Q: So what of nobility, or being noble, what is it? There’s been a lot of conversation in the media surrounding the Australian cricket team and their lack of nobility, is nobleness a thing of the past, a thing for knights of the round table and ancient Chinese warriors?

Dave: Well I must admit that when I think of being noble and of what noble is; images of the past, the ancient past, always seem to come to mind. A knight not killing his opponent when he is beaten, someone declaring honourable defeat rather than going to war, of people seeing the bigger picture and the consequences of their actions in the long term, and how those actions effect others around them, rather than just heightening their own ego in a very base fashion. Do we see much of this today, well NO! It may well occur but it is not celebrated as something good, something to be admired and copied, if anything it is seen as weakness.

I myself have been attacked physically in the street and not fought back, for to do so may well have harmed my fist (selfishness) but also harmed my attacker and escalated an already despicable situation. However I don’t think my friends respected me for doing this, they even questioned why I had not punched him in the head. They saw this as cowardice. Although it takes as much strength to control anger as to act upon it, perhaps even more.

Q: So is being noble just not hitting back, then Chamberlain was noble when dealing with Hitler and may well have allowed the deaths of many?

Dave: People use Hitler arguments a lot as Hitler in our society is considered indisputable evil and thus a good grounding point, but as with most things there are no absolutes so lets not talk about Chamberlain and Hitler, as to do so someone if talking reasonably, will at some point sound like an anti-Semite or a facist.

What I will say is that nobleness seems to be an act where you put the welfare of others above your own ego. And in that I think Chamberlain did, he knew he would cop flack for his decision but did what he thought to be best for others at the time.

Q: So what’s the difference between being noble and charity?

Dave: Charity is the act of selfless giving, where the giver expects nothing in return, being noble seems to encompass more than pure charity. Its about giving others respect and allowing them to protect and even strengthen there own ego but not at the expense of your own. I think those that see being noble as a virtue want to be respected and admired for being noble, which isn’t completely selfless. They to a degree get strength by being noble, and therefore can continue to be noble. It does seem to revolve around self esteem and confidence. And to go back to those old images of noble knights, it was always those in a position of power, either through wealth, status, physical beauty or physical strength, or just in a position of power that displayed the attributes of nobleness. They were in a position to be egocentric but chose not to. Although they did not go as far as a Buddha or monk and give up there power, or that which put them above others. Instead they held their position but conducted their lives in a manner which raised others toward them.

I guess you could look at it like that the noble one raises others toward their point of confidence and self assuredness, whereas the selfless charity givers lowers themselves to the needy.

This however may be to simplistic.

Nobleness also seems to encompass dignity.

Q: Words such as dignity, noble, honour, humility, courage don’t seem to be used very often in today’s society, I am unsure whether most people even know the meaning of them therefore don’t use the terms. Or is it those virtues are just not admired in our society?

Dave: It would seem, the things you should be, those that are admired are, hot, beautiful, popular, funny, busy, exciting, charming, friendly, ‘IN’, wealthy, fit, sexy, and things that seem to relate more to the esthetics of existence. And its not surprising when our media, marketing, and education systems are focused on youth. What we should be is decided by or aimed toward people under 25. And their main attributes are those listed above so of course they will extol them as virtues, as something to be aspired to. Of course beauty, as is popularity, have always been aspired to especially in the young, but then people move on to higher virtues, such as courage, and nobility, and humility. These take introspective thought, and often come out of making difficult decisions involving others.

Perhaps the fact we are having children later is a contributing factor. People are growing up a lot later. Which is funny because for a lot of the last century it was said that children grow up so quickly in these modern times. Whereas now in Australia and many other modern countries, people aren’t leaving their parents house until they are in their 30’s and not having children, if at all, until their mid 30’s. We don’t really have to make large decisions about the welfare of others (children and other dependents) until much later in life and therefore can afford to be more self conscience without looking selfish. And of course we would surround ourselves with a society that supports this attitude. One that respects the virtues we are working hard to exhibit.

It may also be that words such as noble, and humble, look and sound old fashioned and therefore in a culture obsessed with youth it would age you to use them, even more to expect respect when displaying them. Why give up your hotness by being noble, when you would not get any respect for doing so, and may well look like an old fuddy duddy. Sooo un cool (or whatever the in word is this week)

Q: So its all the kids fault is it?

Dave: Well no, kids don’t really have much intrinsic power, they don’t really have much money and don’t control the media, and don’t have armies. Its really the adult kids, those in their 20’s 30’s and even 40’s and above that want to be hot, fit, popular, instead of noble, courageous and humble that have caused the decline in these values. They do have power, they are the Australian cricketer’s they are the movie stars, they are the new business managers. And we should be trying to think a little more about what we value, and perhaps grow older with a little more dignity.

Q: So all this talk of values and virtues, sounds all very religious or should I say like a mission statement (sniggers). Why is being noble better than being popular or hot, or a winner?

Dave: You could say that they progress from one to another in a hierarchy of sorts. Although I am not fond of hierarchies but more or contemplation and equality, perhaps that is my own discrimination and why I value noble over hot, nobleness seems to encourage equality whereas defining who is hot segregates into the have’s and the have not’s.

I will try and leave my own bias out of the conversation for a second and look at why these values seem to progress from one to another, from base to lofty.

Q: But isn’t doing so also a way of discriminating. Those that display so called lofty virtues deserve more respect than those that don’t isn’t this hypocritical of you, and elitist if you think you yourself are noble as you said earlier in your example of the stouch on the street.

Dave: I will be noble enough to agree with you. It is hypocritical in a way and slightly elitist as I do think myself to display noble attributes at times. But to encourage this in others I think would make the world a better place to live in, I may be wrong, but I hope I am not.

Q; Are you going to finish your hierarchy of virtues for me then?

Dave: OK. Although I feel I sound preachy for doing so, but then again not all preaching is bad, actually often there are many, many good things said by those that sound preachy.

I think there are base drives and values, and virtues, often the virtues are the result of the drive and the values, for instance if you are a hunter on the African savanna your drive would be to feed yourself, you would value a strong spear throwing arm and good eye sight, and good speed and endurance. Physical strength, and patience, the values (what one works on in themselves). The virtues (something to be admired in others) would then be physical beauty (muscular), patience.

These are base, self serving, if this hunter had a family and wanted his children to survive, to have his gene pool live on, or to leave a legacy, his thoughts become not just about himself, he would not only have to hunt and feed himself but also his children, so he develops giving, not necessarily charity, but to care for another. As you can see these base virtues start to broaden once others come into the field of thought.

If this hunter was the head of his tribe, relied upon to make decisions for or advise others on how they should live their lives these virtues start to expand. And when one lives in a society of over a million people where everyones lives are interdependent, virtues such as charity, justice, courtesy, charm, humour all become very important.

It seems that these higher virtues manifest themselves when we have to deal with and depend upon and be depended upon by others.

Q: So why then in mega cities, of 10 million people where none of them could grow or catch enough food for themselves, nor build a house, and everyone is completely inter dependent on everyone else through a very complicated socio economic system have we moved toward base values?

Dave: Fear perhaps.

Q; Fear of what? This interdependence, that we have to rely on others to survive?

Dave: Yes so we hide in things we know will appeal to their base needs and drives, beauty, sex appeal, wealth, and popularity is the safety net. If you are liked by lots you will be safe from a change in circumstances, where your job may be lost, or your children sick, or your car stolen, you will have friends to help you out because you are popular. Being humble or noble is a risk, you could loose friends and therefore have to fend for yourself in a society where no-one can fend for themselves. Its illegal to hunt and gather in a city or build a hut in the botanical gardens.

Q: So we have come full circle, communities made these virtues because of there inter dependence and now mega communities have killed them?

Dave: I think we are smarter than we act. The fact we have realised this means if people think about it they will to, and by doing so we can acknowledge our fear of our inter-dependence and our lack of individual freedom, and become less selfish. We can separate and understand the structures we have built for this modern mega society and then move to admiring high virtues within it.

Or perhaps our system itself is to base and we need to move to one that rewards nobleness not just the winner or most popular.

The perfect system

Q: So what are you suggesting the market economy with a adversary justice system and a multi-level democratic society encourages stability but a base level of human virtues?

Dave: That’s a very big question you are basically saying our modern western system works well but is humanly flawed and does not promote or value higher virtues. And asking me for a better suggestion.

Q: If you don’t want to answer that is fine, it may well be the best possible system for the best possible world.

Dave: That implies human kind has reached a pinnacle in its understanding of each other and its social structures, and I think in many areas we are just beginning, particularly in areas of psychology, sociology, physics and even markets eceomonmics, we are still developing and I tink change will continue to happen, we may have just taken a step back from some older virtues in order that other more analytical and pragmatic parts of society can catch up.

That said we do seem to be re-embracing a lot of the better parts of ancient thought. Such as ancient healing techniques like acupuncture, meditation, even prayer has been studied for its benefits. And we are trying to incorporate charity within a self serving market economy. We have not lost virtues like charity just put them in to the peripherals of our society.

Q: So should we get back to family values, maybe that will encourage a grass roots change for the better.

Dave: the thing is are things that bad?

Q: Well we are killing the planet and if it dies we die!

Dave: Good point. We could debate the detail but at the core of the way we live is the use of store planetary energy and we just use to much to quickly so yes it is not sustainable for 1000 years or more, and no-one seems to think in those long periods of time anymore. It reminds me of a story I read in one of David Suziki’s books about a church and abbey in England. It was built around the 1400’s and the long ok beams use for the ceiling came from the local forest, the trees were 500 years old, they tool that long to grow to the 40 odd metres of straight trunk oak needed for the beams. The monks that built it planned the church for eternity and therefore planted 500 oak tress at the time they built the church as the beams would need replacing in 500 years time.

And they were recently from the forest planted by the builders and the church still stands. That planning, we now have managers and politicians who call a long term plan a 3 year goal. Not 500 years, or eternity like those old monk. It makes you wonder whether any of what we have made will last.

Q: Perhaps that would be best as what you have said before makes us sound base, and frivolous.

Dave: Its possible actually likely that most cultures are quite frivolous and base and that most things from them don’t last, thankfully. Its what does that counts. And what are we creating that will lead into the next generation. Instead of the treads for next year!

Perhaps its a warmer world, a world without oil, a world with nuclear arms and seeds that don’t reproduce. Our legacy could be dyer.

Q: Answers? You aren’t coming up with answers?

Dave: Well ask me a smaller question so we can dissect the problems and find the solutions.

Q: OK breeding, sex and population growth. Isn’t the pill the greatest invention?

Dave: OK the pill allowed heterosexual sex without conception, and allowed a release from the bonds of family and continual pregnancy for women. The pill and better infant care.

In the grand scheme of things its a very new phenomenon this freedom and may well be mostly responsible for the lack of breeding in developed countries. Is this good? Stil we have population growth, but this in itself is not really killing the planet, its more about creating and energy. We create a lot by using conserved energy, oil, gas and coal. Those former living things that we can burn to move machines. I think the problem is what we create with them and how we use our own energy. Our food now uses petrochemicals and phosphates (bird shit) to grow the quantities we need but we don’t use that energy very productively. We are happy to drink protein shakes and jog around the lake for hours burning it off. And then jump in our car and drive home, shower change into new clothes and drive to a bar and drink wine.

Q: are you suggesting we should all be subsistence farmers with no pleasures of modern life?

Dave: No, I love modern life, and love wine and even cars, I just think we can do things better. Perhaps walk to the local shops, perhaps have communal gardens and carry the food to local farmers markets. Small old fashioned things that can help the world and perhaps help society to.

Q: But no-one has enough time for that we are busy commuting and working, and having a family or the other projects, or jogging or socialising, or just tired.

Dave: We actually need to give up things, ignore things and back to what we were talking about before changes our values and thus virtues.

Q: But we are locked into this game, and we have worked hard to get where we are, you are suggesting a Buddhist type thing, an abandonment of what we have, or at the minimum a sea change, and people weren’t happy when they made a sea change most were bored. We like this world.

Dave: The problem is its not sustainable.