elite … but do not be upset, another meteorite of a sufficiently large size will completely solve this problem. However, we deviated from the topic.

So, we have an objective process of globalization and there are many people, each (I emphasize: EVERYONE) of whom HAS an impact on this process, regardless of whether he knows about it or not. If he is alive, then he influences globalization. It's like oxygen - you may not know about its existence (which was successfully done by the inhabitants of the Middle Ages, for example), but you will still inhale it and exhale carbon dioxide regardless of your ignorance. The process of exchange with the environment will be in any case, and it contributes to globalization.

All people can be divided into a small number of groups, each of which is characterized by more or less the same logic of social behavior. Let me give you an analogy: there are only seven mortal sins, and the number of people will soon be equal to eight billion. This means that all these people, in general, do not differ in strong originality in terms of performing stupid things. Even if we take all possible combinations of these sins, we get only 127 options (the option when an adult does not have a single sin, I personally consider impossible). Still not a lot, is it? Thus, according to the method of degradation, all people can be divided into a very small number of people who are very similar to each other. Yes, you yourself can be convinced of this, because you probably watched your environment and noticed that although all people are unique, their typical form of behavior fits into 2-3 classic (for you) patterns, and the behavior of some new people in your life also fits into the same patterns. Take the same classical psychologists, one identifies 32 personality types, the other 16, the third suggests 49, and so on. Not much either.

Where am I leading? To the fact that although each person has a unique influence on globalization in his own way, he still has a certain dominant in the logic of social behavior, that is, in typical cases, he solves life problems in some typical way, and there are very DIFFERENT typical ways in the world. few. By these very methods, you can divide all people into a small number of groups. Depending on the specific version of your personal classification, this number will be different, but certainly not very large. So, with some simplification, we can assume that globalization is controlled, among other things, by a combination of these typical ways of life, and depending on whose group of people is more active, the process of globalization follows this path. For example, if a group of parasites is strong enough in a society, that is, people who, with intent and full awareness of their parasitism, try to live at the expense of others, then this will be the main vector of globalization - the enslavement of humanity by parasites. The specific details of this enslavement will already depend on other factors. That is, whether it will be a “golden billion”, or “brain circumcision,” or enslavement on behalf of a fictitious god, or total timocracy - these are small touches of the same form of parasitism. These touches in our example may depend on other social groups that do not dominate globalization as strongly as parasites.

However, I think you will agree that each of the almost eight billion people will probably offer their own version of this classification of people according to a small set of typical forms of behavior, and all these versions are likely to be somewhat correct. Such an alignment does not suit us, because it is unproductive and labor-intensive for our article. Therefore, I personally would not like to propose any of my own variants of classifications, there is no point in them, unless we are solving a highly specialized problem, and we are not solving it now. Now I propose to rise one step higher in this hierarchy of classifications and see that absolutely all variants of a person's relationship with the outside world can be divided into just two categories. Whatever your classification of the groups mentioned above, they will all obey only two concepts.

In its most general form, there are ONLY two concepts with a fundamentally different nature of globalization governance. This kindness concept and malice concept … In short, kindness implies a sincere and active desire to do good, and evil is a person's conscious refusal of kindness and intentions corresponding to this refusal. You can continue the hierarchy and divide goodness and ill will into fairly large conceptual units, which I spoke about above, but we do not need this. It is enough for us to see that globalization is carried out by people from these two fundamentally different positions: both positions affect globalization.

We will not discuss now what good and evil are, but I want to make a reservation right away that such a conversation can ONLY be conducted from the position of a God-centered worldview. Any self-centered views on these two concepts will always turn into something that, directly or indirectly, 99% of the controversial part of the Internet is crammed with fruitless conversations like "what is good for one is bad for another." We should consider good and evil not for a specific person, but for humanity as a whole as for a single system, in which God (who is) also takes some part. In this reasoning, I see evil as a conscious refusal to do good, and any variation on the theme of this refusal applies to it. To understand the further content of the article, you can take your own definition of good, if only you take into account the remark made.

Further, the most important law of the development of our world comes into force: degradation cannot be endless, but development can. As degradation progresses, a person (and society) loses resources without receiving anything in return that would allow them to maintain the achieved standard of living. The longer the process of degradation goes on, the less a person has left with opportunities and the more he is limited by circumstances, which ultimately leads to the fact that he completely loses the ability to live. The same process applies to the whole society: degradation throws it back in development up to the level when it is no longer possible to maintain the achieved social ties - all resources and knowledge for this have been lost, and high-level managers died without training heirs due to the lack of promising heirs. this people in a degrading society. The nature of things is such that degradation is always finite, it always has a limit; that is, nature itself is arranged in such a way that the degrading element will gradually lose managerial abilities and the quality of his life (living conditions) will worsen for him personally. But not because the conditions themselves are objectively worsening, but because he personally ceases to understand them and he loses the ability to manage them. Development, on the contrary, allows existing resources to be transformed into new and new tools for managing life and allows you to get other resources for more complex management - and so on. Man discovers new laws, discovers new opportunities for development - and develops more and more. Of course, one particular person will die sooner or later, but such an ending can only please the self-centered hedonist, who will find in this circumstance an excuse like “die anyway”, but if we take into account another circumstance that humanity is ONE in the continuity of generations, then the thesis about the eternity of development becomes quite meaningful.

Where am I leading?

Development and degradation are concepts, relatively speaking, “conjugated” with the concepts of “good” and “evil”. They are linked in the sense that development is inextricably linked with good, and vice versa, and degradation - with evil. And of course, it follows from this that degradation is just a lack of development or even a rejection of this process. Thus, the concept of evil is always doomed to a very definite and rather easily predictable end. That is, globalization through evil is doomed to some kind of "meteorite", the appearance of which humanity simply will not be ready, because instead of developing science, all efforts were spent on clarifying relations such as "whose oil is this" and "who should serve whom". While people are building up their military potential in order to protect some parasites from others, the clock is ticking, a small gravitational disturbance in a light-year from the Earth shook the weak equilibrium of the ice block - and another comet separated from the Oort cloud, rushing towards the Sun … Demonstratively intelligible collision of such a comet with Jupiter in July 1994 had no effect on humans. In 2009, there was a second "warning", also in July and also with Jupiter, which people also happily consumed as a new movie. If you continue to throw so much energy into consumerism, not caring about the future, then at some point in time people simply will not be ready for possible harsh circumstances, because they let all their potential go to lol and porn, and "scientists" instead of scientific work spent strength to find out who was the first to invented which of them, discovered and who has lengths … more citation index and the number of … publications. So, in practice, the thesis about the impossibility of degrading for too long will once again be confirmed, only now there will be no one to fix this result, and the next civilization will still not guess to think: “What happened to the previous one? There are traces, but there are no people … a mystery … ". And maybe he will guess, who knows?

Malice is the opposite of being kind. But I can’t say a lot about good-naturedness, because it rarely occurs to me personally in its pure form. In principle, I think you have enough imagination to describe a picture of a world dominated by kindness, unfortunately, my intellect is poorly suited for this, I can only think at the level of such anecdotes of the Soviet era:

An old man walked down the street past a kvass merchant who was pouring it out of a barrel, and said that he was buying the whole barrel as a whole. I bought it and started shouting: "KVASS is FREE, DISASSEMBLE WHILE IT IS ENOUGH!". The people piled up, everyone was running for kvass, pushing each other, there was a stampede, a fight broke out, disorder engulfed the street, but then the police came and sorted everything out. The old man, of course, was arrested and began to question, they say, why the disorder was caused. The old man replies: “You are still a young man, but I am an old man at all, I will not live to see the bright future, before this communism of yours. So I decided in my old age to see at least one eye how it will look."

There is a similar sarcasm on my part in the article "On good intentions and idiocy."

This does not mean that I am against good nature, I am only for it, but my brain stubbornly refuses to depict a picture in the beautiful rays of the rising sun … all the same, the piercing cold of the ending night accidentally creeps into it. So I ask the reader to dream up himself.

Because I personally, in the good-natured part of my activity, rely on the works of other people that are imprinted in our culture, for example, on classical literature and writers such as I. A. Efremov (not only his great novels "The Andromeda Nebula", but also numerous short stories about geologists, archaeologists and other scientists, whose behavior in the course of scientific research is close to what I personally would call good-natured).

In short, fortunately for us, positive things are already largely well described in the literature and are found in individual heroic acts of some people. There are plenty of examples, even more than the number of people capable of repeating any of this. But bad things are described badly, I would even say that it is very bad. If they were described well, any man in the street who committed stupidity would be horrified by this action more than from the most terrible scene of the most terrible horror film that he would watch alone in the middle of a dark clearing with his back to the cemetery.

Perhaps that is why my work in SL is to describe exactly the mistakes of people, and not how one should act to solve a particular problem. Since my abilities manifested themselves precisely in digging in the mud of human souls for constructive purposes, and since evil is described so badly, then how can I ignore both of these facts? But I'll talk about this in another part, and now let's move on to the most important thing - what is the Process of Social Forestry?

So, SL is not only a project, but also a process. Look at the word "Forestry" as a process, just as you would look at the word "teaching", that is, a certain form of activity that implies active action of a certain nature and a set of techniques, tools and skills for the productive implementation of this activity.

So, in my view, the SL process is an active desire to exert additional managerial influence on the controlled process of globalization based on the concept of goodness. To put it more clearly, the SL process is a collection of all actions or even intentions performed from a good-natured position. By the fact of its implementation, such an action (or even a deliberate intention) inevitably makes adjustments to the process of globalization, adding goodness to it. Good in itself is objective, and therefore the process of globalization is becoming objectively kinder. It will become more difficult for someone to commit evil within the framework of this process, and the good done will find its place and will contribute to the development of humanity in the process of globalization. This is in a broad sense.

In a narrow sense, Forestry implies the deliberate adherence to such a logic of social behavior in one's life, in which the very fact of such a life inevitably makes the world objectively better. In the course of such a life, a person sincerely strives to do good, reconciling his understanding of goodness with the opinion of God (who is), and when submitting to a rigid dictatorship of conscience, such a person will certainly give the world more good than he will make mistakes, or he will even be able to correct those committed in a natural way in the course of his learning mistakes completely.

Simply put, a sincere life in and of conscience guarantees the inclusion of a person in the governance of globalization based on the concept of good nature. At the right time, he will understand what and why he should do in order to increase or decrease his share in this management. This life process, taken in an integral form for all people, I call Forestry … Many people know about this process, they just call it differently. About why I personally took as a basis the word "Forest" and "Forester" as the image of such a sincere person, I have not only written earlier, but I will even give other reasons later, in the next part of this story.

Someone may imagine the Forestry as an additional force that comes into the fight against the already established trend of globalization. In a sense, you can say so, that is, the activity of the Foresters is not only to do good, but also to find ways to implement it, that is, to expose nonsense and point people to their intentional acts of sabotage so that they understand it well. The main thing in this process, if you look at it as a struggle, is not to allow the generation of another evil, that is, not to force, not to force, not to limit people’s ability to act freely. Extremism is unacceptable here, except for the natural adherence to one's conscience and a position of good. It is only permissible to refuse to do evil.

By the way, there is much more to say about extremism. In general terms, extremism is adherence to extreme views. That is, if, for example, I CATEGORALLY refuse to scratch the paw of an official, radically expressing the extreme position that bribes should not be given in any way, then by definition I am an extremist.

SL project

The SL project is my subjective attempt to get involved in the management of the SL process. The SL process is objective, although this thesis generally needs clarification and argumentation. I will also leave this explanation and argumentation to the reader at his discretion, indicating only what one could start with. You can start by accepting as a postulate the idea of the objectivity of good, that any path of life can only be good-natured, since an evil path for objective reasons ends in death and in fact it turns out that evil eats itself up on the principle of “some evil they taste the poison and fury of other wicked ones”(a phrase from the Koran in their own words). In other words, whatever mankind does, it will come to love either voluntarily, following the concept of goodness, or through pain and suffering, following the concept of evil, but in the course of following it, evil will objectively devour itself, and only good will remain, which will lead to love. Then think for yourself how you can get out of the logical closure (we started with a postulate and proved it) and prove the objectivity of good, at least for yourself. I don’t need this, but you don’t know why.

In the next part, I will have to tell you a little about myself, so that you understand more clearly what the Forest has to do with it and why I act precisely from the positions from which I act, although the Forestry itself implies a very wide, I would even say, an endless series ways of life, leading to the same (in a conceptual sense) ending. I personally act from the standpoint of "garbage recycling" (not material), that is, I observe, analyze and describe nonsense in people's behavior so that they can see them from the other side, more clearly and clearly. Perhaps, somewhere there are other people who do not use "garbage" to grow flowers, but look after the Forest from other principles.