of aggressive acts of desperation and punitive excess. The squeaky
wheel gets the grease, there are ways of dealing with those who want
to disrupt the illusion, what a bender!
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, malcymo <malcymo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> James, when you cite 'external forces' do you mean nations, churches,
> towns, etc. Certainly there
> is no ethical foundation for creating boundaries and denying the
> individual access to certain areas of the world.
>
>
> On Jan 12, 3:46 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let me try that again and clarify that I suppose a pseudo-ethic to be
>> the opposite of pursuing personal responsibility in a multidimensional
>> fashion but instead is the exercise of imitating ethics within
>> boundaries set by external forces for their gain. Under the threat of
>> aggression and with coercive undertones. And for what, when I look for
>> justice among the least of us, it is clear who benefits the greatest
>> by vast centralized oligarchy while the masses squabble. This seems to
>> be a ideal utilitarian-dystopian vision I'm headed toward
>> (unintentionally), perhaps it is that Eco's writing rings true to me
>> much in the way of Frederick Douglass' words. It is not that I
>> consider Mal's existential thoughts to be in pseudo-form, to the
>> contrary I have a strong tendency toward similar reasoning of personal
>> responsibility. The danger seems again to be in accepting an iron wall
>> naturalistic fallacy, and the system works not because of the
>> excellency of our system but from the hard work and intentions of
>> human beings reduced to the actions of "useful idiots".
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:28 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It almost sounds like pseudo-ethics as opposed to eugenics (mostly
>> > considered pseudoscience, though I'm not buying into that 100%). Like
>> > Kid Rock says, "You get what you put in, and people get what they
>> > deserve." With the cultural mythos set, centralization of sanctioned
>> > institutions and the erosion of family units to bleed the maximum per
>> > watt of human potential (there's a performance measure for ya Neil :p
>> > ) per individual. But in a world with no actual agency for alternative
>> > outcomes, it would seem that words like "potential" and all the
>> > classical virtues turn to dust. Being skeptical never went so far as
>> > to say that it is all without meaning..
>>
>> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:19 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Existentialism wandered into over-emphasis on the individual as surely
>> >> as fascism and its 'greater leader' dunnage. I can see what you mean
>> >> in regard of our more academic learning - though there is good
>> >> evidence now that kids have math concepts before they begin to be
>> >> taught them. Animals of all kinds pass on learning in their
>> >> communities. Our aluminium foil space flight reminds me a bit of some
>> >> plant reproductive mechanisms where the seed is tossed out on a wing
>> >> and a prayer (sycamores etc.) - we may have got here in spore form.
>> >> Some algae seem to climb on each other's "backs" before they are
>> >> whipped into the air from a foaming sea and onto the jetstream. One
>> >> of my own speculations is we may have once been part of a greater
>> >> civilisation that could not defeat problems in speed of light travel
>> >> (space has friction) and so seeded itself into the world we know much
>> >> as dandelions blow in the wind here. Maybe god is some remnant of
>> >> them, all they could do for our comfort?
>>
>> >> On Jan 11, 9:10 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Loved Hancock. Yes, IQ tests are obviously culturally based.
>>
>> >>> On Jan 12, 5:17 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > I grew up with Hancock's Half Hour - he was a brilliantly pessimistic
>> >>> > comedian! Killed himself. I rather like the gnostic pessimism that
>> >>> > creation is a mistake - one can still build an optimistic life based
>> >>> > on this. I don't go for it myself - the idea is best read in Rosak's
>> >>> > "Flicker" which made me laugh my Hancock off.
>>
>> >>> > Mal - there's some evidence lizards are getting smarter because of
>> >>> > global warming (seriously). Even amoeba are highly adapted creatures
>> >>> > that have "learned". Bushmen in Africa have very low average IQ - but
>> >>> > are we going to pit our IQ against their local intelligence in
>> >>> > surviving in their backyard without our civilized stuff? Their
>> >>> > intelligence is fitted to their conditions - indeed it's likely
>> >>> > "intelligence" in our sense is linked to not living where the (bad)
>> >>> > infectious diseases are. Much we attribute to "genes" and individual-
>> >>> > ethnic superiority concerns geography, climate and a lot more.
>>
>> >>> > Without getting into eternal-TOE stuff we are presumably free to
>> >>> > deconstruct rigsy's glob - though I wonder how many can really make
>> >>> > this choice or have made a choice not to bother. I guess the big
>> >>> > problem of going with such glob-flow is when it's fascist or contains
>> >>> > "religious reasons" to make women walk about in black bags or have to
>> >>> > suffer "churching" and the like. Greek epistemology didn't get to
>> >>> > grips with much we now see as freedom. For that matter, we find what
>> >>> > look like refined, rationalised human mistakes like slavery in some
>> >>> > ant practice and our bodies are evidence we assimilated other life
>> >>> > forms like the Borg in our evolution. Science is making "gene-
>> >>> > splicing" a reality.
>> >>> > I guess we have be able to choose between fictions and at bottom I
>> >>> > like the idea of being able to live in choice. Some fictions prevent
>> >>> > this on a grand scale. The real issues emerge when one realises that
>> >>> > one wants to insist women don't wear black bags and you might have no
>> >>> > right to tell them not to. In practice much changes when coercive
>> >>> > authority-hegemony is removed. At this point I don't consider the
>> >>> > individual as the site of freedom and tend to believe existentialism
>> >>> > hapless.
>>
>> >>> > On Jan 11, 12:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > By the time one is walking down the aisle the trap has been laid. :-)
>> >>> > > It's like joining the army and hoping you don't get killed or maimed
>> >>> > > for life, perhaps, or that your being a soldier will bring everlasting
>> >>> > > peace to our world. Eventually-hopefully- one reasons out the past and
>> >>> > > comes to some understanding- but that's hindsight rather than
>> >>> > > foresight. If we live in a liberal country, we might "get over IT".
>>
>> >>> > > I do think we absorb a glob of wishful thinking promoted by religion
>> >>> > > and culture at an early age and as malcymo says, optimists are more
>> >>> > > fun than pessimists and likely to have similar friends- or ones that
>> >>> > > share your delusions. Heaven help the truth-teller! "Sit down! You're
>> >>> > > Rocking the Boat!" (Guys and Dolls)
>>
>> >>> > > On Jan 10, 12:56 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > Bringing up Liz reminds me of common experiments in brain science
>> >>> > > > rigsy. We often think something special about ourselves will beat the
>> >>> > > > average - that our ownb free will or determination etc. will defy
>> >>> > > > statistical reality - as in
>> >>> > > > Ask a bride before walking down the aisle "How likely are you to get
>> >>> > > > divorced?" and most will respond "Not a chance!" Tell her that the
>> >>> > > > average divorce rate is close to 50 percent, and ask again. Would she
>> >>> > > > change her mind? Unlikely. Even law students who have learned
>> >>> > > > everything about the legal aspects of divorce, including its
>> >>> > > > likelihood, state that their own chances of getting divorced are
>> >>> > > > basically nil. How can we explain this?
>>
>> >>> > > > Psychologists have documented human optimism for decades. They have
>> >>> > > > learned that people generally overestimate their likelihood of
>> >>> > > > experiencing positive events, such as winning the lottery, and
>> >>> > > > underestimate their likelihood of experiencing negative events, such
>> >>> > > > as being involved in an accident or suffering from cancer. Informing
>> >>> > > > people about their statistical likelihood of experiencing negative
>> >>> > > > events, such as divorce, is surprisingly ineffective at altering their
>> >>> > > > optimistic predictions, and highlighting previously unknown risk
>> >>> > > > factors for diseases fails to engender realistic perceptions of
>> >>> > > > medical vulnerability. How can people maintain their rose-colored
>> >>> > > > views of the future in the face of reality? Which neural processes are
>> >>> > > > involved in people's optimistic predictions?
>>
>> >>> > > > We have some fair answers to some of this, but Catch 22, telling
>> >>> > > > people is unlikely to affect them!
>>
>> >>> > > > On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > Which reminds me of a quote (Liz Taylor?) that she would do the same
>> >>> > > > > things all over again but with different people.
>>
>> >>> > > > > How are you measuring these societies? Certainly seems like evils
>> >>> > > > > persist in secular societies as readily as the religious. (Eco has a
>> >>> > > > > great paper on fascism- "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at
>> >>> > > > > a Blackshirt" http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html).
>>
>> >>> > > > > I love certain authors- Eco being one- lust after them, in fact- even
>> >>> > > > > the dead ones!
>>
>> >>> > > > > On Jan 9, 4:37 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > > Thanks for the new Eco book.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > I likewise respect deterministic forces simply because I know that if
>> >>> > > > > > placed again in all the
>> >>> > > > > > decision making positions of my past I would, given the social
>> >>> > > > > > circumstances, have made the same choices.
>> >>> > > > > > There are no "If onlys" in my life.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > However, it seems to me that secular authority has tried much harder
>> >>> > > > > > to create fairer, more ethical guidance for societies than
>> >>> > > > > > those created in the non secular realm. What do you all think?
>>
>> >>> > > > > > I must get hold of a copy of 'The prague cemetary'.
>>
>> >>> > > > > > Malc
>> >>> > > > > > On Jan 10, 2:10 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > Eco was on Charlie Rose (a tv interviewer in the USA) the other night.
>> >>> > > > > > > His latest book is another mythbuster- the "Protocols"- entitled "The
>> >>> > > > > > > Prague Cemetary".
>>
>> >>> > > > > > > I respect deterministic
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário