voting for "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars"! I was
thinking yesterday that if we are tested every five years for a
driver's license, why not for voting intelligence but that would not
fly, would it? There is so much money and special interests invested
in these two parties- am not sure how you would break that power down
to allow for other parties gaining real competitive strength. And when
an Oprah can swing a selection we have to realize how low the
denominator has sunk. I am considered a "black sheep" at this
point! :-) One old friend thinks I have gone over to the "dark side"-
she has a photo standing with Obama so Lord knows what kind of moolah
she dropped in his basket!
On Sep 3, 7:21 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Besides sharing different stories of political analysis with friends,
> I continue to drive home the truth that as long as people in the USA
> stay in the trance of believing that voting for someone not in the two
> main parties is 'throwing away a vote' (a notion most likely
> promulgated by these two parties) there will be little to no
> responsiveness to what 'we the people' want…something that is
> obviously ignored these days. When a politician actually might have to
> be responsive and yes, even be congruent in word and deed, only then
> can our form of representative democracy have any impact on how those
> selected to lead will not only act but actually be chosen rather than
> remaining in the terror that one might vote for someone who stands the
> chance of not winning!
>
> To me, throwing away a vote is voting for the status quo.
>
> Sadly, the trance state remains in full force today.
>
> On Sep 3, 4:27 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am trying to think about how we could improve the minds/choices of
> > voters but get stumped. Part of the problem is that classical
> > educations do not always translate into common sense in real life- one
> > still must scrub the floors in those ivory towers. But I think most
> > attend college/grad studies with a work goal in mind these days. I
> > remember shop classes and vocational schools in public highschools but
> > perhaps that would invite a lawsuit by the ACLU these days- who knows?
> > And manufacturing/labor needs have changed drastically in our day due
> > to automation, robots and technology as well as every aspect of modern
> > life from home to office. So there is this vacuume. On the other hand,
> > I find great solace in my books and interests but since I refuse to
> > produce anything for the market, I guess I am worthless. :-) Oh- and I
> > decided to quit going to funerals altogether save my own.
>
> > The military is another consideration as a form of "education" and
> > employment.
>
> > I came across your screen name in my old class notes- just a line or
> > two re Plato and his visit.
>
> > Another problem with setting up a culture/form of government is that
> > you still are left with human nature!
>
> > On Sep 2, 10:14 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm no expert on the Greeks to be sure. I remember that women got to
> > > leave home when they were about 60 to go to funerals! I understand
> > > the 'men of their time' arguments - and we tend to forget Greece is
> > > really middle eastern - but I have real problems with the 'high'
> > > philosophy and no grasp of the wrongs on the treatment of slavery,
> > > indenture and women. It hardly suggests much of a route to a
> > > materially enlightened society. The Italian aristocracy was almost
> > > exclusively homosexual in the 17th century and much of the Middle East
> > > remains 'homosocial'. In scientific argument and practice we often
> > > work hard at excluding wads of common sense and religious muck under
> > > pretense of objectivity, yet we are really trying to include all
> > > options that aren't ludicrous (and we entertain these too to some
> > > extent). I find human thinking that ends up with notions that a sex
> > > or race is 'unequal' or unmeriting not wrong but intolerable, but this
> > > doesn't lead me to believe we can't have abortion or not give deaf
> > > people hearing if we can (and so on) - the intolerable remains a
> > > heuristic open to situational particularism. Equality doesn;t mean I
> > > won't lift the heavy box, think sport should be unisex, regard men as
> > > potential sexual partners and so on - but it does mean I don't approve
> > > of daft notions of banning girls from playing soccer because they
> > > can't share the changing rooms. And it does mean I tend to despise
> > > argument that excludes what should matter in the pretense of
> > > objectivity. Our people who can't do much academic are not sub-human,
> > > but I suspect much intellectualism is - including daft economists
> > > suggesting inter-generational mortgages, or that we have to have a
> > > super-rich for the benefit of all. I am not led to conclusion much
> > > and think this is a result of perverse schooling and a fixation with
> > > 'strong leadership'. My guess is we need moral assertion on the basis
> > > of likely outcomes on social issues and that we are ignoring an
> > > interesting history of this at our peril, including the distraction
> > > from actual change that wordy words becomes when we lack courage. The
> > > key in this is probably deep in a form of mentality that can't work
> > > out the metaphor of fiddling while Rome burns or banksterism as a
> > > criminally organised road to serfdom. Socrates called the unexamined
> > > life pointless and its easy to agree faced with yet another class of
> > > students who don't read, populations who vote 'on the economy stupid'
> > > knowing nothing of economics - yet he was wrong. What we have failed
> > > to do is provide the technology of it that people can use.
>
> > > On Sep 2, 1:05 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I dug up the file this afternoon- Spring "73- no mention of the
> > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário