professor's name but a reference to Tuft's- another university. He was
older and soft spoken- his shirt sleeves had been shortened for some
reason. I got an "A" for the final grade so I must have hooked into
the material and my notes look complete and tidy. The course covered
more than Plato- it was called Greek Thought/Classics Dept.- and I was
taking 3 other courses that quarter. But this simply opened a can of
worms=memory.
So all these years, Plato just sat waiting with a collection of Modern
Library books- so out of sight-out of mind! In the meantime, I had my
hands full with ordinary life plus in Plato's world I would have been
stuck at home. I thought the Greeks preferred young boys and wives
were for breeding- though Pericles seems to have loved Aspasia...
On Sep 1, 5:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You may have been taught without a caste or read Plato through someone
> who liked him rigsy. I even teach Kierkegaard as a Danish humourist.
> I found PLato as despicable as Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' or
> Popper in vol. 1 of The Enemies of the Open Society. There seems no
> reason to regard an elite who can learn at least some of what's hard
> to special privileges, but at the sane time trying to mash the stuff
> into people's heads by academic means seems cruel. I share something
> of Vam's view that a small number in power create a system that causes
> great discomfort and disempowers others (social mice are a good study
> in point). Finland gets a lot of its people to high standards of
> education (one can google the PISA studies) - so there's a lot we
> could do.
> The problem as I see it is that we educate to make people 'successful'
> in a society that has gone wrong instead of to change it. And the
> vast majority can't cope with what we have made this education and I
> now believe this is cruel. I guess what I want to see is a society in
> which people can fit in without a caste system or some equality in
> mediocrity. Democracy isn't it for me - I tend to see it and its
> economics as religious and past sell by date. We need something more
> peaceful that recognises its been the best game in town and its
> faults.
> Education based on making individuals 'moral' or 'virtuous' really has
> to come after structuring social freedom - we have to be brave enough
> to try this. A young American student burst into my office some years
> ago (I don't hold a regular position or teach much now) after a
> business ethics class. He was appalled by the teacher (my ex-boss - a
> jerk) and claimed the lesson was just about teaching excuses for bad
> management behaviour. The ethics teacher was one of the most
> unethical perverts it had been my misfortune to meet. Soon there was
> a queue and I was asked to run an alternative. I'd conclude after 20
> years that much management teaching simply reinforces prejudice and
> the wrong way to do things. I'd sum it up with something research
> methods students with work experience say - 'you don't expect us to do
> any of this at work do you Neil - telling the truth there is like
> writing a resignation letter'. They are soon assured i don't.
>
> My feeling is that much early religion may have been about rebellious
> moral assertion - freedom from indenture. This has been lost and
> maybe we need something like this back. This is probably what I mean
> by something 'more simple' Lee. Teaching (effectively) 'honesty is
> the best policy' seems wrong in a world that doesn't reward honesty -
> even if one does this through difficult concepts. We need a movement
> to make life happier and more decent and then maybe John Rawls would
> make sense. But we can't do it by teaching Rawls. Or by designing
> the life for Plato's few through massive training in which we become
> so moral we deign to share wives, in a manner that rather suggests we
> own them.
>
> On Sep 1, 4:08 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just joining in... with a Wow !
>
> > Much of what Neil deprecates in ineducable human beings is also
> > evident in this very group discussion ... morality, ego, ethics,
> > or read Plato social order / values / effects ... and much talk, many words, wider
> > canvas, saying for the sake of saying, an activity that satisfies ...
> > but really going nowhere, reaching noplace.
>
> > Lee's relative morality is a fact... not the truth. The difference is
> > that facts are truths of the moment and truths are facts for life.
> > Facts can be spotted, by individuals on account of what the moment or
> > one's situation in life means to him, and by the collective on issues
> > which Neil is acutely concerned about. In contrast, truths are only
> > available, if at all, either when one is breathing for the last time
> > or to one who has lived through expelling that "last" breath while
> > still relatively young !
>
> > The founder of Lee's spiritual order has no such " relativistic "
> > ambiguities in what he prescribes, both as ethics and morals. They
> > very explicit, and abundantly clear when implicit. So does the Buddha.
> > So is Spinoza. And Kant. Or, Gandhi and Luther King. And Faulkner,
> > Steinbeck, Camus. And the reason why are clear, even when they admit
> > the relativistic paradigms commonplace or narrate the saga of human
> > failings, is that they have a vision IN TRUTH that is simple... Say, A
> > SOCIETY IN WHICH PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE NEED TO, AND THEY ACTUALLY DO
> > NOT, SETTLE ANYTHING WITH VIOLENCE ! If you take a representative
> > worldwide survey 99% of the population would find it most agreeable
> > thing to happen. The 1% who'd disagree are those who actually hold on
> > to power and spoils for themselves through the exercise of violence.
>
> > It is this which is SIMPLE. The rest of it complex, more complex,
> > absolutely knotted and compounded to boot. But that didn't deter them
> > from proceeding down to laying out the content and elements of this
> > ONE simple truth... and what it implies for each one of us as
> > individuals, our morals and our ethics.
>
> > What comes in the way of us actually subscribing to such morals and
> > ethics is IGNORANCE... of what ? that vision, that simple truth. And
> > EGO comes into the picture because it loves this ignorance, of not
> > having to subscribe to and subject itself to such rules for itself,
> > morals and ethics, because the fact of our moment is that they do not
> > pay. Why ? Because the people who will make the payment do not
> > subscribe to such rules and, in fact, require that we who are looking
> > to be paid also do not do so !
>
> > This in fact is the nature of the argument I see for ourselves. And
> > that we do dissipate ourselves in mere words, learning and desire to
> > say the last word !
>
> > On Sep 1, 7:10 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Democracy is simply a new system of control- like Christianity was
> > > back in the first centuries A.D. Few churchgoers are going to read
> > > about Constintine or Julian or the corrupt early Church Fathers.
>
> > > One cannot educate a dull brain.
>
> > > Simplicity is elegance in disguise.
>
> > > On Sep 1, 6:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yours is the standard scientific view Lee - scientists tend to be
> > > > amazed anything looks simple. We use the term 'simplexity' because we
> > > > always found almost chaotic complexity under what appears simple - and
> > > > sometimes find simple equations that remarkably describe complexity.
> > > > At school we get taught that there are right answers - the ones up the
> > > > teachers' sleeves. In fact things are much more complicated than this
> > > > and I wonder what actually does get learned. Mot students find it
> > > > hard to cope with ideas that disrupt authority, or that distinguish
> > > > immanent and analytic (critique from within a system or from outside
> > > > with different fundamentals) - they get restless with doubt and can't
> > > > understand it doesn't destroy everything. Logic, which often gets
> > > > perverse in extremes,is beyond most. They are used to needing to be
> > > > certain and find it difficult to learn to be wrong or to learn for
> > > > themselves.
>
> > > > My reasoning is that we have failed to 'teach' over eons and aren't
> > > > learning from this. I suspect the origin of schooling and believe its
> > > > main function is discipline to the status quo. Most people can learn
> > > > to drive - we need more learning like that on social-democratic issues
> > > > - by doing different stuff at a level where the actions become the
> > > > learning. Most people would rather 'get rich' than get rich in
> > > > learning - they want to be able to support families or what they see
> > > > as good times. They confuse having with being - but why not given the
> > > > game of life in front of them? Students are not desperate to learn
> > > > but frantic about passing. They learned something to get to this
> > > > position. Where from, how - and how might this be changed so they
> > > > learn something else? My 'simpler' would be a social change they can
> > > > cope with instead of the intellectual which they can't start.
>
> > > > On Sep 1, 9:29 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I would love to hear the tought process behind this guess Neil, it
> > > > > seems to fly in the face of my own experiances?
>
> > > > > I used to belive that things are ultimatly more simple than they
> > > > > appear to be, I no longer belive this. Life is complex, we live in a
> > > > > complex system/universe.
>
> > > > > Yes we use all sorts of things other than intelect and reasoning to
> > > > > guide us, belifes, best guesses, feelings, emotions and intuition are
> > > > > part of the human physche.
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 10:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > My guess is we are not as individual as we think Lee. And there has
> > > > > > to be something simpler than intellectualism to guide. I'm inclined
> > > > > > to see the moral field like the Python poverty joke = on can always
> > > > > > outdo the hairy shirt or crown of thorns!
>
> > > > > > On Aug 31, 5:32 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Here is the rub Neil.
>
> > > > > > > What duties do you speak of, by what law do these duties arise?
>
> > > > > > > There are of course laws that say you will not murder and if you do
> > > > > > > you will be punished/face rehabilitation. But we all know that people
> > > > > > > are free to hold to or brake laws at their own whim.
>
> > > > > > > So there are no duties except those that the individual imposses upon
> > > > > > > himself.
>
> > > > > > > OM does offten suggest there are errors in all kinds of thoughts, and
> > > > > > > of course he is free to do so, but that to is a function of the canny
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário