Hello @P12
In response to your observations of Saturday 22 January 2022.
and others who may be interested in participating in, or reading this discussion
{Since I cannot pre-determine how people might respond to, react or interact with comments in the thread, the following members, from a non-exclusive list, are invited to the thread and will, I hope, determine for themselves, what level of participation, if any, they wish to take, according to their position, interest and personal circumstances.}
@Dimity, @Former-Member , @Clawde , @Anastasia , @Appleblossom , @Emelia8 , @greenpea , @Eve7 , @Jacques , @Mazarita , @chibam , @Lilly6 , @Molly22 , @Rosemary4 , @Faith-and-Hope , @jem80 , @Lise07 , @Herewegoround , @Former-Member , @Owen45 , @Former-Member , @Shaz51 , @StuF , @MDT , @Gwynn , @SmilingGecko , @Adge , @frog , @Everan , @Former-Member , @Zoe7 , @BPDSurvivor , @TAB , @Former-Member , @Former-Member , @cloudcore , @Paperdaisy , @Daisydreamer
Some of my comments are based on the extracts, from the Britannica website, regarding
"Social Contract" and "Australian Aboriginal peoples - Leadership and social control",
that follow at the end of my response.
It is easy to idealise and compartmentalise how another people or culture live, or may have lived. It may not be, or have been so easy to have lived among, or as one of those people. To say that another people do not live according to a Social Contract is, I think, to avoid the idea of what a Social Contract constitutes or, is intended to achieve, for any and all parties who live under one system or another.
It is my understanding that there were significant restrictions on who could be spoken with, or even looked at in aboriginal family and community groups. To me, such rules and sanctions sound very much like a form of Social Contract and a very rigid and strictly imposed one at that. To my knowledge, adherence to some of those rules, sanctions or lore, or variations of them, are still required today, in some family groups.
Neither would I equate the mental health treatments of CBT and ACT as being in conflict with adherence to a Social Contract, or that they even, necessarily, support the idea of sustainable living, in whatever form that may take. A reduction in levels of worry, anxiety, and sadness are likely to improve a persons level of happiness, whatever the environment in which they may live.
It is also my belief, based on factual material distributed for the benefit of all {or, which may have been "cooked up" by capitalists, who want to keep us controlled and passive}, that being bullied, threatened, and excluded for the sake of gaining money or acquisition of goods and, or power, by some over others, are situations that are not confined or restricted to the state of life within a capitalist social, economic or political environment. Indeed, those types of behaviours and treatments, and far worse, appear to exist under most, if not all other political and social structures, of which I am aware.
Normally, when I have felt distressed, disillusioned, disappointed, distraught and despairing, I have had to look within my self to seek for the reasons for those feelings, rather than outside myself. It is normally my own internal reaction or response to the external events, or memories of such events, that cause me distressing feelings. That is so, even when I believe those feelings may have initially been developed as a result of stimuli from outside my self. My present concerns relate to my present thoughts that are inside myself. Even when those thoughts are centred, associated with, or focussed on circumstances that exist or have ever existed outside myself.
While, I believe, that the experience of happiness can be shared, I do not believe that it is a collective experience, but one personally experienced, often in enjoyable scenarios and environments, among and with other people, but also individually, sometimes even, while otherwise experiencing extreme states of deprivation.
If I find myself constantly battling the system in which I live, I leave myself little freedom, mentally, physically or intellectually, to enjoy any part of that living experience. If I were to find myself saying "My life is made difficult by laws I either don't understand or disagree with.", I would have to question why I am fighting so hard and enjoying so little. What is the purpose? All that, within a social framework, while it may not be the possible best, that is the best with and within which I have to work. It is likely also, definitely not the worst environment in which I could live.
However, for all that I have offered of my thoughts, I also share with you the aspiration of acquiring that state of ultimate and absolute peace, or oblivion, that awaits us.
With My Best Wishes
@HenryX
I extracted the following from the site:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract
{words in brackets, coloured purple, added by me}
Social Contract, in political philosophy, an actual or hypothetical {or implied} compact, or agreement, between the ruled or between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each.
In primeval times, according to the theory, individuals were born into an anarchic state of nature, which was happy or unhappy according to the particular version of the theory. They then, by exercising natural reason, formed a society (and a government) by means of a social contract.
The following extract was also taken from the Britannica site:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Australian-Aboriginal/Leadership-and-social-control
Leadership and social control
{Among Australian Aboriginal People}
Aboriginal people {Apparently} had no chiefs or other centralized institutions of social or political control. In various measures, Aboriginal societies exhibited both hierarchical and egalitarian tendencies, but they were classless; an egalitarian ethos predominated, the subordinate status of women notwithstanding. However, there is evidence in some areas, such as north-east Arnhem Land, Bathurst and Melville islands, western Cape York Peninsula, and among the Aranda of central Australia, that strong leaders akin to the Melanesian “Big Man” existed and their pre-eminence in ritual matters carried over into the secular domain.
Aboriginal warrior
Everywhere, age and sex were the major criteria in differentiating status and roles, and it was in the religious arena that the greatest differentiation occurred. Women were excluded from the core of men’s secret-sacred ritual activities, and areas of privilege were further defined by graded acceptance of youths and adult men as they passed through rites of learning. Essentially, however, Aboriginal societies were “open”: there were no social barriers to prevent a man from becoming a leader in religious matters by his own efforts. Both men and women acquired prestige through knowledge of ritual performance and expertise in directing or performing ritual. In Great Sandy Desert rituals, for example, leadership roles were situationally determined—that is, the personnel changed as the ritual being performed changed such that most senior men adopted such roles at some stage in the protracted ritual proceedings. Although desert women were far less differentiated, they did have a ritual status hierarchy. In religious affairs everywhere, women took orders from, rather than gave orders to, initiated men.
Traditionally, most dissension arose over women, religious matters, and death. Some women fought with husbands, eloped, and engaged in unsanctioned extramarital liaisons. Such behaviour could mean serious fighting involving relatives of the parties concerned. Infringement of sacred law was less direct in its social repercussions but was nevertheless regarded as the most serious of all. In many cases an ordinary or accidental death had wide ramifications, particularly if they were accompanied by accusations of sorcery. An inquest was held, and, through divination, a supposed “murderer” was found, against whom punitive measures might or might not be taken.
Aboriginal people relied heavily on effective socialization and the inculcation of a high level of self-regulation, reinforced by strongly developed emotions of shame and embarrassment, to ensure individual conformity to society’s rules. Wrongdoers were generally more afraid of secular sanctions or sorcery than they were of supernatural punishment, since the withdrawn creative beings did not punish individuals. The rules were unwritten but known to all, and an array of sanctions, positive and negative, supported them. When action was called for against transgressors, role allocation depended on the kinship relationships involved. For example, elder brothers were often the major punishers of errant younger brothers but were also their nurturers and defenders in the case of an unwarranted attack.
The maintenance of law and order was quite narrowly localized. Authority was limited and qualified by kinship claims. Precedents were sought in order to guide or influence actions resulting from a breach, and all societies followed approved procedures for maintaining the peace. There were no judicial bodies as such, though on the lower Murray River a formal council, or tendi, of clan headmen and elders did arbitrate disagreements between adjacent groups. Generally, simple informal meetings of elders and men of importance dealt with grievances and other matters. There was also settlement by ordeal—the most outstanding example of this sort being the Makarrata (magarada, or maneiag) of Arnhem Land. During a ritualized meeting, the accused ran the gauntlet of his accusers, who threw spears at him; a wounded thigh was taken as proof of guilt.
Although it is inaccurate to speak of a gerontocracy in Aboriginal Australia, men of importance were easily distinguished. They were usually elders who had this status not necessarily because of their age or gray hair but because of their religious position and personal energy. {End}
