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
> > > > mind of OM. Is he right, is he wrong?
>
> > > > I don't know. I do know that he and I agree on some things and
> > > > disagree on others.
>
> > > > Did we go in a circle then and are we back to simple belife structers?
>
> > > > We are not all one mind, I doubt pending global catasphroy we will
> > > > ever be, humanity is a funny old beast indeed.
>
> > > > The thing with me is individualism, to attempt to engage individuals
> > > > as veried as there are shades of colour, to think alike, to plot
> > > > alike, to vote alike, to reason alike seems an impossible task, but
> > > > ahhhh I guess some of us have to try, and I say hats off to them.
>
> > > > Hehh of course though, this is a function of my own mind.
>
> > > > On Aug 31, 2:33 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > None of the above stops duties for an individual like not killing,
> > > > > stealing and so on being simple ways to express rules of thumb for a
> > > > > decent society, or thinking by individuals trying to improve same or
> > > > > come up with ideas free of socially approved epistemic authority -
> > > > > indeed, given human collective history this is probably a rule of
> > > > > thumb itself.
> > > > > Orn often suggests that there are errors in nihilist thinking (as a
> > > > > broad label) - I agree. Modern deconstruction ends up telling us some
> > > > > things are undecidable and we have to do our best with them. A bit
> > > > > like playing a leg-spinner when you can't spot his googlie. This is
> > > > > unremarkable - what might be important is that socially decision-
> > > > > making is broadly established in an elite and the decisions need not
> > > > > be - often obviously decidable. This is very animal stuff and we
> > > > > surely can't be sensibly voting for it. How can we vote for
> > > > > autonomy? We might start thinking that there is a moral cause against
> > > > > representative government that so inevitably decides in the interests
> > > > > of such a small group. Moral thinking against established authority
> > > > > is easily justified - our literature once praised it - often with
> > > > > existential heroes battling torpid discrimination masquerading as
> > > > > objective good sense. I suspect what goes wrong in merely
> > > > > deconstructive thinking is a point at which authority is banished as
> > > > > we recognise its violence and forget that this is merely the ground of
> > > > > default to might is right.
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 12:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Getting out of the mess we're in is perhaps a forlorn hope, but the
> > > > > > odd one of hem came off! History as taught is useless other than in
> > > > > > creating factional madness. Biology might help us overcome our
> > > > > > failure to recognise how animal we are and history could show us the
> > > > > > repeated blunders we keep falling for. My thesis is that argument
> > > > > > hasn't helped us much - my guess being we are broadly ineducable
> > > > > > through schooling and need a more technological form. I think we have
> > > > > > the hard technology but have failed to make this socio-technical to
> > > > > > date.
> > > > > > I see some of this as 'moral' in that we can clearly challenge all
> > > > > > morality - this leading to something rigsy said on the hapless ego
> > > > > > state of making this mean 'other people are wrong' - surely (the ego
> > > > > > state - not rigsy) childish. Most of us still live and die very
> > > > > > parochially and one lesson is that the apparent differences in moral-
> > > > > > religious thinking are just cultural. I would be more like Vam and he
> > > > > > more like me if our birth places and families been exchanged. Born in
> > > > > > Islamic families we would both likely be Muslim. This was recognised
> > > > > > before Descartes (Maupassant I think). Some of my Muslim students
> > > > > > think this is not the case because they are chosen.
> > > > > > The question is less one of the nihilist rejection of morality and
> > > > > > more one of a global morality we can sensibly adhere to. The term
> > > > > > 'global morality' is scary as is any totalising solution. And many of
> > > > > > the issues we need to grip and grok are scary too - population control
> > > > > > is one - not least because we presumably want people to be able to
> > > > > > live in comfort and plenty - something likely to raise breeding
> > > > > > potential. If we think of the Earth as a commons, then we should
> > > > > > expect the issue of the tragedy of the commons to arise. How do we
> > > > > > tell the people who want then 'no more big families'? How do we
> > > > > > justify issues on disability that would arise? If we want power to be
> > > > > > democratic, How do we prevent power through wealth, whether through
> > > > > > capitalist accumulation to a few individuals or the State =both of
> > > > > > which have a history of either war or oppression or both? Some will
> > > > > > say we are better off not addressing such matters as human planning is
> > > > > > always a mess and we are better off leaving things to the chance of
> > > > > > evolution, war being part of this - the purpose of man is to be a
> > > > > > warrior and women's to be recreation for the warrior and such rot.
> > > > > > Others are more fatalist in that none of this mat matter much as the
> > > > > > overall plan goes on whatever human trivia makes some believe.
> > > > > > My view is that religion and various other myths of origin, all
> > > > > > containing perverse views amongst their elites that ordinary people
> > > > > > can't cope with the recognition they are myths (Plato is the classic)
> > > > > > and only the priests or guardians can, are rationalist fantasies - but
> > > > > > what bigger such fantasy as the very idea of anything global that
> > > > > > would ask all to take on a 'morality'!
> > > > > > We leave out a major 'purpose' in economics in much of our moral
> > > > > > thinking - that of the West (still currently the major military power)
> > > > > > being on top and staying on top. The idea in this is that to prevent
> > > > > > a "backward change" the West needs to dominate economically in order
> > > > > > to attract the innovation needed to stay on top. What, for instance,
> > > > > > would the current situation be now if Muslim states had equivalent
> > > > > > military power, or a dominant one? It is also clear that the same
> > > > > > economics is profoundly anti-democratic in that our own ability to
> > > > > > manage through it is severely restricted, probably by the accumulation
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário