Towards a modern morality
46 views
Skip to first unread message
archytas
May 18, 2012, 12:13:01 AM5/18/12
to "Minds Eye"
My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
science.
You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response.
The book's topic is climate change.
Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a world-weary old
fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our attitude
towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this latter factor
that is repeating itself.
Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in old fables
for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'. The
modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on. We have
failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
We are still at war.
Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
agriculture. We could have a great deal more through doing less and
doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we won't take
responsibility for this and review our failures. I believe this
failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
farce. The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
consider living with a scientific world-view. The implications of
this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name. We
need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual. We are
social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
5000 years' as a read here.
moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
science.
You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response.
The book's topic is climate change.
Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a world-weary old
fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our attitude
towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this latter factor
that is repeating itself.
Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in old fables
for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'. The
modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on. We have
failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
We are still at war.
Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
agriculture. We could have a great deal more through doing less and
doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we won't take
responsibility for this and review our failures. I believe this
failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
farce. The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
consider living with a scientific world-view. The implications of
this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name. We
need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual. We are
social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
5000 years' as a read here.
Francis Hunt
May 18, 2012, 2:33:51 AM5/18/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Great post, Neil!
I suspect that much of the emphasis on sex in traditional religious/cultural morality has more to do with questions of possessions and inheritance in patriarchal societies than the high-falutin religio-philosophical views of "the human person" as offered a posteriori today, for example, by such institutions as the Catholic Church. For a man to bequeath his property he had to know who his sons were and that they were his. The position of women as housekeeping breeding machines flows from this, as do such questions as societally enforced marital fidelity and the prohibition of sex before marriage and promiscuity generally.
I think one of your key insights is that we are social beings. The consequence of this basic fact would be a morality based on concepts such as solidarity and responsibility and not on the primacy of possessions, above all property, which is still the lodestone of most of our moral and legal systems - and the root of the idolising of economics which is the cause of most of the problems or modern world society is facing.
You and I are not alone in having these kinds of ideas - but the real question, in my view, is how to effect a paradigm shift. Those with the wealth and the power have no interest in change, quite the opposite. History unfortunately shows that fundamental change usually takes place only after system collapse, massive chaos and conflict, with the concomitant suffering and death of millions. In our interconnected networked world, such a process might well lead to a complete crash.
There are no easy answers, but if substantial change does not come in the next two decades or so then the crash may be unavoidable anyway.
Allan H
May 18, 2012, 2:53:29 AM5/18/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
It was a strange day yesterday in the christian world it is known as ascension Thursday, What was strange was a impromptu pol on TV here in the Netherlands, Being a public holiday they asked people what was the holiday occasion about,
What was strange when they asked the adults none of the one they asked knew anything abut the holiday or the origin (A religious christian country) not surprising as Francis is very right our society has idolised economics. No surprise
What was really strange when they asked the children ,, all of them knew..
Allan
archytas
May 18, 2012, 11:43:00 AM5/18/12
to "Minds Eye"
There's a video called "Four Horsemen" from the Renegade Economist
that makes a lot of the points fairly well. Towards the end they
suggest a lot of the answer lies in self-education and developing a
critical mentality. I don't think this is a solution. My mature
students nearly all want to explore their own experience critically
and almost all see this as impossible in the work context. The extent
to which religion has been involved in trying to restrict
disproportionate wealth interests me because education fails almost
entirely in that area.
Focusing into this, we don't seem collectively to realise accumulating
wealth in a few hands destroys democratic politics and genuine
globalisation (in its good sense of making war obsolete and in
developing mutual aid and insurance). One needs to be able to say
this and address what will motivate and enforce the 'keeping of us
honest' in terms of entitlement, responsibility and collective goals -
stuff like ensuring the scut work gets done and is shared, and
ensuring we get more efficient in providing for needs in order to have
time for better collective life. I think this area is 'religious'.
Education can't work as we have it because standards are dismally low
and educators are now controlled through crude performance
management. I think we have to be honest and accept the education we
provide is a poor fit for 95% of recipients. People are so innumerate
they think profits are fairly derived in a system that is actually
crackpot. We both accept the need for competitive pressures on
workers and wages, and the notion that money can make money through
accounting practices. This is contradiction in extreme. Financial
services are a cost, so if we see banks making vast profits and paying
out huge bonuses we should not rejoice - this is the very sort of
"work" that is parasitic, wasteful and should be cut out. Banking
could be reduced to a few firms operating as competing utilities.
Retailing could be reduced by 90% - people should not be working hard
in factories or essential services to support banking evil and the
fripperies of consumption. The key to substantial change in this is
to develop new ways to organise work projects without the profit
motive but with proper regulation to make sure the work is done
effectively.
> I suspect that much of the emphasis on s nealryex in traditional
> posteriori *today,
> *francishunt.blogspot.com*
that makes a lot of the points fairly well. Towards the end they
suggest a lot of the answer lies in self-education and developing a
critical mentality. I don't think this is a solution. My mature
students nearly all want to explore their own experience critically
and almost all see this as impossible in the work context. The extent
to which religion has been involved in trying to restrict
disproportionate wealth interests me because education fails almost
entirely in that area.
Focusing into this, we don't seem collectively to realise accumulating
wealth in a few hands destroys democratic politics and genuine
globalisation (in its good sense of making war obsolete and in
developing mutual aid and insurance). One needs to be able to say
this and address what will motivate and enforce the 'keeping of us
honest' in terms of entitlement, responsibility and collective goals -
stuff like ensuring the scut work gets done and is shared, and
ensuring we get more efficient in providing for needs in order to have
time for better collective life. I think this area is 'religious'.
Education can't work as we have it because standards are dismally low
and educators are now controlled through crude performance
management. I think we have to be honest and accept the education we
provide is a poor fit for 95% of recipients. People are so innumerate
they think profits are fairly derived in a system that is actually
crackpot. We both accept the need for competitive pressures on
workers and wages, and the notion that money can make money through
accounting practices. This is contradiction in extreme. Financial
services are a cost, so if we see banks making vast profits and paying
out huge bonuses we should not rejoice - this is the very sort of
"work" that is parasitic, wasteful and should be cut out. Banking
could be reduced to a few firms operating as competing utilities.
Retailing could be reduced by 90% - people should not be working hard
in factories or essential services to support banking evil and the
fripperies of consumption. The key to substantial change in this is
to develop new ways to organise work projects without the profit
motive but with proper regulation to make sure the work is done
effectively.
> I suspect that much of the emphasis on s nealryex in traditional
> religious/cultural morality has more to do with questions of possessions
> and inheritance in patriarchal societies than the high-falutin
> religio-philosophical views of "the human person" as offered *a
> and inheritance in patriarchal societies than the high-falutin
> posteriori *today,
> for example, by such institutions as the Catholic Church. For a man to
> bequeath his property he had to know who his sons were and that they were
> his. The position of women as housekeeping breeding machines flows from
> this, as do such questions as societally enforced marital fidelity and the
> prohibition of sex before marriage and promiscuity generally.
>
> I think one of your key insights is that we are social beings. The
> consequence of this basic fact would be a morality based on concepts such
> as solidarity and responsibility and not on the primacy of possessions,
> above all property, which is still the lodestone of most of our moral and
> legal systems - and the root of the idolising of economics which is the
> cause of most of the problems or modern world society is facing.
>
> You and I are not alone in having these kinds of ideas - but the real
> question, in my view, is how to effect a paradigm shift. Those with the
> wealth and the power have no interest in change, quite the opposite.
> History unfortunately shows that fundamental change usually takes place
> only after system collapse, massive chaos and conflict, with the
> concomitant suffering and death of millions. In our interconnected
> networked world, such a process might well lead to a complete crash.
>
> There are no easy answers, but if substantial change does not come in the
> next two decades or so then the crash may be unavoidable anyway.
>
> bequeath his property he had to know who his sons were and that they were
> his. The position of women as housekeeping breeding machines flows from
> this, as do such questions as societally enforced marital fidelity and the
> prohibition of sex before marriage and promiscuity generally.
>
> I think one of your key insights is that we are social beings. The
> consequence of this basic fact would be a morality based on concepts such
> as solidarity and responsibility and not on the primacy of possessions,
> above all property, which is still the lodestone of most of our moral and
> legal systems - and the root of the idolising of economics which is the
> cause of most of the problems or modern world society is facing.
>
> You and I are not alone in having these kinds of ideas - but the real
> question, in my view, is how to effect a paradigm shift. Those with the
> wealth and the power have no interest in change, quite the opposite.
> History unfortunately shows that fundamental change usually takes place
> only after system collapse, massive chaos and conflict, with the
> concomitant suffering and death of millions. In our interconnected
> networked world, such a process might well lead to a complete crash.
>
> There are no easy answers, but if substantial change does not come in the
> next two decades or so then the crash may be unavoidable anyway.
>
gabbydott
May 18, 2012, 1:21:46 PM5/18/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Your call for a modern morality sounds very backwards to me, Neil. Historically seen, religion is the science that distinguished between social animals and human beings and thereby made the difference. Not in terms of another evil and wicked duality, Molly, but in terms of filling another niche in our large, dynamic ecosystem, if you like.
"stuff like ensuring the scut work gets done and is shared, and
ensuring we get more efficient in providing for needs in order to have
time for better collective life. I think this area is 'religious'."
This is going back to social animal work organization. Whereas I insist on my freedom to choose to live a worse individual life. Sorry, today I have no solution to how you will be able to set the ground for your substantial change.
pol.science kid
May 18, 2012, 2:18:21 PM5/18/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Your post touches many relevant points.. but right now the point about religion comes to my mind... its true religion has been a source of morality for the most people...like it was schopenhauer(?) who said religion was the morality or ethics of the masses.. dont remember clearly ... anyways... see what i observe is.. the ethical hold of religion is fast disappearing...i rather see religion being appropriated for political propaganda..or communal menace... plus.. i wonder how you can remove religion form the past legacy in invoking it for morality afresh... religion does not have a glorius history.. i dont know really know.. havent read religious history... i often wonder how it would be if there was a community.. functioning politically, terrtorially integrated and sovereign composed of all atheist people... i guess our brains or minds are too steeped in history to be entirely radical(Routine and familiarity have such a powerful hold)... how many would support the system of ethics not enforced by an idea of the divine or sacred.. or God.. but it would be wonderful if we had something of the 'Kantian' ethics .. based on humanity... i wonder if any doctrine to live by has the force of religion.. is religion a condition of the mind? i guess any system can turn tyrannical..
from a personal example- i had a friend.. who was an atheist.. a very radical dude..until.. he suddenly changed.. we find out after one summer break hes turned into a devout christian(going to church regularly and sometimes quoting stuff from the bible!)..we totally freaked out.. see he was originally from a tribe...their own tribal religion was sort of weak he had once told us... but to continue.. all our friends had a very negative reaction to his sudden change... though none of us were really atheists we sort of had an aversion to devout practising of religion... it was also weird because he was an atheist... and then suddenly hes so full of faith and everything... our reaction was wrong..though it didnt ruin our friendship(we stilll loved him and realised we were being fools).. in our rush to be free of all this dogma and superstiton sorrounding us we dismissed his individual choice.. and didnt respect his decision.. we were acting like some dogmatic superstitous people ourselves.. my point of this lame story was that maintaining balance is a tricky thing...
... i am a cynical person too you know... but i guess you would know better cos youre older than me.. but i have been proven wrong in my estimate of the people around me.. which is reassuring... you view of the young generation is valid.. its true.. but i think we cant possibly become worse than we already are.. in the whole sum of things...
EverComing
pol.science kid
May 18, 2012, 2:45:12 PM5/18/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
--
EverComing
EverComing
archytas
May 18, 2012, 8:04:24 PM5/18/12
to "Minds Eye"
I don't mind being backward Gabby. I don't, of course, propose any
return to the kind of religion suffered by so many for so long and the
often revolting treatment of women. Here is a fairly simple treatment
of much that's been going wrong in the financial system.
"While most economists agree that the world is facing the worst
economic crisis since the
Great Depression, there is little agreement as to what caused it. Some
have argued that
the financial instability we are witnessing is due to irrational
exuberance of market
participants, fraud, greed, too much regulation, et cetera. However,
some Post Keynesian
economists following Hyman P. Minsky have argued that this is a
systemic problem, a
result of internal market processes that allowed fragility to build
over time. In this paper
we focus on the shift to the “shadow banking system” and the creation
of what Minsky
called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
growth of leverage
and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an ever-
rising proportion of
national income—what is sometimes called “financialization”—as the
financial system
evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States and
elsewhere has
largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism. Moreover,
in the case of the
United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
concentration of the financial
sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed at
saving the system are
doomed to fail—and that alternative policies should be adopted. The
effective solution
should come in the way of downsizing the financial sector by two-
thirds or more, and
effecting fundamental modifications."
explain
The paper can be found at the Levi Institute along with loads more.
The rub is that banking is mostly parasitic and we need a return to
primitive banking that supports productive projects. The reason I
think we need to review morality and come up with a modern one is that
I find almost no one can understand stuff like this. One can barely
get students to look up the papers and our news programmes are aimed
at a teenage mentality. We are both over-complicating and
trivialising decision making so that ordinary people can't take part
other than as voting dupes. The pressures on me are not to explain so
most people can understand, but to take part in esoteric debate to
earn my academic corn. Pol Kid sets out some of the dangers and Gabby
often has - yet if we are to retain democracy (I'm not a fan, but it
sure beats not being able to vote - though here in the UK I never have
a real vote) we have to find ways to stop it being abused by a
financial-political class.
My own suspicion is that rational debate is essentially violent and
hence doomed to fail other than as a domination strategy (or as
refined chattering). There are structural answers about - such as
having the people make law and government administer it. There have
been at least half-way successful changes in, say, feminism and gay
rights (surely moral causes both in repression and emancipation
stages). I would recommend 'The Life and Times of Colonel Blimp' to
get in the swing of things and begin to consider how 'there is no
alternative' mentalities screw us.
On May 18, 7:45 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:48 PM, pol.science kid <r.freeb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> d the generally revolting treatment of women
return to the kind of religion suffered by so many for so long and the
often revolting treatment of women. Here is a fairly simple treatment
of much that's been going wrong in the financial system.
"While most economists agree that the world is facing the worst
economic crisis since the
Great Depression, there is little agreement as to what caused it. Some
have argued that
the financial instability we are witnessing is due to irrational
exuberance of market
participants, fraud, greed, too much regulation, et cetera. However,
some Post Keynesian
economists following Hyman P. Minsky have argued that this is a
systemic problem, a
result of internal market processes that allowed fragility to build
over time. In this paper
we focus on the shift to the “shadow banking system” and the creation
of what Minsky
called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
growth of leverage
and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an ever-
rising proportion of
national income—what is sometimes called “financialization”—as the
financial system
evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States and
elsewhere has
largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism. Moreover,
in the case of the
United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
concentration of the financial
sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed at
saving the system are
doomed to fail—and that alternative policies should be adopted. The
effective solution
should come in the way of downsizing the financial sector by two-
thirds or more, and
effecting fundamental modifications."
explain
The paper can be found at the Levi Institute along with loads more.
The rub is that banking is mostly parasitic and we need a return to
primitive banking that supports productive projects. The reason I
think we need to review morality and come up with a modern one is that
I find almost no one can understand stuff like this. One can barely
get students to look up the papers and our news programmes are aimed
at a teenage mentality. We are both over-complicating and
trivialising decision making so that ordinary people can't take part
other than as voting dupes. The pressures on me are not to explain so
most people can understand, but to take part in esoteric debate to
earn my academic corn. Pol Kid sets out some of the dangers and Gabby
often has - yet if we are to retain democracy (I'm not a fan, but it
sure beats not being able to vote - though here in the UK I never have
a real vote) we have to find ways to stop it being abused by a
financial-political class.
My own suspicion is that rational debate is essentially violent and
hence doomed to fail other than as a domination strategy (or as
refined chattering). There are structural answers about - such as
having the people make law and government administer it. There have
been at least half-way successful changes in, say, feminism and gay
rights (surely moral causes both in repression and emancipation
stages). I would recommend 'The Life and Times of Colonel Blimp' to
get in the swing of things and begin to consider how 'there is no
alternative' mentalities screw us.
On May 18, 7:45 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
>
>
> d the generally revolting treatment of women
gabbydott
May 19, 2012, 4:09:57 AM5/19/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
" The reason I think we need to review morality and come up with a modern one is that I find almost no one can understand stuff like this. "
May I suggest an alternative:
I think the purpose of morality needs to be understood by every individual, which is why the main purpose of education is not to forget to always keep this door open. These are our real debts.
Allan H
May 19, 2012, 1:17:51 PM5/19/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
The original moral law was simply "Do No Harm" ..has been distorted through many eons by the different religions changing it to fit their desires.
The problem morality is that different religions have totally different views of what is moral,,, unfortunately they are not always comparable.
Allan
archytas
May 19, 2012, 4:36:07 PM5/19/12
to "Minds Eye"
What I'm thinking is that we get our moral decision-making very
wrong. Every generation ends up as old farts with notions modern
youth is chronic and desiring a return to the good old days. We don't
see our pathetic failures as contributing. Moral judgement is left in
the domain of Idols. Given universal education hasn't worked, we
might try a new set of Idols that are at least modern.
> ...
>
> read more »
wrong. Every generation ends up as old farts with notions modern
youth is chronic and desiring a return to the good old days. We don't
see our pathetic failures as contributing. Moral judgement is left in
the domain of Idols. Given universal education hasn't worked, we
might try a new set of Idols that are at least modern.
>
> read more »
rigsy03
May 19, 2012, 8:09:36 PM5/19/12
to "Minds Eye"
The "good old days" were still lousey for most of humanity- unless you
are referring to your own youth as a golden time of life.//Our
earliest morals come from our parents usually and they are "tested"
against religion and society plus one's own nature- often leading to
rebellion and trial and error. Errors are costly and they often repeat
themselves until you learn your lesson.//There are lists of many
beyond the age of 60 that have continued to create and contribute to
society so that notion is relative.//We cannot control the factors of
an age- wars, depressions, waste, etc. but we can influence a small
circle.//Universal ignorance and superstition didn't work either.:-)
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
are referring to your own youth as a golden time of life.//Our
earliest morals come from our parents usually and they are "tested"
against religion and society plus one's own nature- often leading to
rebellion and trial and error. Errors are costly and they often repeat
themselves until you learn your lesson.//There are lists of many
beyond the age of 60 that have continued to create and contribute to
society so that notion is relative.//We cannot control the factors of
an age- wars, depressions, waste, etc. but we can influence a small
circle.//Universal ignorance and superstition didn't work either.:-)
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rigsy03
May 19, 2012, 8:12:41 PM5/19/12
to "Minds Eye"
Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses...close enough,
however! I don't know much about Schopenhaur except he was anti-female
and his mother shoved him down a long staircase (a clue?) plus
something about a will to Power.
On May 18, 1:45 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
>
> EverComing- Hide quoted text -
however! I don't know much about Schopenhaur except he was anti-female
and his mother shoved him down a long staircase (a clue?) plus
something about a will to Power.
On May 18, 1:45 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
>
rigsy03
May 19, 2012, 8:21:16 PM5/19/12
to "Minds Eye"
Many humans have lived in herd-like conditions and many animals
exhibit moral behavior (on their own terms). Reason and humor are two
distinquishing marks of humans plus language skills and the ability to
solve problems and anticipate the future. Twain said humans are the
only ones who blush- for good reason.) Ants are probably better
cooperators than most humans- someone (?) said insects will inherit
the earth.
> > > *francishunt.blogspot.com*- Hide quoted text -
exhibit moral behavior (on their own terms). Reason and humor are two
distinquishing marks of humans plus language skills and the ability to
solve problems and anticipate the future. Twain said humans are the
only ones who blush- for good reason.) Ants are probably better
cooperators than most humans- someone (?) said insects will inherit
the earth.
rigsy03
May 19, 2012, 8:37:53 PM5/19/12
to "Minds Eye"
There are women in history who beat the patriarchal game/system and
others who have succeeded as head of household/family- afterall, what
happened to all those war widows?//Yes- the super-rich and powerful
have a great stake in keeping to the status quo but one could also
argue that there is a huge class of people dependent on entitlements
who are not anxious to change either.//China's one child policy will
run into problems with their increased elder population and late stage
care but that is also a problem in the West.
On May 18, 1:33 am, Francis Hunt <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Great post, Neil!
>
> I suspect that much of the emphasis on sex in traditional
> religious/cultural morality has more to do with questions of possessions
> and inheritance in patriarchal societies than the high-falutin
> religio-philosophical views of "the human person" as offered *a
> posteriori *today,
others who have succeeded as head of household/family- afterall, what
happened to all those war widows?//Yes- the super-rich and powerful
have a great stake in keeping to the status quo but one could also
argue that there is a huge class of people dependent on entitlements
who are not anxious to change either.//China's one child policy will
run into problems with their increased elder population and late stage
care but that is also a problem in the West.
On May 18, 1:33 am, Francis Hunt <francis.h...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Great post, Neil!
>
> I suspect that much of the emphasis on sex in traditional
> religious/cultural morality has more to do with questions of possessions
> and inheritance in patriarchal societies than the high-falutin
> posteriori *today,
> for example, by such institutions as the Catholic Church. For a man to
> bequeath his property he had to know who his sons were and that they were
> his. The position of women as housekeeping breeding machines flows from
> this, as do such questions as societally enforced marital fidelity and the
> prohibition of sex before marriage and promiscuity generally.
>
> I think one of your key insights is that we are social beings. The
> consequence of this basic fact would be a morality based on concepts such
> as solidarity and responsibility and not on the primacy of possessions,
> above all property, which is still the lodestone of most of our moral and
> legal systems - and the root of the idolising of economics which is the
> cause of most of the problems or modern world society is facing.
>
> You and I are not alone in having these kinds of ideas - but the real
> question, in my view, is how to effect a paradigm shift. Those with the
> wealth and the power have no interest in change, quite the opposite.
> History unfortunately shows that fundamental change usually takes place
> only after system collapse, massive chaos and conflict, with the
> concomitant suffering and death of millions. In our interconnected
> networked world, such a process might well lead to a complete crash.
>
> There are no easy answers, but if substantial change does not come in the
> next two decades or so then the crash may be unavoidable anyway.
>
> bequeath his property he had to know who his sons were and that they were
> his. The position of women as housekeeping breeding machines flows from
> this, as do such questions as societally enforced marital fidelity and the
> prohibition of sex before marriage and promiscuity generally.
>
> I think one of your key insights is that we are social beings. The
> consequence of this basic fact would be a morality based on concepts such
> as solidarity and responsibility and not on the primacy of possessions,
> above all property, which is still the lodestone of most of our moral and
> legal systems - and the root of the idolising of economics which is the
> cause of most of the problems or modern world society is facing.
>
> You and I are not alone in having these kinds of ideas - but the real
> question, in my view, is how to effect a paradigm shift. Those with the
> wealth and the power have no interest in change, quite the opposite.
> History unfortunately shows that fundamental change usually takes place
> only after system collapse, massive chaos and conflict, with the
> concomitant suffering and death of millions. In our interconnected
> networked world, such a process might well lead to a complete crash.
>
> There are no easy answers, but if substantial change does not come in the
> next two decades or so then the crash may be unavoidable anyway.
>
Allan H
May 20, 2012, 3:48:12 AM5/20/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through all the mess we created.
Allan
--
(
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
pol.science kid
May 20, 2012, 3:14:06 PM5/20/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
--
EverComing
EverComing
Allan H
May 20, 2012, 4:41:10 PM5/20/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
You have that right.. governments and religions Governments are not known for their morality
Allan
archytas
May 20, 2012, 5:28:07 PM5/20/12
to "Minds Eye"
Pol is right on government - the only question left there is who is
really doing the governing. What bangs about in my head is not what
we currently make of morality or into moral decisions - but rather
what a modernly derived morality would be. I don't think we have much
clue. Moral codes we do have are based in manners and are easily
feigned. The Moses of Numbers 31 is a war criminal against today's
values - but we haven't even managed to bring Pinochet to official
trial. If we could develop a modern code what would it be?
On May 20, 9:41 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have that right.. governments and religions Governments are not known
> for their morality
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »
really doing the governing. What bangs about in my head is not what
we currently make of morality or into moral decisions - but rather
what a modernly derived morality would be. I don't think we have much
clue. Moral codes we do have are based in manners and are easily
feigned. The Moses of Numbers 31 is a war criminal against today's
values - but we haven't even managed to bring Pinochet to official
trial. If we could develop a modern code what would it be?
On May 20, 9:41 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have that right.. governments and religions Governments are not known
> for their morality
> Allan
> On May 20, 2012 9:14 PM, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> > countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> > justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> > countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> > justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
> > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> >> garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> >> market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> >> those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> >> the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> >> choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> >> the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> >> all the mess we created.
> >> Allan
>
>
> >> I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> >> garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> >> market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> >> those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> >> the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> >> choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> >> the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> >> all the mess we created.
> >> Allan
>
>
> read more »
Lee Douglas
May 21, 2012, 3:57:38 AM5/21/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
It's always going to be ahard sell Archy.
Given that we know that morality is subjective, and that fiscal morality and subjective greed go hand in glove. The way I do it, is to simply live within my means. Oh yes sure there are the 'things' that I desire, but if I have not the means to aquire them, then I cannot have them. Living this way is hard, it seems to me that we have been taught, or we have learned that we can have all of our desires, that we can saftly live beyond our means, that a little tick is not a problem. It is clear to me though that this line is just as much bullshit as a bull can reliably shit in a day.
Gabs, God bless her calls for education, and that surely now (as it has ever been) is where some of the true answer must lie. But ahhhh the 'self' is a strange beast, and what seems good and logical and decent to some, may not appear to others. That fact that the philospy of a certian Russian/American philosopher still lives and breaths and that some still attest to it's validity shows us that in the main, people will go with their 'beliefe' structors no matter what others thing of it. The real question is how do we get humanity singing form teh same hyme sheet, and I think the answer to that one is, it will never happen.
gabbydott
May 21, 2012, 7:19:28 AM5/21/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Ah, I know that hymn sheet! FYI,Lady Gaga is the modern Madonna now!
Na, Neil. The old fart thing don't count nomore. It always knew how to relate to the educatees at each step of its ascension. 360° illumination is doing the trick.
gabbydott
May 21, 2012, 7:28:46 AM5/21/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Lee, but it's really Neil's headaches that should be heard. We might consider buying his truths.
rigsy03
May 21, 2012, 5:03:57 PM5/21/12
to "Minds Eye"
That would include revolutionary America, I presume, if you were the
British Empire or the Confederacy or Mexico/Spain or Hawaii- that's
where language comes in for justification. Eco writes of the groups
within society vying for control in his essay on the consolation of
philosophy- I think Foucault deals with vocabulary stealths. Munitions
are quite profitable as an industry and quite impersonal.//Religion
was once the provocateur- seizure of territory and raw materials,
another. Polititians are no longer titans with the advance of
technology/communications and the other biggie is science which is
amoral. Some might say celebrities and highly paid sports figures,
etc. are the new aristocracy but this tier has always been transitory-
here today-gone tomorrow. Also interesting are the security groups
like Blackwater that operate under the radar.
On May 20, 2:14 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> > garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> > market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> > those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> > the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> > choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> > the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> > all the mess we created.
> > Allan
>
British Empire or the Confederacy or Mexico/Spain or Hawaii- that's
where language comes in for justification. Eco writes of the groups
within society vying for control in his essay on the consolation of
philosophy- I think Foucault deals with vocabulary stealths. Munitions
are quite profitable as an industry and quite impersonal.//Religion
was once the provocateur- seizure of territory and raw materials,
another. Polititians are no longer titans with the advance of
technology/communications and the other biggie is science which is
amoral. Some might say celebrities and highly paid sports figures,
etc. are the new aristocracy but this tier has always been transitory-
here today-gone tomorrow. Also interesting are the security groups
like Blackwater that operate under the radar.
On May 20, 2:14 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> > garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> > market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> > those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> > the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> > choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> > the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> > all the mess we created.
> > Allan
>
rigsy03
May 21, 2012, 5:11:32 PM5/21/12
to "Minds Eye"
"We the people" are the government, therefore it might follow that the
majority of voters are ignorant or in cahoots.
On May 20, 3:41 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have that right.. governments and religions Governments are not known
> for their morality
> Allan
majority of voters are ignorant or in cahoots.
On May 20, 3:41 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have that right.. governments and religions Governments are not known
> for their morality
> Allan
> On May 20, 2012 9:14 PM, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> > countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> > justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
>
>
>
> > speaking of morality... what do you think of terrorism, and insurgency in
> > countries.. how they justify their violence ... in fact the most outrageous
> > justification of violence is by the governments today.... but still...
>
> > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> >> garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> >> market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> >> those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> >> the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> >> choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> >> the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> >> all the mess we created.
> >> Allan
>
>
> >> I do think the moral compass is lost, well more buried under a bunch of
> >> garbage. People are more interested in their finances and how the stock
> >> market is doing. Or only the projects of their church.. leaving out
> >> those that do not belong aka members... and you have to remember we are
> >> the old farts Neil that are guiding the nations. We all have made difficult
> >> choices over the years, oddly enough some how the world is going to survive
> >> the terrorism of religions and economics. some how we will make it through
> >> all the mess we created.
> >> Allan
>
rigsy03
May 21, 2012, 5:18:05 PM5/21/12
to "Minds Eye"
Yes, manners and etiquette save us from brutish behavior- we have said
this before. I think it still boils down to the Golden Rule for
intimates and healthy caution, otherwise, which does not displace
empathy and hope entirely.
this before. I think it still boils down to the Golden Rule for
intimates and healthy caution, otherwise, which does not displace
empathy and hope entirely.
Allan H
May 23, 2012, 4:30:58 AM5/23/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Maybe teaching how to use the I Ching. Some ancient wisdom might help. I keep a copy I'm my phone
Allan
archytas
May 24, 2012, 5:54:35 PM5/24/12
to "Minds Eye"
According to both the Mayan and Hindu calendars, 2012 (or something
very close) marks the transition from an age of darkness, violence and
greed to one of enlightenment, justice and peace. I don't go for
predictionology, but I do think we need a sea change in the way we
live.
> ...
>
> read more »
very close) marks the transition from an age of darkness, violence and
greed to one of enlightenment, justice and peace. I don't go for
predictionology, but I do think we need a sea change in the way we
live.
>
> read more »
archytas
May 24, 2012, 6:04:40 PM5/24/12
to "Minds Eye"
My sense of things is we need a modern version of a way to live. We
don't really have a modern 'creed' and our thinking, particularly in
economics. Our thinking is almost instantly derailed by very old
ideologies like work ethic, nationalism and so on. What I want is to
imagine a morality without the old Idols.
On May 23, 9:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe teaching how to use the I Ching. Some ancient wisdom might help. I
> keep a copy I'm my phone
> Allan
don't really have a modern 'creed' and our thinking, particularly in
economics. Our thinking is almost instantly derailed by very old
ideologies like work ethic, nationalism and so on. What I want is to
imagine a morality without the old Idols.
On May 23, 9:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe teaching how to use the I Ching. Some ancient wisdom might help. I
> keep a copy I'm my phone
> Allan
James
May 24, 2012, 7:54:59 PM5/24/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
A six thousand year cycle takes a while Neil, 10 or 12ish I think was
the temple of Osiris' FOL, 18ish was something big with the tribes or
species I think (other than/coinciding domestication of animals). I'm
sure a pro could inform us but isn't there something important around
40kBC(E)? Very vague memories, I am uneducated as well but isn't it the
celestial age of Aquarius beginning now?
PS Sorry for that last message, I was having a hard time keeping
personal things from interfering and had to excuse myself. Ahh,
challenges. :)
>>>>>>>>>> we focus on the shift to the �shadow banking system� and the
>> read more �
the temple of Osiris' FOL, 18ish was something big with the tribes or
species I think (other than/coinciding domestication of animals). I'm
sure a pro could inform us but isn't there something important around
40kBC(E)? Very vague memories, I am uneducated as well but isn't it the
celestial age of Aquarius beginning now?
PS Sorry for that last message, I was having a hard time keeping
personal things from interfering and had to excuse myself. Ahh,
challenges. :)
>>>>>>> creation
>>>>>>>>>> of what Minsky
>>>>>>>>>> called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
>>>>>>>>>> growth of leverage
>>>>>>>>>> and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an
>>>>>>> ever-
>>>>>>>>>> rising proportion of
>>>>>>>>>> national income�what is sometimes called �financialization��as the
>>>>>>>>>> of what Minsky
>>>>>>>>>> called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
>>>>>>>>>> growth of leverage
>>>>>>>>>> and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an
>>>>>>> ever-
>>>>>>>>>> rising proportion of
>>>>>>>>>> financial system
>>>>>>>>>> evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
>>>>>>>>>> The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere has
>>>>>>>>>> largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism.
>>>>>>> Moreover,
>>>>>>>>>> in the case of the
>>>>>>>>>> United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
>>>>>>>>>> concentration of the financial
>>>>>>>>>> sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> saving the system are
>>>>>>>>>> doomed to fail�and that alternative policies should be adopted. The
>>>>>>>>>> evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
>>>>>>>>>> The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere has
>>>>>>>>>> largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism.
>>>>>>> Moreover,
>>>>>>>>>> in the case of the
>>>>>>>>>> United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
>>>>>>>>>> concentration of the financial
>>>>>>>>>> sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> saving the system are
James
May 24, 2012, 8:45:03 PM5/24/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
This is interesting, if I remember you teach in this field is there much
in the way of emphasis regarding communities taking steps between values
and economy to shape more intentional outcomes? This is a neat
application of boundary work similar to what I heard in your criticism
of neutral science. I mean something better than the assumption that
whatever is good for business trickles down sort of logic.
>>>>> we focus on the shift to the �shadow banking system� and the creation
>>>> read more �
in the way of emphasis regarding communities taking steps between values
and economy to shape more intentional outcomes? This is a neat
application of boundary work similar to what I heard in your criticism
of neutral science. I mean something better than the assumption that
whatever is good for business trickles down sort of logic.
>>>>> of what Minsky
>>>>> called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
>>>>> growth of leverage
>>>>> and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an ever-
>>>>> rising proportion of
>>>>> national income�what is sometimes called �financialization��as the
>>>>> called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
>>>>> growth of leverage
>>>>> and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an ever-
>>>>> rising proportion of
>>>>> financial system
>>>>> evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
>>>>> The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States and
>>>>> elsewhere has
>>>>> largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism. Moreover,
>>>>> in the case of the
>>>>> United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
>>>>> concentration of the financial
>>>>> sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed at
>>>>> saving the system are
>>>>> doomed to fail�and that alternative policies should be adopted. The
>>>>> evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
>>>>> The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States and
>>>>> elsewhere has
>>>>> largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism. Moreover,
>>>>> in the case of the
>>>>> United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
>>>>> concentration of the financial
>>>>> sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed at
>>>>> saving the system are
James
May 25, 2012, 12:14:59 AM5/25/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Lying among the dusty tomes are a few good nuggets of wisdom, lest we
forget parochialism is highly adaptable, we seem to be hell bent on it.
Now I know my thinking was stuck on fear, how much of our way of life is
based on insecurity and getting pulled into a multitude of necessary
evils we must accept, in how we treat eachother on through to what we
must eat and when. Fanatics, puritans, and worse predators abound who
eye honesty, caring, sensitivity and openness as an easy mark and savor
righteous malefic. But if our _imagination_ is bounded by fear we are
imprisoned from the outset, unable to make bold advances, take advantage
of untapped potential. Imagination for the mind is akin to materials
science in technology, that's a profound statement I think- an obviously
flawed analogy in one aspect at least, but then again..
"My view is it's immoral that we won't take responsibility for this and
review our failures. I believe this failure inhibits our spiritual
growth and renders us simply animal."
One could say plenty of work gives people purpose, energy that would
otherwise be used for mischief, costing society rather than fueling
progress.
"We are social animals and need to get back to some basics developed
with modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters."
Where I look for a syncretic boost is in places that attract many views
to focus constructively on a challenge, like the DIY communities. What
you are saying sounds like a serious challenge, like how to map an
optimal evolutionary path. Science does indeed have much to say, both in
the how and why, while the humanities have a bit of anecdotal and case
reference material.
forget parochialism is highly adaptable, we seem to be hell bent on it.
Now I know my thinking was stuck on fear, how much of our way of life is
based on insecurity and getting pulled into a multitude of necessary
evils we must accept, in how we treat eachother on through to what we
must eat and when. Fanatics, puritans, and worse predators abound who
eye honesty, caring, sensitivity and openness as an easy mark and savor
righteous malefic. But if our _imagination_ is bounded by fear we are
imprisoned from the outset, unable to make bold advances, take advantage
of untapped potential. Imagination for the mind is akin to materials
science in technology, that's a profound statement I think- an obviously
flawed analogy in one aspect at least, but then again..
"My view is it's immoral that we won't take responsibility for this and
review our failures. I believe this failure inhibits our spiritual
growth and renders us simply animal."
otherwise be used for mischief, costing society rather than fueling
progress.
"We are social animals and need to get back to some basics developed
with modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters."
to focus constructively on a challenge, like the DIY communities. What
you are saying sounds like a serious challenge, like how to map an
optimal evolutionary path. Science does indeed have much to say, both in
the how and why, while the humanities have a bit of anecdotal and case
reference material.
Allan H
May 25, 2012, 4:15:55 AM5/25/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I'm the Mayan calendar the milkyway galaxy is on the horizon and parellal with it. An extremely rare event. A lot of star gazing (many years) from the same structure will allow you to see that. Don't forget to do the math.
Allan
Lee Douglas
May 25, 2012, 4:27:48 AM5/25/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
What would that look like? I wonder and bassed around what principles?
Go on mate give as an idea, just the one to start working with.
Again though I must stress that morality is subjective and personal, perhaps then you mean ethics?
The thing with subjective morality is that the ideals that I may stick to will seem alien to some, how can we force a similar morality on thoses that simply do not share ours? Should we even attempt to do so?
human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
agriculture. We could have a great deal more through doing less and
doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we won't take
responsibility for this and review our failures. I believe this
failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
farce. The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
consider living with a scientific world-view. The implications of
this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name. We
need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual. We are
social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
Allan H
May 25, 2012, 4:43:15 AM5/25/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Neil as old as it is, with the casting of my coins (electronic) it provides a base of wisdom to reflect on. For me it allows to bring spirituality and morality to the front.
As old as it is the I Ching still has good morality still applicable to day.
Allan
James
May 25, 2012, 5:38:52 PM5/25/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I think one aspect to consider is what types of thinking it would take
to build up an infrastructure of citizenry with a more scientific world
view, and what that even means (hopefully more rational). This comes
with some challenges in assimilation and integration, what entry points
are there, is there even interest (or is it a funding sinkhole). And
ethically, should we develop defenses to teach to our young for
identifying and combating faulty reasoning and logic, what forms this
might take. Maybe through introducing a broad immersion of diverse
concepts they will self-immunize and make the changes generationally
(and is that process fast enough for current/future challenges) if we
just concentrate more on exceptional qualitative development. It takes
time and attention, people are overworked and full of anxiety.
I was trying to wrap my head around a challenge between technology and
culture a little while back that involved high performance materials
like stainless steel, high pressure steam and platinum plated ceramics
and getting these things into the hands of your average third world
farming community or poorer. Then it hit me, people don't need a source
of gadgets, universities, a western way of life, industries and all that
to benefit from modern knowledge, all that is necessary is an accessible
vehicle, a friend, neighbor, or community. A few minutes later I had
drafted an integrated energy refinement system using natural resources
like clay, wood, soil, and rock to produce clean, high efficiency
centralised heating with waste byproduct applications for sterile
drinking water, safe human waste processing, personal/laundry cleaning
chemicals and medicinal applications. It's gathering dust somewhere
around here in the form of a scribble and a few notes.
An accessible vehicle for the modern layman might be in how scientific
approaches can be used to refine, redirect redefine and optimize our
ends and means- and the Idols need to be outed as ill defined means that
set an unrealistically low bar for problem solving capacity. That is one
emphasis for science at the inroad of ethos, what potential could we
released by directing a portion of energy toward actually solving
problems and making solutions accessible? I wonder.
Just a couple thoughts while trying to find that voice I put down
somewhere. ;-)
to build up an infrastructure of citizenry with a more scientific world
view, and what that even means (hopefully more rational). This comes
with some challenges in assimilation and integration, what entry points
are there, is there even interest (or is it a funding sinkhole). And
ethically, should we develop defenses to teach to our young for
identifying and combating faulty reasoning and logic, what forms this
might take. Maybe through introducing a broad immersion of diverse
concepts they will self-immunize and make the changes generationally
(and is that process fast enough for current/future challenges) if we
just concentrate more on exceptional qualitative development. It takes
time and attention, people are overworked and full of anxiety.
I was trying to wrap my head around a challenge between technology and
culture a little while back that involved high performance materials
like stainless steel, high pressure steam and platinum plated ceramics
and getting these things into the hands of your average third world
farming community or poorer. Then it hit me, people don't need a source
of gadgets, universities, a western way of life, industries and all that
to benefit from modern knowledge, all that is necessary is an accessible
vehicle, a friend, neighbor, or community. A few minutes later I had
drafted an integrated energy refinement system using natural resources
like clay, wood, soil, and rock to produce clean, high efficiency
centralised heating with waste byproduct applications for sterile
drinking water, safe human waste processing, personal/laundry cleaning
chemicals and medicinal applications. It's gathering dust somewhere
around here in the form of a scribble and a few notes.
An accessible vehicle for the modern layman might be in how scientific
approaches can be used to refine, redirect redefine and optimize our
ends and means- and the Idols need to be outed as ill defined means that
set an unrealistically low bar for problem solving capacity. That is one
emphasis for science at the inroad of ethos, what potential could we
released by directing a portion of energy toward actually solving
problems and making solutions accessible? I wonder.
Just a couple thoughts while trying to find that voice I put down
somewhere. ;-)
Allan H
May 26, 2012, 3:31:10 AM5/26/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The emphasis needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way. Oddly enough it can be circumvented peacefully.
Allan
James
May 26, 2012, 9:41:07 PM5/26/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
People like events, circuses, festivities, spring break and such, I
don't know what else to say right now. Funny, the movie Saved with that
McCaulay Caulkin (misspelt) comes to mind, Jay & Silent Bob, or George
Carlin. A sense of humor is handy with some characters, I caricature
myself regularly! :p
Coming down with something ill so brain no-worky ATM.
On 5/26/2012 3:31 AM, Allan H wrote:
> James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The
> emphasis needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way.
> Oddly enough it can be circumvented peacefully.
> Allan
>
> On May 25, 2012 11:38 PM, "James" <ashk...@gmail.com
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/__malcolm-bull/what-is-the-__rational-response
> <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
don't know what else to say right now. Funny, the movie Saved with that
McCaulay Caulkin (misspelt) comes to mind, Jay & Silent Bob, or George
Carlin. A sense of humor is handy with some characters, I caricature
myself regularly! :p
Coming down with something ill so brain no-worky ATM.
On 5/26/2012 3:31 AM, Allan H wrote:
> James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The
> emphasis needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way.
> Oddly enough it can be circumvented peacefully.
> Allan
>
> On May 25, 2012 11:38 PM, "James" <ashk...@gmail.com
> <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
archytas
May 26, 2012, 9:47:48 PM5/26/12
to "Minds Eye"
Almost every little thing we do contributes to our carbon footprint,
which increases greenhouse gases, which could in turn ultimately
threaten hundreds of millions of lives in some remote time and place –
the uncertainty only adding to the sublime awfulness of our
responsibilities. Contrary to Gardiner’s concerns about moral
corruption, climate change does not tempt us to be less moral than we
might otherwise be; it invites us to be more moral than we could ever
have imagined. Unlike the Dashwoods, we never knew how many relatives
we had. Climate ethics is not morality applied but morality
discovered, a new chapter in the moral education of mankind. It may
tell us things we do not wish to know (about democracy, perhaps), but
the future development of humanity may depend on what, if anything, it
can teach us. (the last lines of a book review essay at LRB)
I'm watching a South American farce called 'The Pope's Toilet' as I
write. It's a very moral film. I don't doubt, as James points out
that there are plenty of nuggets in our literature. I doubt anyone in
here would miss the point of the film. They are doing Allan's last
line above.
If we forget moral philosophy, or at least suspend it, we might catch
a glimpse of a morality that is largely about suppressing the poor and
is based in non-modern attitudes. If this is rather obvious, I doubt
we realise the consequences - one being the limitation of our
dialogue. I wonder if we should take Wittgenstein seriously and look
for what bewitches us as moral incompetents. I suspect at core the
problem concerns a technocracy that isn't scientific and operates by
stopping us taking part in dialogue as competents. I suspect this is
a very old trick at the heart of education.
On May 26, 8:31 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The emphasis
> needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way. Oddly enough
> it can be circumvented peacefully.
> Allan
> >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>
> >> .
which increases greenhouse gases, which could in turn ultimately
threaten hundreds of millions of lives in some remote time and place –
the uncertainty only adding to the sublime awfulness of our
responsibilities. Contrary to Gardiner’s concerns about moral
corruption, climate change does not tempt us to be less moral than we
might otherwise be; it invites us to be more moral than we could ever
have imagined. Unlike the Dashwoods, we never knew how many relatives
we had. Climate ethics is not morality applied but morality
discovered, a new chapter in the moral education of mankind. It may
tell us things we do not wish to know (about democracy, perhaps), but
the future development of humanity may depend on what, if anything, it
can teach us. (the last lines of a book review essay at LRB)
I'm watching a South American farce called 'The Pope's Toilet' as I
write. It's a very moral film. I don't doubt, as James points out
that there are plenty of nuggets in our literature. I doubt anyone in
here would miss the point of the film. They are doing Allan's last
line above.
If we forget moral philosophy, or at least suspend it, we might catch
a glimpse of a morality that is largely about suppressing the poor and
is based in non-modern attitudes. If this is rather obvious, I doubt
we realise the consequences - one being the limitation of our
dialogue. I wonder if we should take Wittgenstein seriously and look
for what bewitches us as moral incompetents. I suspect at core the
problem concerns a technocracy that isn't scientific and operates by
stopping us taking part in dialogue as competents. I suspect this is
a very old trick at the heart of education.
On May 26, 8:31 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The emphasis
> needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way. Oddly enough
> it can be circumvented peacefully.
> Allan
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>
> >> .
Allan H
May 27, 2012, 3:46:10 AM5/27/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Times are changing, the problem I see people who are just in the morality game for their own prophet. (sic)
Allan
Allan H
May 27, 2012, 7:20:02 AM5/27/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I have been reading the I Ching for material to think about during the day... well i looked up how to read the coins. (The program kind of does it all automatically) What is amazing is how serious people are. It seems they are even using it to determine if they are to use 2 or 3 ply maybe it is 4 ply that is needed after the latest dump.
I do believe. It can show you things you need to think about regarding any given subject.. along with correct moral responses... but make a decision as to what ply of toilet paper to use when wiping ones buns this time. No not only No but Hell No!!!
Allan
rigsy03
May 27, 2012, 9:12:55 AM5/27/12
to "Minds Eye"
We need it but that doesn't mean we will actually construct a new age-
see Hesiod. As for the sea/ocean- most are toxic soups (Greenpeace)-
take for example the floating island of plastic and garbage floating
about the Pacific- or the debris from the nuclear/tsunami event in
Japan that is washing eastward. Makes me rather squeamish about
seafood- esp. bay types.//I find parallels in our modern West with the
3rd and 4th C. A.D. decline in the Roman Empire though one has to re-
define some terms and events- and people rarely recall Justinian of
the Eastern Empire, anyway.//I think you would have a struggle
enforcing a change in human behavior while the surface of life looks
so glittery- it usually takes a defeat in war or a major catastrophe
but even then cultures suffer amnesia and start the fantasy all over
again.//
see Hesiod. As for the sea/ocean- most are toxic soups (Greenpeace)-
take for example the floating island of plastic and garbage floating
about the Pacific- or the debris from the nuclear/tsunami event in
Japan that is washing eastward. Makes me rather squeamish about
seafood- esp. bay types.//I find parallels in our modern West with the
3rd and 4th C. A.D. decline in the Roman Empire though one has to re-
define some terms and events- and people rarely recall Justinian of
the Eastern Empire, anyway.//I think you would have a struggle
enforcing a change in human behavior while the surface of life looks
so glittery- it usually takes a defeat in war or a major catastrophe
but even then cultures suffer amnesia and start the fantasy all over
again.//
rigsy03
May 27, 2012, 9:15:40 AM5/27/12
to "Minds Eye"
It's at the heart of capitalism.
> > >> 5000 years' as a read here.- Hide quoted text -
rigsy03
May 27, 2012, 9:23:31 AM5/27/12
to "Minds Eye"
Physically throwing the coins or bamboo sticks are part of the deal,
Allan, plus most will interpret the Judgment or Lines to fit their
preconceived intent- or throw till they get the answer they want- it's
human nature. :-)//Serious matters, all this bleached paper women use
in and out their bodies along with monkeying around with fertility and
every other thing thay can think of to consider themselves liberated.
On May 27, 6:20 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been reading the I Ching for material to think about during the
> day... well i looked up how to read the coins. (The program kind of does it
> all automatically) What is amazing is how serious people are. It seems they
> are even using it to determine if they are to use 2 or 3 ply maybe it is 4
> ply that is needed after the latest dump.
>
> I do believe. It can show you things you need to think about regarding any
> given subject.. along with correct moral responses... but make a decision
> as to what ply of toilet paper to use when wiping ones buns this time. No
> not only No but Hell No!!!
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Allan, plus most will interpret the Judgment or Lines to fit their
preconceived intent- or throw till they get the answer they want- it's
human nature. :-)//Serious matters, all this bleached paper women use
in and out their bodies along with monkeying around with fertility and
every other thing thay can think of to consider themselves liberated.
On May 27, 6:20 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been reading the I Ching for material to think about during the
> day... well i looked up how to read the coins. (The program kind of does it
> all automatically) What is amazing is how serious people are. It seems they
> are even using it to determine if they are to use 2 or 3 ply maybe it is 4
> ply that is needed after the latest dump.
>
> I do believe. It can show you things you need to think about regarding any
> given subject.. along with correct moral responses... but make a decision
> as to what ply of toilet paper to use when wiping ones buns this time. No
> not only No but Hell No!!!
> Allan
> On May 27, 2012 9:46 AM, "Allan H" <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Times are changing, the problem I see people who are just in the morality
> > game for their own prophet. (sic)
> > Allan
>
>
>
> > Times are changing, the problem I see people who are just in the morality
> > game for their own prophet. (sic)
> > Allan
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
rigsy03
May 27, 2012, 9:27:00 AM5/27/12
to "Minds Eye"
People like escapes from reality. :-)
Hope you are feeling better, James.
On May 26, 8:41 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People like events, circuses, festivities, spring break and such, I
> don't know what else to say right now. Funny, the movie Saved with that
> McCaulay Caulkin (misspelt) comes to mind, Jay & Silent Bob, or George
> Carlin. A sense of humor is handy with some characters, I caricature
> myself regularly! :p
>
> Coming down with something ill so brain no-worky ATM.
>
> On 5/26/2012 3:31 AM, Allan H wrote:
>
>
>
> > James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> > watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> > Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> > they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> > You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The
> > emphasis needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way.
> > Oddly enough it can be circumvented peacefully.
> > Allan
>
> > On May 25, 2012 11:38 PM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com
> > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/__malcolm-bull/what-is-the-__rational-re...
> > 5000 years' as a read here.- Hide quoted text -
Hope you are feeling better, James.
On May 26, 8:41 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People like events, circuses, festivities, spring break and such, I
> don't know what else to say right now. Funny, the movie Saved with that
> McCaulay Caulkin (misspelt) comes to mind, Jay & Silent Bob, or George
> Carlin. A sense of humor is handy with some characters, I caricature
> myself regularly! :p
>
> Coming down with something ill so brain no-worky ATM.
>
> On 5/26/2012 3:31 AM, Allan H wrote:
>
>
>
> > James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> > watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> > Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> > they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> > You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The
> > emphasis needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way.
> > Oddly enough it can be circumvented peacefully.
> > Allan
>
Allan H
May 27, 2012, 12:32:15 PM5/27/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
We know the world is nuts. That is a give. The green peace soup has to due with current flow. Floating pollution. Will always show up in the same spots .. why don't they send ships out there to pick it up and recycle it. Oh I forgot that is not dramatic enough and it would not put enough good in their pocket. And fortune telling tells you how and when to do it.
Allan
archytas
May 27, 2012, 9:38:38 PM5/27/12
to "Minds Eye"
My guess is a modern morality would be ontologically relativist and
epistemologically/methodologically realist/empiricist - these terms
don't matter. The first element is about being able to state the way
the world is without fear or favour and the second investigate whether
your view is backed up with evidence. But the real issues concern why
we aren't allowed to do either and how this has come about when so
many believe they are free.
On May 27, 5:32 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know the world is nuts. That is a give. The green peace soup has to due
> with current flow. Floating pollution. Will always show up in the same
> spots .. why don't they send ships out there to pick it up and recycle it.
> Oh I forgot that is not dramatic enough and it would not put enough good in
> their pocket. And fortune telling tells you how and when to do it.
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »
epistemologically/methodologically realist/empiricist - these terms
don't matter. The first element is about being able to state the way
the world is without fear or favour and the second investigate whether
your view is backed up with evidence. But the real issues concern why
we aren't allowed to do either and how this has come about when so
many believe they are free.
On May 27, 5:32 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know the world is nuts. That is a give. The green peace soup has to due
> with current flow. Floating pollution. Will always show up in the same
> spots .. why don't they send ships out there to pick it up and recycle it.
> Oh I forgot that is not dramatic enough and it would not put enough good in
> their pocket. And fortune telling tells you how and when to do it.
> Allan
>
> read more »
Allan H
May 28, 2012, 2:26:53 AM5/28/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Personally I think it is because we live lemming lifestyles. We have leadership that is so bad that they are afraid if they are ever found out they would end up in prison.
It is far easier to control people with fear than with truth, part of the problem is if the truth is known all of us would have to change our life styles. T was reading the Prophet yesterday and it was saying we are even responsible for what we do not do.. which is true.. because we have not stood up and said NO. Most of the political leadership had read
that book at one time or another.
It is very difficult to be the lone voice crying in the desert with no name.
Allan
Allan H
May 28, 2012, 4:22:17 AM5/28/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Neil I was just reading the Prophet chapter 14 deals with freedom. For those that do not have the book it can be downloaded free from Gutenberg press.
Allan
On May 28, 2012 3:38 AM, "archytas" <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote:
gabbydott
May 28, 2012, 5:16:57 AM5/28/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
What if we agreed to take life as our referential hymn sheet? If we separated truth from God to set free God as a projection marker with the values individual potential + over individual x? Would we then be able to not have to dissuade the other of their truth? Would that help?
Lee Douglas
May 28, 2012, 6:05:36 AM5/28/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Wow so many views, from i-ching to ontologically relativist and pistemologically/methodologically realist/empiricist morality.
Which kinda empthasis my original view. Morality is wholey subjective, and herein lies the problem.
It's a cirlce and a hard one to brake out of. Individual freedoms must be maintained in the interests of fairness and equality. What happens though when a minority or indeed the majority do not agree with those individual choices? Should we enact a benign dictatorship, what has history showed us about this?
All in all it's a sticky one, it means I think a fundemental change in humanity, so a slow thing, and it will most probably boil down to that old education malrky. Teaching our kids crititcal thinking might be the first item on the agenda, and then of course how to ensure that they teach their kids the same, and so on for a few generations?
On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
science.
You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response.
The book's topic is climate change.
Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a world-weary old
fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our attitude
towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this latter factor
that is repeating itself.
Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in old fables
for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'. The
modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on. We have
failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
We are still at war.
Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
agriculture. We could have a great deal more through doing less and
doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we won't take
responsibility for this and review our failures. I believe this
failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
farce. The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
consider living with a scientific world-view. The implications of
this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name. We
need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
James
May 28, 2012, 11:04:50 PM5/28/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
"Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4." I read a short bit on
Wittgenstein at Wikipedia.org and Stanford.edu, I think you are onto
something.
Often I find that there is too much to say on many things, we build
walls to protect what connects with us intimately, we become accustomed
to a hostile world, the walls of security become a prison of self
censorship. It is intimate connections that challenge the state of
affairs (isolation).
The primal unconscious has no choice in what it sees, I think the
formative individual and groups have that in common. We are just now in
a cultural infancy that will teach us basic vocabulary for speaking with
one voice, I think. Scientists have known this for some time, and
scorned the people's lack of depth perception, and the potician's
preference for bubbles, walled gardens and petty feuds. Too ignorant and
arrogant to recognize the next stone axe.
>>>>>> threaten hundreds of millions of lives in some remote time and place �
>> read more �
Wittgenstein at Wikipedia.org and Stanford.edu, I think you are onto
something.
Often I find that there is too much to say on many things, we build
walls to protect what connects with us intimately, we become accustomed
to a hostile world, the walls of security become a prison of self
censorship. It is intimate connections that challenge the state of
affairs (isolation).
The primal unconscious has no choice in what it sees, I think the
formative individual and groups have that in common. We are just now in
a cultural infancy that will teach us basic vocabulary for speaking with
one voice, I think. Scientists have known this for some time, and
scorned the people's lack of depth perception, and the potician's
preference for bubbles, walled gardens and petty feuds. Too ignorant and
arrogant to recognize the next stone axe.
>>>>>> the uncertainty only adding to the sublime awfulness of our
>>>>>> responsibilities. Contrary to Gardiner�s concerns about moral
Allan H
May 29, 2012, 2:28:04 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Me I only like to read it every day,, gives me something to think about. Really as for morality.. people need to open their eyes and follow the original law.. Do No Harm.. but people want to argue about what is harm so they can create laws just so they can break them.
Allan
Lee Douglas
May 29, 2012, 6:03:25 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though innit?
gabbydott
May 29, 2012, 6:37:08 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I understand "do no harm" to serve as a friendly response/reminder or added value to the real original law which is "survive".
Molly
May 29, 2012, 6:52:25 AM5/29/12
to "Minds Eye"
or the eternal promise, love.
On May 29, 6:37 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand "do no harm" to serve as a friendly response/reminder or added
> value to the real original law which is "survive".
>
On May 29, 6:37 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand "do no harm" to serve as a friendly response/reminder or added
> value to the real original law which is "survive".
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though innit?
>
> > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
> >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
> >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> >> science.
>
> >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though innit?
>
> > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
> >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
> >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> >> science.
>
> >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
rigsy03
May 29, 2012, 6:59:30 AM5/29/12
to "Minds Eye"
Or try not to make matters worse- whether physician or not. There's an
old line about surgeons burying their mistakes.
> > >> 5000 years' as a read here.- Hide quoted text -
old line about surgeons burying their mistakes.
rigsy03
May 29, 2012, 7:10:06 AM5/29/12
to "Minds Eye"
Yes- they can send a Rainbow Warrior out to scoop it up for
fertilizer? It's tempting to kill the messenger, I suppose.//My point
about the computer/I Ching was that you are designating a machine to
make the choices so I wonder if your readings are valid. Computers
have screwed up international trade systems, I feel- human
intelligence cannot compete with their speed, for one thing, plus it
relieves brokers of moral decisions.//Fortune telling is a form of
wishful thinking=a form of insanity.
On May 27, 11:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know the world is nuts. That is a give. The green peace soup has to due
> with current flow. Floating pollution. Will always show up in the same
> spots .. why don't they send ships out there to pick it up and recycle it.
> Oh I forgot that is not dramatic enough and it would not put enough good in
> their pocket. And fortune telling tells you how and when to do it.
> Allan
fertilizer? It's tempting to kill the messenger, I suppose.//My point
about the computer/I Ching was that you are designating a machine to
make the choices so I wonder if your readings are valid. Computers
have screwed up international trade systems, I feel- human
intelligence cannot compete with their speed, for one thing, plus it
relieves brokers of moral decisions.//Fortune telling is a form of
wishful thinking=a form of insanity.
On May 27, 11:32 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know the world is nuts. That is a give. The green peace soup has to due
> with current flow. Floating pollution. Will always show up in the same
> spots .. why don't they send ships out there to pick it up and recycle it.
> Oh I forgot that is not dramatic enough and it would not put enough good in
> their pocket. And fortune telling tells you how and when to do it.
> Allan
Allan H
May 29, 2012, 9:33:23 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline that is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use what you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it, the questions should be if you are a family of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or eliminate employment so you can have a fatter salary.
The real problem is understanding just what is causing harm.. the solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It seems most laws today are written to allow people to get around this very law.
Allan
Lee Douglas
May 29, 2012, 9:44:47 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Well understand what causes harm is part of the issue I mean.
Is harmfull or helpfull, for example, to engae in debate until a persons cognative disononace on a given subject is gone?
Allan H
May 29, 2012, 9:59:51 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
No rigs i was thinking the rainbow warrior should scoop it up for material to make cars or at least parts for cars.
Computers lack all morality... there is no hell for computers.. just the programmers that write these immoral programs .. but there is also the problem of using the system also approves of the system.. so if you use the system you are part of the system that allows it to function.
Well if people that use the the computerised IChing o make decisions for them ,,, well if you are that afraid of life and can not take responsibility ,, (lol) have at it.. Personally letting the computer select the segments of the I Ching I read to day has nothing to do with decisions an I am amazed at the morality it tries to impart. Trying to get away from being stuck in he same old , same old rut
Allan
Allan H
May 29, 2012, 10:09:18 AM5/29/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I agree with you Lee we need to be totally aware of the harm we are causing .. including the legislators and the Harm they are doing when they pass laws that benefit only a few.. especially those that are at the expenses of the common citizen
Romey should be asked if he ever supported and voted to pass any tax bill that benefited him or his family more than it benefitted 90% of the taxpayers.
Allan
rigsy03
May 30, 2012, 6:29:16 AM5/30/12
to "Minds Eye"
I like to tease you, Allan. :-)
Ruts are sometimes the incipient phase before a new turn but they can
be uncomfortable/boring and need a push or a jolt.
On May 29, 8:59 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No rigs i was thinking the rainbow warrior should scoop it up for material
> to make cars or at least parts for cars.
>
> Computers lack all morality... there is no hell for computers.. just the
> programmers that write these immoral programs .. but there is also the
> problem of using the system also approves of the system.. so if you use
> the system you are part of the system that allows it to function.
>
> Well if people that use the the computerised IChing o make decisions for
> them ,,, well if you are that afraid of life and can not take
> responsibility ,, (lol) have at it.. Personally letting the computer
> select the segments of the I Ching I read to day has nothing to do with
> decisions an I am amazed at the morality it tries to impart. Trying to get
> away from being stuck in he same old , same old rut
> Allan
Ruts are sometimes the incipient phase before a new turn but they can
be uncomfortable/boring and need a push or a jolt.
On May 29, 8:59 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No rigs i was thinking the rainbow warrior should scoop it up for material
> to make cars or at least parts for cars.
>
> Computers lack all morality... there is no hell for computers.. just the
> programmers that write these immoral programs .. but there is also the
> problem of using the system also approves of the system.. so if you use
> the system you are part of the system that allows it to function.
>
> Well if people that use the the computerised IChing o make decisions for
> them ,,, well if you are that afraid of life and can not take
> responsibility ,, (lol) have at it.. Personally letting the computer
> select the segments of the I Ching I read to day has nothing to do with
> decisions an I am amazed at the morality it tries to impart. Trying to get
> away from being stuck in he same old , same old rut
> Allan
Allan H
May 30, 2012, 8:33:47 AM5/30/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
No problem Rigsy I am to slow to catch most of them anyway..
Allan--
(
Allan
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
malcymo
May 30, 2012, 12:03:04 PM5/30/12
to "Minds Eye"
That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes beyond our
capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
and be absolutly sure that a particular stance is doing the least
harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
handling the dilema.
Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try to
act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions are
right.
On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline that
> is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like
> killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use what
> you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it, the questions should be
> if you are a family of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of
> others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by
> slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or eliminate
> employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> The real problem is understanding just what is causing harm.. the
> solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It
> seems most laws today are written to allow people to get around this very
> law.
> Allan
capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
and be absolutly sure that a particular stance is doing the least
harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
handling the dilema.
Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try to
act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions are
right.
On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline that
> is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like
> killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use what
> you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it, the questions should be
> if you are a family of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of
> others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by
> slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or eliminate
> employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> The real problem is understanding just what is causing harm.. the
> solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It
> seems most laws today are written to allow people to get around this very
> law.
> Allan
> On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though innit?
>
> > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
> >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
> >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> >> science.
>
> >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
>
>
>
> > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though innit?
>
> > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and business
> >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only lay people
> >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> >> science.
>
> >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> >> rational-response<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
Allan H
May 30, 2012, 12:14:09 PM5/30/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and take responsibility for them.. It seems that the people start writing laws they are trying to figure out how to get around the concept thus trying to avoid responsibility.
Allan
archytas
May 30, 2012, 1:53:49 PM5/30/12
to "Minds Eye"
My rather lengthy response has just blown up! My view is the world is
a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
change anything. This is easy enough to say. The conundrum is we do
know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
Lyotard-Habermas debates. Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
wanted, one must act on what is left. How do we know this isn't just
a rationalist fantasy? Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
could be. He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
situation where only the power of Reason was in play. The key problem
with this is there are no rational humans. Habermas knew this - hence
the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber). Once you know the
rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
equations with two solutions). This itself may be no more than
'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
just a more dangerous animal than others. The question for me is how
we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
cheat and exploit. We have a world in which much we think of as human
rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
tragedy of the Commons writ large. Who amongst us really wants to
deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist? Yet
which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
early death? These matters look unanswerable in our current
morality. Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.). I would
not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
broader lack of breeding in my own country. What of those people who
think procreation is work done for god?
My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic. I'll try
and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
morality later (Lee's suggestion). We could all do this - not to come
up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
what would need to change to make them possibilities.
a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
change anything. This is easy enough to say. The conundrum is we do
know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
Lyotard-Habermas debates. Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
wanted, one must act on what is left. How do we know this isn't just
a rationalist fantasy? Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
could be. He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
situation where only the power of Reason was in play. The key problem
with this is there are no rational humans. Habermas knew this - hence
the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber). Once you know the
rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
equations with two solutions). This itself may be no more than
'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
just a more dangerous animal than others. The question for me is how
we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
cheat and exploit. We have a world in which much we think of as human
rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
tragedy of the Commons writ large. Who amongst us really wants to
deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist? Yet
which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
early death? These matters look unanswerable in our current
morality. Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.). I would
not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
broader lack of breeding in my own country. What of those people who
think procreation is work done for god?
My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic. I'll try
and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
morality later (Lee's suggestion). We could all do this - not to come
up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
what would need to change to make them possibilities.
Allan H
May 30, 2012, 3:12:47 PM5/30/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I agree with you Neil we are not addressing the problems that really need to address or passing law to skirt the basic law of do no harm. These laws are nothing more than an attempt to justify immoral acts.
I do not know how to explain judgement when it involves re-birth into the spiritual realm of our true existence. This judgment is done by yourself and where you evaluate just how well you did excuses will not work. Shame of yourself can be a total hell.
Allan
rigsy03
May 31, 2012, 8:29:58 AM5/31/12
to "Minds Eye"
Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
"figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
"figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
Allan H
May 31, 2012, 5:43:04 PM5/31/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do you view it.
Allan
James
May 31, 2012, 6:26:41 PM5/31/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> you view it.
I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> you view it.
professional life to consider what effects their actions or inactions
will have on those effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual
dilemmas that arise. A kind of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a
personal code like this. Some take an oath to preserve the trust
imparted by power and station, I think it should be expanded quite a
bit! The bar is set too low.
On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand
'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
> <mailto:rig...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
> "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
> diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
> trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
> earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
> life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
> survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
> you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
> find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
>
> On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
>
> Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
> "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
> diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
> trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
> earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
> life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
> survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
> you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
> find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
>
> On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
malcymo
May 31, 2012, 6:44:14 PM5/31/12
to "Minds Eye"
I have had time to read the last few post and found myself interested
in this string. I returned to the original post and am wading through
the ideas on the various links. To me, this is a very complex issue.
Utopia does not come easy. Arcytas's idea of attempting to put
forward an idea of what a world would be like based on modern morality
is compelling. I will be interested to see what comes of it.
On a simpler note I like the idea of "least harm" linked to
responsibility for actions. Very often the best of our intentions kick
us in the teeth but accepting the responsibility is crutial and often
leads to a growth experience.
Heaven knows how such moral stances could be integrated into society
in any formal way. I would welcome any pointers to precedents.
On Jun 1, 9:43 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what wrote
> I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live their life.
> My experience is when people start to justify there is something not quite
> right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do you
> view it.
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »
in this string. I returned to the original post and am wading through
the ideas on the various links. To me, this is a very complex issue.
Utopia does not come easy. Arcytas's idea of attempting to put
forward an idea of what a world would be like based on modern morality
is compelling. I will be interested to see what comes of it.
On a simpler note I like the idea of "least harm" linked to
responsibility for actions. Very often the best of our intentions kick
us in the teeth but accepting the responsibility is crutial and often
leads to a growth experience.
Heaven knows how such moral stances could be integrated into society
in any formal way. I would welcome any pointers to precedents.
On Jun 1, 9:43 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what wrote
> I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live their life.
> My experience is when people start to justify there is something not quite
> right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do you
> view it.
> Allan
>
> read more »
Vam
Jun 1, 2012, 1:06:42 AM6/1/12
to "Minds Eye"
" world peace " and " world based on modern morality " ...
Any formal morality would have to bring in the police and justice
system, not unlike what we already have. There too many variables to
prevent violations and transgressions... one's environment and
upbringing, which can have "values" or cases unrecognisably different
within each; country to country, community and societal, differences;
mental and spiritual weaknesses from individual to individual; etc.
Strictly speaking, the route to enforcing uniformity in such variety
or diversity will always tend to fascist structure. The grand vision
will only be willingly internalised by one, at most by few.
And I have the impression that more people talk of world peace, the
more wars they bring upon us.
The informal morality is different... being specific to the individual
and much like clarifying one's own intent and guiding one's own action
to 1) respecting diversity and life everywhere enough to contribute or
do no harm to the potential of each attaining their own fullness 2)
believing, instituting, simple and well known universal values as may
be found in French constitution or are included in Declaration of
Human Rights 3) accord with agreed global programs to prevent hunger,
limit population, promote and provide basic sanitation and drinking
water needs, food growth, education, democratic ways, livelihood, etc.
Whatever "modern" morality may be... it may be educative but not
enforceable without structures to oversee, prevent and punish
transgression.
Any formal morality would have to bring in the police and justice
system, not unlike what we already have. There too many variables to
prevent violations and transgressions... one's environment and
upbringing, which can have "values" or cases unrecognisably different
within each; country to country, community and societal, differences;
mental and spiritual weaknesses from individual to individual; etc.
Strictly speaking, the route to enforcing uniformity in such variety
or diversity will always tend to fascist structure. The grand vision
will only be willingly internalised by one, at most by few.
And I have the impression that more people talk of world peace, the
more wars they bring upon us.
The informal morality is different... being specific to the individual
and much like clarifying one's own intent and guiding one's own action
to 1) respecting diversity and life everywhere enough to contribute or
do no harm to the potential of each attaining their own fullness 2)
believing, instituting, simple and well known universal values as may
be found in French constitution or are included in Declaration of
Human Rights 3) accord with agreed global programs to prevent hunger,
limit population, promote and provide basic sanitation and drinking
water needs, food growth, education, democratic ways, livelihood, etc.
Whatever "modern" morality may be... it may be educative but not
enforceable without structures to oversee, prevent and punish
transgression.
Allan H
Jun 1, 2012, 1:58:01 AM6/1/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If you look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?
malcymo
Jun 1, 2012, 7:18:50 AM6/1/12
to "Minds Eye"
I am currently living in a small pacific group of islands. There is a
central government but many of the islands have no formal policing.
So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by the
village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
The great advantage they have over a large country with all embracing
laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They can
assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense that
they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
individuals because there is neither the money nor the time available
to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe and 31
mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but it
does seem to lead to less accidents.
It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions as
far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself, however,
is difficult because different societies have different views
regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society would
consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here which
confounds me.
I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you guys
can come up with some useful ideas.
On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if
> people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
>
> If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If you
> look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?
> >> <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.**com<leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
>
> read more »
central government but many of the islands have no formal policing.
So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by the
village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
The great advantage they have over a large country with all embracing
laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They can
assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense that
they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
individuals because there is neither the money nor the time available
to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe and 31
mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but it
does seem to lead to less accidents.
It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions as
far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself, however,
is difficult because different societies have different views
regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society would
consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here which
confounds me.
I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you guys
can come up with some useful ideas.
On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if
> people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
>
> If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If you
> look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?
> On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> >> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> >> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> >> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> >> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> >> you view it.
>
> > I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and professional
> > life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will have on those
> > effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that arise. A kind
> > of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like this. Some
> > take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and station, I think
> > it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.
>
> > On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand
> > 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
>
> > Allan
>
> >> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> > On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> >> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> >> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> >> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> >> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> >> you view it.
>
> > I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and professional
> > life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will have on those
> > effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that arise. A kind
> > of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like this. Some
> > take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and station, I think
> > it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.
>
> > On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand
> > 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
>
> > Allan
>
>
> >> > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live
> >> by though
> >> > > > innit?
>
> >> > > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity,
> >> yet I'm a
> >> > > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our
> >> lack of personal
> >> > > > > >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and
> >> business
> >> > > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a
> >> scientific world-
> >> > > > > >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values
> >> and the notion
> >> > > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only
> >> lay people
> >> > > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the
> >> "value-free" notion of
> >> > > > > >> science.
>
> >> > > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in
>
> ...
> >> > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live
> >> by though
> >> > > > innit?
>
> >> > > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity,
> >> yet I'm a
> >> > > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our
> >> lack of personal
> >> > > > > >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and
> >> business
> >> > > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a
> >> scientific world-
> >> > > > > >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values
> >> and the notion
> >> > > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only
> >> lay people
> >> > > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the
> >> "value-free" notion of
> >> > > > > >> science.
>
> >> > > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in
>
>
> read more »
Allan H
Jun 1, 2012, 1:49:06 PM6/1/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
Allan
malcymo
Jun 1, 2012, 3:29:48 PM6/1/12
to "Minds Eye"
Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
by our greed.
On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our
> society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »
by our greed.
On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our
> society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> Allan
>
> read more »
Allan H
Jun 1, 2012, 3:32:41 PM6/1/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I know
Allan
James
Jun 2, 2012, 7:21:53 AM6/2/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
..and could it be that all of it it so simple, that we are blind to our
predicament trying to avoid and remove the feeling of being small and
insignificant. Small communities, could it be the natural result of our
societies?
But we do still see people behaving authentically, we are a persistent
bunch after all.
On 6/1/2012 3:32 PM, Allan H wrote:
> I know
> Allan
>
> On Jun 1, 2012 9:29 PM, "malcymo" <mal...@gmail.com
> > > > >> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com
> > read more �
>
predicament trying to avoid and remove the feeling of being small and
insignificant. Small communities, could it be the natural result of our
societies?
But we do still see people behaving authentically, we are a persistent
bunch after all.
On 6/1/2012 3:32 PM, Allan H wrote:
> I know
> Allan
>
> On Jun 1, 2012 9:29 PM, "malcymo" <mal...@gmail.com
> <mailto:mal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> by our greed.
>
> On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
>
> Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> by our greed.
>
> On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all
> of us. Our
> > society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> > Allan
> > On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com
> > Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all
> of us. Our
> > society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> > Allan
> > On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help
> but wonder if
> > > > people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
> >
> > > > If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any
> value? If
> > > you
> > > > look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the
> morality going?
> > > > On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com
> > > > Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help
> but wonder if
> > > > people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
> >
> > > > If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any
> value? If
> > > you
> > > > look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the
> morality going?
> > > > On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> > > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your
> > > actions and
> > > > >> > > take responsibility for them.. It seems that the
> people start
> > > > >> writing laws
> > > > >> > > they are trying to figure out how to get around the
> concept
> > > > >> thus trying
> > > > >> > > to avoid responsibility.
> > > > >> > > Allan
> >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo
> <malc...@gmail.com <mailto:malc...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > > >> > > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your
> > > actions and
> > > > >> > > take responsibility for them.. It seems that the
> people start
> > > > >> writing laws
> > > > >> > > they are trying to figure out how to get around the
> concept
> > > > >> thus trying
> > > > >> > > to avoid responsibility.
> > > > >> > > Allan
> >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo
> <malc...@gmail.com <mailto:malc...@gmail.com>
>
Allan H
Jun 2, 2012, 11:35:31 AM6/2/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Oddly I do think the answer lies in smaller groups working together for the benefit of the community as a whole. They use to be called communes I believe. I am not sure if anyone has ever written guidelines for creating a commune.
Now I am sure I just made a fool of myself.
Allan
> read more »
Vam
Jun 2, 2012, 12:00:02 PM6/2/12
to "Minds Eye"
What would you call a man who has mortgaged / taken a loan against his
future earnings... ?
The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
state of greater slavery...
What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
own agendas to make a call ... ?
The bugger is no position to refuse.
What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?
They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
kids, estate...
> ...
>
> read more »
future earnings... ?
The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
state of greater slavery...
What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
own agendas to make a call ... ?
The bugger is no position to refuse.
What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?
They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
kids, estate...
>
> read more »
Allan H
Jun 2, 2012, 2:05:10 PM6/2/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
A slave. all the different groups are slaves for different reason but slaves none the less but it seems small communities working together. That has to be one of the possible answers.
Allan
malcymo
Jun 2, 2012, 6:09:11 PM6/2/12
to "Minds Eye"
Hey Vam,
Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler. Credit has more to answer for
than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?
Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
food and shelter, I guess. What fucks our brains is when we realise
that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
there.
As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
the associated crime is my present stance.
There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
denying the existence of opportunities to grow.
> ...
>
> read more »
Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler. Credit has more to answer for
than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?
Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
food and shelter, I guess. What fucks our brains is when we realise
that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
there.
As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
the associated crime is my present stance.
There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
denying the existence of opportunities to grow.
>
> read more »
malcymo
Jun 2, 2012, 6:16:56 PM6/2/12
to "Minds Eye"
Allan, you have definitely NOT made a fool of yourself. It seems a
sensible approach but it would present a logistic nightmare, at
present, I think.
The internet might well be the start of real grassroot democracy if we
can perhaps learn to exploit it.
I have thsi vague picture of small referendums attaching to larger
referendums until we have a world view on things that need a world
view. I have this vision of town councils asking the people what they
consider to be the most pressing local issues by way of the net. Then
doing the same to get the most popular solutions to that need etc.
etc. etc. Have our leaders the guts to relinquish theie power trips?
On Jun 3, 3:35 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oddly I do think the answer lies in smaller groups working together for the
> benefit of the community as a whole. They use to be called communes I
> believe. I am not sure if anyone has ever written guidelines for creating a
> commune.
> Now I am sure I just made a fool of myself.
> Allan
> ...
>
> read more »
sensible approach but it would present a logistic nightmare, at
present, I think.
The internet might well be the start of real grassroot democracy if we
can perhaps learn to exploit it.
I have thsi vague picture of small referendums attaching to larger
referendums until we have a world view on things that need a world
view. I have this vision of town councils asking the people what they
consider to be the most pressing local issues by way of the net. Then
doing the same to get the most popular solutions to that need etc.
etc. etc. Have our leaders the guts to relinquish theie power trips?
On Jun 3, 3:35 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oddly I do think the answer lies in smaller groups working together for the
> benefit of the community as a whole. They use to be called communes I
> believe. I am not sure if anyone has ever written guidelines for creating a
> commune.
> Now I am sure I just made a fool of myself.
> Allan
> On Jun 2, 2012 1:21 PM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ..and could it be that all of it it so simple, that we are blind to our
> > predicament trying to avoid and remove the feeling of being small and
> > insignificant. Small communities, could it be the natural result of our
> > societies?
>
> > But we do still see people behaving authentically, we are a persistent
> > bunch after all.
>
> > On 6/1/2012 3:32 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> I know
> >> Allan
>
> >> On Jun 1, 2012 9:29 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > ..and could it be that all of it it so simple, that we are blind to our
> > predicament trying to avoid and remove the feeling of being small and
> > insignificant. Small communities, could it be the natural result of our
> > societies?
>
> > But we do still see people behaving authentically, we are a persistent
> > bunch after all.
>
> > On 6/1/2012 3:32 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> >> I know
> >> Allan
>
>
> read more »
archytas
Jun 2, 2012, 6:22:54 PM6/2/12
to "Minds Eye"
Much I agree with Mal. There's no problem with doing our bit but how
do we know how much that should be or whether we need all the
economics and other Mumbo Jumbo of the control system?
> ...
>
> read more »
do we know how much that should be or whether we need all the
economics and other Mumbo Jumbo of the control system?
>
> read more »
Vam
Jun 3, 2012, 12:29:16 AM6/3/12
to "Minds Eye"
Slavery since antiquity... eh. Yes, the hope is then that there are
societies that would have experienced it over the millennia, duly
noticed it, would experimented and succeeded at evolving a solution of
some kind... before stumbling back to similar chaos.
Distribution is definitely a primary issue which, contrary to what
people jump to, is above all about societal values, even before
investing in institutions and processes.
But, equally important is the creation or production process, which
need to have the required freedoms and a measure of empowerment. This
again must start off at societal values, as Preamble to defining what
those freedoms would be, within the agreed societal values.
The law would not be an ass, if all laws are derived from values. The
values need to be defined in simple, unequivocal form, with adequate
reinforcing stories and metaphors for people to relate to and
recount... not science and art, please ! Should that happen, the
values... there would little work for lawyers and no scope for
subjectivity, without it becoming clear that the societal values are
being changed !
One glaring, overarching matter is the economic model. This More >
More >>> Sky Is The Limit value to both Growth, market expansion !,
and Profit, ROI - Dividend - Compensation ... is too stupid, from the
values perspective we've broached.
An almost exact solution is in the concept of overgrowing...
knowledge, attitude, skill, career position, social status,
entrepreneurship, corporate values ... as in evolving out of one and
entering into quite, quite another, of new paradigms.
Naturally, it takes several centuries, thousand years would be in good
proportion, to steer the changes and establish such a society. Which,
very sincerely, Europe and American civilisations of today simply do
not have. To my mind, any one with a perspective rooted in them would
be the proverbial blind, leading the blind. Maybe Incas, North
Indians ... that are wiped out.
Our current global values system abhors communes and communities. The
reason is that we have little of the language, markets, economy,
judiciary, culture, environmental distinctions that foster and bind
communes and communities.
I know the Islamic ones are very, very very, poor examples but they
also provide opportunities to elucidate. In them, at least the more
regressive ones, the religious values are pretty much the societal
values. They live as a community with their language, customs,
culture, symbols, common sense of justice... However distasteful, the
society we are speaking of needs to have such social integration with
desired values.
Sorry, apparently, I wrote all this for my blog !
> ...
>
> read more »
societies that would have experienced it over the millennia, duly
noticed it, would experimented and succeeded at evolving a solution of
some kind... before stumbling back to similar chaos.
Distribution is definitely a primary issue which, contrary to what
people jump to, is above all about societal values, even before
investing in institutions and processes.
But, equally important is the creation or production process, which
need to have the required freedoms and a measure of empowerment. This
again must start off at societal values, as Preamble to defining what
those freedoms would be, within the agreed societal values.
The law would not be an ass, if all laws are derived from values. The
values need to be defined in simple, unequivocal form, with adequate
reinforcing stories and metaphors for people to relate to and
recount... not science and art, please ! Should that happen, the
values... there would little work for lawyers and no scope for
subjectivity, without it becoming clear that the societal values are
being changed !
One glaring, overarching matter is the economic model. This More >
More >>> Sky Is The Limit value to both Growth, market expansion !,
and Profit, ROI - Dividend - Compensation ... is too stupid, from the
values perspective we've broached.
An almost exact solution is in the concept of overgrowing...
knowledge, attitude, skill, career position, social status,
entrepreneurship, corporate values ... as in evolving out of one and
entering into quite, quite another, of new paradigms.
Naturally, it takes several centuries, thousand years would be in good
proportion, to steer the changes and establish such a society. Which,
very sincerely, Europe and American civilisations of today simply do
not have. To my mind, any one with a perspective rooted in them would
be the proverbial blind, leading the blind. Maybe Incas, North
Indians ... that are wiped out.
Our current global values system abhors communes and communities. The
reason is that we have little of the language, markets, economy,
judiciary, culture, environmental distinctions that foster and bind
communes and communities.
I know the Islamic ones are very, very very, poor examples but they
also provide opportunities to elucidate. In them, at least the more
regressive ones, the religious values are pretty much the societal
values. They live as a community with their language, customs,
culture, symbols, common sense of justice... However distasteful, the
society we are speaking of needs to have such social integration with
desired values.
Sorry, apparently, I wrote all this for my blog !
>
> read more »
Allan H
Jun 3, 2012, 3:50:41 AM6/3/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I no longer live in the vs thief favorite way of get bad bills and tax cuts for roch is through is attaching them to needed legislating. They need either a line item veto or a requirement that no sdmendments can be added.
Right now they practice slim ball legislation.
Allan
gabbydott
Jun 3, 2012, 1:07:11 PM6/3/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
So much for the One and the Many advocats (sic!) - a very, very, very poor example though.
No, Vam, it's good to have laws and to have values. By law I have rights, whether you like it or not. Your values might not correspond with my rights, but they have been fought for by mightier men and women than you and me. And there is societal values that I like and some that I don't like. The law has no right and no power to take away that freedom from me. This is good.
Allan H
Jun 3, 2012, 4:11:40 PM6/3/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
My question keeps coming back to guidelines. When I looked up the idea on the internet with little luck. Bit I thinks guidelines become a need of great value. Sadly I found nothing
Allan
On Jun 3, 2012 12:16 AM, "malcymo" <mal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vam
Jun 3, 2012, 7:42:41 PM6/3/12
to "Minds Eye"
Just re-read... the word "overgrowing" needs to be read as
"outgrowing" ...
> ...
>
> read more »
"outgrowing" ...
>
> read more »
archytas
Jun 3, 2012, 10:39:28 PM6/3/12
to "Minds Eye"
What I really mean by 'modern morality' is more guesswork - imagine we
invent a bullshit meter. When politics or other salespeople ply their
scripts they are drowned out by the meter's bell. The meter would
eventually make honesty the best policy - or someone who produced
another machine that countered the bs meter invisibly very rich. A
modern morality would come after we become modern. I contend there
had been no modernity and believe the main reason for this is our
populations are broadly ineducable in science (at least as currently
taught) and where there is universal education it is broadly the means
to keep us living in non-modern traditions.
Science has blasted holes in all religions as fables - but is yet to
take on economics and democracy as such - in my view the control fraud
has moved from churches, mosques and temples to free market economics
in claims this muck is scientific or technocratic when it is fable.
What are the moral implications, say, if science could demonstrate
very little banking is skilled and a few robots could give the world
what it needs in terms of financial services?
> ...
>
> read more »
invent a bullshit meter. When politics or other salespeople ply their
scripts they are drowned out by the meter's bell. The meter would
eventually make honesty the best policy - or someone who produced
another machine that countered the bs meter invisibly very rich. A
modern morality would come after we become modern. I contend there
had been no modernity and believe the main reason for this is our
populations are broadly ineducable in science (at least as currently
taught) and where there is universal education it is broadly the means
to keep us living in non-modern traditions.
Science has blasted holes in all religions as fables - but is yet to
take on economics and democracy as such - in my view the control fraud
has moved from churches, mosques and temples to free market economics
in claims this muck is scientific or technocratic when it is fable.
What are the moral implications, say, if science could demonstrate
very little banking is skilled and a few robots could give the world
what it needs in terms of financial services?
>
> read more »
Vam
Jun 4, 2012, 4:00:22 AM6/4/12
to "Minds Eye"
I feel the real issues did not connect, Neil.
So, here's it in plain text :
People believe what THEY want to believe...
not what science says.
Call them modern, post modern... whatever.
In fact, I find all such divides as polemic and fake.
It makes no difference, for instance, to Christianity even if it is
established, as has indeed been done, that Jesus is fiction. For the
anchors at the helm, there's too much money and power in it. And the
people... they need it.
All politicians, economists, dictators, wealth advisors, fund
managers, shares brokers, religious heads, bureaucrats, leaders...
will tell you in private that there are very few people who will or
can think for themselves.
Surprisingly, despite it all, I would argue that many people do lead
moral and ethically aligned lives, with consequent difficulties and
much forbearance. They are simple, honest, creative, respectful
towards others and the environment, and having ready access to
happiness through sheer choice.
That's real, without terminological embellishment.
> ...
>
> read more »
So, here's it in plain text :
People believe what THEY want to believe...
not what science says.
Call them modern, post modern... whatever.
In fact, I find all such divides as polemic and fake.
It makes no difference, for instance, to Christianity even if it is
established, as has indeed been done, that Jesus is fiction. For the
anchors at the helm, there's too much money and power in it. And the
people... they need it.
All politicians, economists, dictators, wealth advisors, fund
managers, shares brokers, religious heads, bureaucrats, leaders...
will tell you in private that there are very few people who will or
can think for themselves.
Surprisingly, despite it all, I would argue that many people do lead
moral and ethically aligned lives, with consequent difficulties and
much forbearance. They are simple, honest, creative, respectful
towards others and the environment, and having ready access to
happiness through sheer choice.
That's real, without terminological embellishment.
>
> read more »
James
Jun 4, 2012, 8:35:13 AM6/4/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Not adding much right now, I seem to always be in such a hurry.. losing
weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
gotta go, sorry for no link. :-/
>> read more �
weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
gotta go, sorry for no link. :-/
archytas
Jun 4, 2012, 6:35:36 PM6/4/12
to "Minds Eye"
I doubt the individual as the centre for morality, even if I am
sometimes swooned by the existential hero, the individual making a
difference. I guess most of us really don't want to interfere in
others' lives - though I'm trying to convert my grandson from smelly
teenage foul-the-place-upper at the moment. I suspect a truly modern
morality is about a system that makes it very difficult to commit
crimes against others, including the crimes of police and religious
states. This must involve structuring freedom, rather than any simple
ability for us all to be free to do anything we want to. In computer
simulation, cheaters do well at first, but once exposed more
cooperative models follow. My guess is our current world model is
crucially corrupt in terms of being able to expose the cheaters.
On Jun 4, 1:35 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not adding much right now, I seem to always be in such a hurry.. losing
> weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
> of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
> properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
> are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
> doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
> ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
> apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
> gott is cruciallya go, sorry for no link. :-/
> ...
>
> read more »
sometimes swooned by the existential hero, the individual making a
difference. I guess most of us really don't want to interfere in
others' lives - though I'm trying to convert my grandson from smelly
teenage foul-the-place-upper at the moment. I suspect a truly modern
morality is about a system that makes it very difficult to commit
crimes against others, including the crimes of police and religious
states. This must involve structuring freedom, rather than any simple
ability for us all to be free to do anything we want to. In computer
simulation, cheaters do well at first, but once exposed more
cooperative models follow. My guess is our current world model is
crucially corrupt in terms of being able to expose the cheaters.
On Jun 4, 1:35 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not adding much right now, I seem to always be in such a hurry.. losing
> weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
> of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
> properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
> are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
> doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
> ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
> apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
>
> read more »
rigsy03
Jun 5, 2012, 12:32:33 AM6/5/12
to "Minds Eye"
This does not address the desire to improve humanity's lot. I think
Democracy has a confused definition and is too tied up to Capitalism
and private ownership rather than as an intellectual/spiritual mode of
life and that would also include what Freedom really means versus how
it is distorted. No- we are not free to do as we please. So far, no
historical system has been a solution for inequality- even the
cloisters or monasteries- and that's what really bothers many. You
also neglected war which certainly is a crime against Others but there
is a wealth of examples which point out the cupidity and competition
of humans. In fact, it may be that the Individual is best hope to buck
the corrupt systems but the rewards are iffy because the last word
goes to society/the crowd/the market.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Democracy has a confused definition and is too tied up to Capitalism
and private ownership rather than as an intellectual/spiritual mode of
life and that would also include what Freedom really means versus how
it is distorted. No- we are not free to do as we please. So far, no
historical system has been a solution for inequality- even the
cloisters or monasteries- and that's what really bothers many. You
also neglected war which certainly is a crime against Others but there
is a wealth of examples which point out the cupidity and competition
of humans. In fact, it may be that the Individual is best hope to buck
the corrupt systems but the rewards are iffy because the last word
goes to society/the crowd/the market.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
rigsy03
Jun 5, 2012, 12:35:24 AM6/5/12
to "Minds Eye"
I agree except for the guarantee of happiness depending on how you
define it.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
define it.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
rigsy03
Jun 5, 2012, 12:38:04 AM6/5/12
to "Minds Eye"
The Laws/Justice system has incredible power- for good or ill.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Vam
Jun 5, 2012, 11:40:07 AM6/5/12
to "Minds Eye"
Guarantee, Rigs ? In life ? is just imagined...
But you can choose to be happy, even in the face of all that's
difficult and ugly in our own.
That's because there's nothing materially real between happiness and
you.
Only stopper is if one hasn't discovered that as yet.
The one who has, I call him or her... evolved !
> ...
>
> read more »
But you can choose to be happy, even in the face of all that's
difficult and ugly in our own.
That's because there's nothing materially real between happiness and
you.
Only stopper is if one hasn't discovered that as yet.
The one who has, I call him or her... evolved !
>
> read more »
James
Jun 5, 2012, 7:54:26 PM6/5/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Cultural narrative in order to be accurate I think needs semantics built
into the public discourse and as emphasized by a few here (on many
occasions) the uptake into the folk-ways by means of the moral story and
down to earth interpretations. Much of science seems very specialized
knowledge but what is gained by adapting our opinionated thinking into
the tools of science, logic, the arts generates a much broader set of
contexts for the individual to use. No 'golden hammer' (Maslow/Russell),
and the danger of 'necessarily necessary' (to the exclusion of all
else). Counterfactual thinking and reductionism can cooperate I think if
applied well.
..I wrote more below, kinda randomly.
On 6/5/2012 12:32 AM, rigsy03 wrote:
> This does not address the desire to improve humanity's lot. I think
> Democracy has a confused definition and is too tied up to Capitalism
> and private ownership rather than as an intellectual/spiritual mode of
> life and that would also include what Freedom really means versus how
> it is distorted. No- we are not free to do as we please. So far, no
> historical system has been a solution for inequality- even the
> cloisters or monasteries- and that's what really bothers many. You
> also neglected war which certainly is a crime against Others but there
> is a wealth of examples which point out the cupidity and competition
> of humans. In fact, it may be that the Individual is best hope to buck
> the corrupt systems but the rewards are iffy because the last word
> goes to society/the crowd/the market.
For weeks now I've been trying to make time to draft my perspective on
freedom and it covers some modal systems theory such as S5, #4 and onto
biological derivations in culture/gene reciprocity. It's been rough
finding time but many comments are covering the material faster than I
can do both. I had a pleasant surprise the other day when flipping
through Wilson's Consilience (The Unity of Knowledge), in the final
chapter he wrapped up the moral challenges of our times- much like your
first post Neil and others here, none excluded. When the kids get to bed
I just pass out these days. ;-)
into the public discourse and as emphasized by a few here (on many
occasions) the uptake into the folk-ways by means of the moral story and
down to earth interpretations. Much of science seems very specialized
knowledge but what is gained by adapting our opinionated thinking into
the tools of science, logic, the arts generates a much broader set of
contexts for the individual to use. No 'golden hammer' (Maslow/Russell),
and the danger of 'necessarily necessary' (to the exclusion of all
else). Counterfactual thinking and reductionism can cooperate I think if
applied well.
..I wrote more below, kinda randomly.
On 6/5/2012 12:32 AM, rigsy03 wrote:
> This does not address the desire to improve humanity's lot. I think
> Democracy has a confused definition and is too tied up to Capitalism
> and private ownership rather than as an intellectual/spiritual mode of
> life and that would also include what Freedom really means versus how
> it is distorted. No- we are not free to do as we please. So far, no
> historical system has been a solution for inequality- even the
> cloisters or monasteries- and that's what really bothers many. You
> also neglected war which certainly is a crime against Others but there
> is a wealth of examples which point out the cupidity and competition
> of humans. In fact, it may be that the Individual is best hope to buck
> the corrupt systems but the rewards are iffy because the last word
> goes to society/the crowd/the market.
freedom and it covers some modal systems theory such as S5, #4 and onto
biological derivations in culture/gene reciprocity. It's been rough
finding time but many comments are covering the material faster than I
can do both. I had a pleasant surprise the other day when flipping
through Wilson's Consilience (The Unity of Knowledge), in the final
chapter he wrapped up the moral challenges of our times- much like your
first post Neil and others here, none excluded. When the kids get to bed
I just pass out these days. ;-)
Allan H
Jun 6, 2012, 2:09:11 AM6/6/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
I think you are right there. The internet could play major role in improved government on all levels.. Unfortunately the major power people are not going to want that as legislators meeting with the spin of the corporate giants may be exposed as well as the bribes they are paying out.
Transparency is of great importance on all levels.
Including black ops.
Allan
On Jun 3, 2012 12:16 AM, "malcymo" <mal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lee Douglas
Jun 6, 2012, 5:09:55 AM6/6/12
to mind...@googlegroups.com
Meh of course slavery is not our lot at all, we can choose simply to cease striving to live.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages