intro but I just ran across this document on System Justification
Theory and it sounds right up your alley. Caveat emptor- I am on the
3rd page, but you will likely pick up the parallels with your thoughts
on the first page:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/newsbox/PsychologySystemJustification.pdf
Best regards and godspeed!
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:00 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vam is right (elsewhere) that I'm stuck in a rut on this - I often get
> this way as there seems little to do other than bang one's head
> against the walls of language. This isn't my particular rut as I
> concluded long ago something not unlike Edward above. There are many
> such critiques of economics - notably critical theory. Don is right
> that lots of these "alternatives" seem to lead to rather silly
> practice, demanding too much "virtue" and selfless activities.
> I usually work until my head bleeds, take some space and see if I
> understand anything differently. I only have glimmers at the moment
> and suspect the big change may be that our own systems have led to
> just the situation Don talks about above.
>
> On Dec 21, 4:49 pm, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "In the context of history, religion has often been concernedwith
>> economics and particularly freedom from debt."
>>
>> At least one particular view of history tends to indicate that the
>> Builders ( like Nimrod, whose system is in practice and strongly
>> applied today ), institutes religion and politics to mass absolute
>> control. Economics is simply a heartless result.
>>
>> Which is why I advocate establishing a relationship with that creative
>> force within us, by what ever terms we recognize it. That energy will
>> evolve the human race beyond their needs as long as the individuals
>> remain properly charged and teach Men (Humans) to do so. We get to
>> this level by two simple Rules or Laws; i.e., Keeping this Energy ever
>> before us and insure that our decisions are moral and just, especially
>> in those heated and pressured moments. Societies have gotten lost in
>> ancient attempts to test or defy these rules, because the language
>> was lost, so to speak. Then what Knowledge was found was keep secrete
>> from all but the few. The few gives the rest of the world Religion and
>> Politics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:53 AM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > We can only change ourselves, alas.
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 9:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I was watching a program on the Mayans and the writings about the
>> >> milkyway being on the horizon.
>>
>> >> What I am seeing is the guilt complex where people know what is going on
>> >> is wrong with the waste of resources are looking for a super natural
>> >> solution to these problems. It seems they are wanting to say they saw I
>> >> coming rather than doing what they can to change it.
>> >> Allan
>> >> On Dec 20, 2011 2:32 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On second thought, I was thinking of Thomas Mann when I wrote this,
>> >> > and it has been a few decades since I read him. It has only been a
>> >> > decade since I read the Moore work and his ideas on soul. Refresh my
>> >> > memory, I am thinking you meant there is not enough evidence of soul
>> >> > in the world, as many are not in touch with it.
>>
>> >> > On Dec 20, 7:57 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > Thomas Moore was an interesting guy. Very poignant writing yet ended
>> >> > > up following hitler in the end, and his art fell apart, having lost
>> >> > > his soul maybe.
>>
>> >> > > On Dec 19, 1:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > I could not disagree with that Molly - though something of the
>> >> > > > "invisible hand" spooks me in all argument. I'm as sure as Thomas
>> >> > > > Moore that we lack soul, but want something that differentiates mad
>> >> > > > people like Ayn Rand and reason.
>>
>> >> > > > On Dec 19, 11:31 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > Morals and ethics that are entrenched in right and wrong and exclude
>> >> > > > > or separate are human indeed, but have not yet seen the light of
>> >> > > > > spirit. Much of religion, the "religion" mentioned in this discussion
>> >> > > > > is of this. The individual journey of the heart to the non dual
>> >> > > > > experience reaps the knowing that spirit includes and is revealed
>> >> > > > > between the opposites, uniting them. Once this becomes the
>> >> > individual
>> >> > > > > view, the world of the non dual and all who share it is revealed.
>> >> > > > > Words can only point the way and always fall short if the reader
>> >> > > > > cannot connect the opposites with spirit. It takes a transcendence
>> >> > > > > that can then forever be remembered. It makes time and space and
>> >> > > > > opposition poignant and irrelevant. They don't disappear, but are
>> >> > not
>> >> > > > > important (or more automatic to be precise). A different ethics, one
>> >> > > > > that is innate but forgotten, emerges. One that is not concerned
>> >> > with
>> >> > > > > right and wrong as it has been unified in spirit, aspects of the same
>> >> > > > > element. One that unites, and sees conflict for what it is, the
>> >> > realm
>> >> > > > > of death (that is integral to life.) All of this is already present
>> >> > > > > everywhere. It is the view that changes our experience, relationship
>> >> > > > > and dynamic of it.
>>
>> >> > > > > On Dec 19, 2:45 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
>> >> > > > > > Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not
>> >> > sure
>> >> > > > > > the smell is sweet! Academe seems to have entirely failed in
>> >> > > > > > providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of
>> >> > how
>> >> > > > > > the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way. I
>> >> > > > > > broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too
>> >> > much
>> >> > > > > > current influence when we could do better etc. I suspect, though,
>> >> > > > > > this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
>> >> > > > > > feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something
>> >> > wrong
>> >> > > > > > with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > rest of the fables. A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
>> >> > > > > > years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
>> >> > > > > > religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
>> >> > > > > > I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one -
>> >> > LOL -
>> >> > > > > > no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
>> >> > > > > > required. The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
>> >> > > > > > closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
>> >> > > > > > dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they
>> >> > claim
>> >> > > > > > is a greater good. "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
>> >> > > > > > appeal and is full of moral urging.
>> >> > > > > > It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
>> >> > > > > > > "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to
>> >> > technology. And
>> >> > > > > > > I could add many names from history/economic development that
>> >> > > > > > > discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
>> >> > > > > > > belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an
>> >> > alternative
>> >> > > > > > > to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy
>> >> > medium.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one
>> >> > example
>> >> > > > > > > > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy.
>> >> > More
>> >> > > > > > > > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what
>> >> > kind of
>> >> > > > > > > > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One
>> >> > form of
>> >> > > > > > > > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep
>> >> > divisions. Ad
>> >> > > > > > > > hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a
>> >> > conference
>> >> > > > > > > > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally
>> >> > malevolent
>> >> > > > > > > > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom -
>> >> > that
>> >> > > > > > > > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice
>> >> > (there
>> >> > > > > > > > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as
>> >> > atheists
>> >> > > > > > > > being immoral).
>> >> > > > > > > > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a
>> >> > digest
>> >> > > > > > > > might be as follows:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Dialogue types:
>> >> > > > > > > > Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal
>> >> > Goal of Dialogue
>> >> > > > > > > > Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party
>> >> > Resolve Issue
>> >> > > > > > > > Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove
>> >> > Hypothesis
>> >> > > > > > > > Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis
>> >> > Support Hypothesis
>> >> > > > > > > > Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests
>> >> > Settle Issue
>> >> > > > > > > > Information Need Information Acquire Information
>> >> > Exchange Information
>> >> > > > > > > > Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions
>> >> > Decide What to Do
>> >> > > > > > > > Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal
>> >> > Deep Conflict
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
>> >> > > > > > > > 1.an account of the principles of communication which
>> >> > argumentative
>> >> > > > > > > > exchange depends upon;
>> >> > > > > > > > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which
>> >> > argument
>> >> > > > > > > > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > > > > > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference
>> >> > between
>> >> > > > > > > > scientific discussion and negotiation);
>> >> > > > > > > > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it
>> >> > can be
>> >> > > > > > > > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude)
>> >> > is a
>> >> > > > > > > > logical consequence of another;
>> >> > > > > > > > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of
>> >> > argument and
>> >> > > > > > > > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need
>> >> > to be
>> >> > > > > > > > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the
>> >> > simplest
>> >> > > > > > > > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally
>> >> > different
>> >> > > > > > > > kinds of argument);
>> >> > > > > > > > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general
>> >> > criteria for
>> >> > > > > > > > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
>> >> > > > > > > > definitions of positive argument schema which define good
>> >> > patterns of
>> >> > > > > > > > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks
>> >> > against
>> >> > > > > > > > the person; etc.);...
>>
>> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário