Some people say am talking a lot about various utopias. I think its an unforytunate misreading because this attempts to understand – rather than Be – a misreading, while being slightly off-brashing..
When I talk about empathic activities, is that utopian? I understand why people link it automatically to ideas of “perfect” or “ideal” societies, etc.
However, it seems to me, that empathy stems from killing – hunting to be exact. The better a person empathises with a hunted animal – the better a person can understand their thinking, movements and how to kill/hunt them.. Indeed, understanding plants, how they’d like to be grown, is a primal bases for agriculture, no?
Another example is re anarchy and general plurality. I think that attempts to control our anarchic nature and plural desires are attempts to impose ideals and utopias.
Imagine yourself being a dna strand contemplating which body to use for better propagation chances. Say you can have a body of an expert killer organism, or an expert climber, or even an expert lover. Or you may opt for a body of a non-specific organism, a rather more plural.. They are jacks of all trades – masters of none.
Which will give you more options and propagation chances?
A similar view, in my mind, is applicable to the anarchic question. If a social body wants better survival chances, the less restrictive – or even pre-restrictive it is – the more chances it has. That is because opening processes allow closed activities and processes to live and propagate within it.
An authoritarian social unit can thrive within an anarchic social body – not the other way around.
Hence this is not a utopian ism view.. Am not denying possible stuff that am personally uncomfortable about, the opposite..