Much of what Neil deprecates in ineducable human beings is also
evident in this very group discussion ... morality, ego, ethics,
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
> > > > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário