Re: Mind's Eye Re: Other Countries

Yeah I remember seeing this life oil painting of a lady her face and lips were perfect. Closer inspection revealed that her upper lip was a blob of paint. Amazing and painting in real are two different realities.
If one can not travel books and pictures are the next best thing
Allan

On Jun 1, 2012 7:12 AM, "Vam" <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, a view can transform your life ! Like, a frog in the well
discovering the huge world about.

On Jun 1, 2:11 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with books,  but they are not quite the same,, pictures are
> very good but there is something about reality if the original.
> Allan
> On May 31, 2012 1:55 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I could have put a smile on the end of that post, I guess, as I am
> > quite critical of the certain things in the USA. I envy your backpack
> > style- I grew up in the last era of steamer trunks and porters- ah,
> > well, all things change. Anyway, finding the exotic is a "frame of
> > mind", for instance Georgia O'Keefe did not travel abroad until she
> > was in her mid-60's. I have travelled a bit but guess I have brought
> > the world to me via books, art, music, etc. and arm-chair travel via
> > Globetrekker or other travel shows which I enjoy but rarely envy...I
> > think I envy other eras and I am glued to my own. My ultimate excuse
> > is motherhood having had children at 20, 28, 37 and 40 without
> > responsible husbands/fathers and that has been quite the adventure and
> > still is.
>
> > On May 30, 11:09 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry Rigsy. I was thinking that the originator of this string would
> > > not find the north american continent to be an exotic location for
> > > him. I certainly did not mean to demean.
>
> > > Malc
>
> > > On May 30, 10:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > America and Canada count to Americans and Canadians, thank you very
> > > > much!
>
> > > > On May 29, 3:16 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I forgot America and Canada but I guess they dont really count.
>
> > > > > I always backpack and go to non tourist areas. This way I enjoy
> > > > > meeting regular people with no hidden agendas. Likewise I am forced
> > to
> > > > > get a smattering of the language which helps to get a feel for their
> > > > > culture.
>
> > > > > On May 19, 7:16 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This is just random.. since i dont yet earn.. i dont have much
> > > > > > mobility .. and have only travelled places in my country... But i
> > was
> > > > > > wondering how many of you guys have been to different countries and
> > > > > > have you ever wanted to settle there...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye dependency

I can understand I do this email link via my phone as for your job, ,,, no envy
Allan

On Jun 1, 2012 3:23 AM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
I hear ya, at work I keep multiple browsers open with hundreds of tabs, thousands of bookmarks, multiple desktops, tabbed shell terminals (green on black of course), shared keyboard/mouse (synergy app) between multiple workstations managing several systems including virtualized platforms. It is still restricting for me performance-wise, really a 24/7 mental linkup would allow explosive possibilities for me, especially in the areas of working memory (which reading philosophy helps a lot with). Well, my memory sucks, though it can be uncannily accurate at times like always having to move a wall to find things, but very interesting details just pop out like blueprints. I'm weird. :p

On 5/31/2012 5:50 PM, Allan H wrote:
I did that and do that quite often even when. I am able to go online.
Just don't like the door locked.
Allan

On May 31, 2012 11:13 PM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com
<mailto:ashkashal@gmail.com>> wrote:

   The net is not a destination, it is a doorway, indeed I consider it
   just another like that to go outside or grab something to eat. A
   very liberating thought, no?

   On 5/31/2012 2:57 AM, Allan H wrote:

       I could not come on line with my transformer yesterday.  Kind of a
       frustrating experience,  All though I could access it using my
       telephone, I bought a Galaxy Note,,  first smart phone that I
       actually
       like,  at least for a while I have unlimited internet contract.
         hehe
       some time I use it to the max since I bought the Note it is
       really handy
       to look something up on the internet,

       I have had a data connection since just before my daughter was
       born that
       makes 27 years    the early years were terrible truth be know,,
       download time was expensive,,  It actually was cheaper to go and buy
       the program rather than download it. Has a small BBS (bulletin board
       service)  Mostly for my Geek friends who kept my system running,
       they
       liked it because I had the best telephone lines and the fastest
       modem
       (thanks to their efforts)

       That is a lot of year of use and it is very much part of my life.  I
       have Wi-Fi radar built into both my transformer and telephone by
       which I
       can locate any wifi that is in the area and if I can access it..

       There is a need within me to connect with the world,, I actually
       meet my
       wife chatting on line..and fell in love online 1/3 the way around he
       world..  (I thought it was a safe distance to flirt from and so
       did she..

       When I really look at it though I very much enjoy the world
       around me
       and my garden, with Joey terrorising the frogs and birds. I
       enjoy the
       internet to the point that it really is a dependency.
       Allan



Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if people with a low morality bar are easier to control.

If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If you look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?

On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.

The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
you view it.

I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and professional life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will have on those effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that arise. A kind of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like this. Some take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and station, I think it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.

On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.


Allan

On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigsy03@yahoo.com
<mailto:rigsy03@yahoo.com>> wrote:

   Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
   "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
   diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
   trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
   earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
   life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
   survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
   you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
   find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.

   On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
   <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the
   world is
    > a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
    > change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is we do
    > know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
    > liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
    > Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
    > wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't just
    > a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
    > Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
    > would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any
   intellectual
    > could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
    > situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key
   problem
    > with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this -
   hence
    > the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know the
    > rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
    > can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
    > equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
    > 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group
   pretending
    > to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
    >
    > I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
    > just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me is how
    > we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some
   form
    > of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
    > cheat and exploit.  We have a world in which much we think of as
   human
    > rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
    > tragedy of the Commons writ large.  Who amongst us really wants to
    > deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?
     Yet
    > which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
    > early death?  These matters look unanswerable in our current
    > morality.  Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
    > constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so
   maybe the
    > moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
    > female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
    > older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.).  I would
    > not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
    > control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
    > broader lack of breeding in my own country.  What of those people who
    > think procreation is work done for god?
    >
    > My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
    > address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.
     I'll try
    > and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
    > morality later (Lee's suggestion).  We could all do this - not to
   come
    > up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
    > what would need to change to make them possibilities.
    >
    > On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
   <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
    > > take responsibility for them..  It seems that the people start
   writing laws
    > > they are trying to figure out  how to get around  the concept
   thus trying
    > > to avoid responsibility.
    > > Allan
    >
    > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com
   <mailto:malc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes
   beyond our
    > > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to
   unravel them
    > > > and be absolutly  sure that a particular stance is doing the
   least
    > > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the
   ideas of
    > > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
    > > > handling the dilema.
    >
    > > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
    > > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown
   around
    > > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self
   evident.
    > > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
    > > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
    >
    > > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless
   and try to
    > > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our
   perceptions are
    > > > right.
    >
    > > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
   <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple
   guideline
    > > > that
    > > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with
   things like
    > > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is
   really use
    > > > what
    > > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it,  the
   questions should
    > > > be
    > > > > if you are a family  of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
    > > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at
   the expense of
    > > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions
   that are made by
    > > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do
   exist. or
    > > > eliminate
    > > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
    >
    > > > > The real problem is  understanding just what is causing
   harm..  the
    > > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can
   break them. It
    > > > > seems most laws today are written  to allow people to get
   around this
    > > > very
    > > > > law.
    > > > > Allan
    > > > >  On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas"
   <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>>
    > > > wrote:
    >
    > > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live
   by though
    > > > innit?
    >
    > > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
    >
    > > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity,
   yet I'm a
    > > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our
   lack of personal
    > > > > >> and collective morality.  Economics as our political and
   business
    > > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a
   scientific world-
    > > > > >> view,  My view of science is that it is full of values
   and the notion
    > > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud.  Only
   lay people
    > > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the
   "value-free" notion of
    > > > > >> science.
    >
    > > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in
   modern science in
    > > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
    > > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
    > > > > >> rational-response<
    > >
    >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
    >
    > > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
    >
    > > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure
   against the
    > > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics.  I'm a
   world-weary old
    > > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as
   narcissist
    > > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though
   I think the
    > > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs.  I think the problem is our
   attitude
    > > > > >> towards morality.  The tendency in history is to focus
   on religion for
    > > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have
   forgotten that much
    > > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against
   unfairness and the
    > > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich.  It is this
   latter factor
    > > > > >> that is repeating itself.
    >
    > > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex.  This all largely based in
   old fables
    > > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive
   societies such
    > > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and
   non-penetrative youth
    > > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring
   thing'.  The
    > > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can
   achieve this
    > > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about
   quality of
    > > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so
   on.  We have
    > > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries -
   to such an
    > > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime
   despite
    > > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed
   countries
    > > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
    >
    > > > > >> We are still at war.
    >
    > > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and
   "consumption" and notions
    > > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount
   of work we
    > > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6
   months of a year.
    > > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard
   work like
    > > > > >> agriculture.  We could have a great deal more through
   doing less and
    > > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and
   very different
    > > > > >> scientific advance.  My view is it's immoral that we
   won't take
    > > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures.  I
   believe this
    > > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us
   simply animal.
    >
    > > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just
   a purposeless
    > > > > >> farce.  The first step in a new attitude towards
   morality is to
    > > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view.  The
   implications of
    > > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves
   from a false-
    > > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in
   our name.  We
    > > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear
   and demons to
    > > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the
   individual.  We are
    > > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics
   developed with
    > > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire
   disasters.
    >
    > > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we
   might recapture
    > > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's
   'Debt: the first
    > > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
    >
    > > --
    > >  (
    > >   )
    > > |_D Allan
    >
    > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


Re: Mind's Eye Re: Other Countries

Yes, a view can transform your life ! Like, a frog in the well
discovering the huge world about.

On Jun 1, 2:11 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nothing wrong with books,  but they are not quite the same,, pictures are
> very good but there is something about reality if the original.
> Allan
> On May 31, 2012 1:55 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I could have put a smile on the end of that post, I guess, as I am
> > quite critical of the certain things in the USA. I envy your backpack
> > style- I grew up in the last era of steamer trunks and porters- ah,
> > well, all things change. Anyway, finding the exotic is a "frame of
> > mind", for instance Georgia O'Keefe did not travel abroad until she
> > was in her mid-60's. I have travelled a bit but guess I have brought
> > the world to me via books, art, music, etc. and arm-chair travel via
> > Globetrekker or other travel shows which I enjoy but rarely envy...I
> > think I envy other eras and I am glued to my own. My ultimate excuse
> > is motherhood having had children at 20, 28, 37 and 40 without
> > responsible husbands/fathers and that has been quite the adventure and
> > still is.
>
> > On May 30, 11:09 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry Rigsy. I was thinking that the originator of this string would
> > > not find the north american continent to be an exotic location for
> > > him. I certainly did not mean to demean.
>
> > > Malc
>
> > > On May 30, 10:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > America and Canada count to Americans and Canadians, thank you very
> > > > much!
>
> > > > On May 29, 3:16 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I forgot America and Canada but I guess they dont really count.
>
> > > > > I always backpack and go to non tourist areas. This way I enjoy
> > > > > meeting regular people with no hidden agendas. Likewise I am forced
> > to
> > > > > get a smattering of the language which helps to get a feel for their
> > > > > culture.
>
> > > > > On May 19, 7:16 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > This is just random.. since i dont yet earn.. i dont have much
> > > > > > mobility .. and have only travelled places in my country... But i
> > was
> > > > > > wondering how many of you guys have been to different countries and
> > > > > > have you ever wanted to settle there...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

" world peace " and " world based on modern morality " ...

Any formal morality would have to bring in the police and justice
system, not unlike what we already have. There too many variables to
prevent violations and transgressions... one's environment and
upbringing, which can have "values" or cases unrecognisably different
within each; country to country, community and societal, differences;
mental and spiritual weaknesses from individual to individual; etc.

Strictly speaking, the route to enforcing uniformity in such variety
or diversity will always tend to fascist structure. The grand vision
will only be willingly internalised by one, at most by few.

And I have the impression that more people talk of world peace, the
more wars they bring upon us.

The informal morality is different... being specific to the individual
and much like clarifying one's own intent and guiding one's own action
to 1) respecting diversity and life everywhere enough to contribute or
do no harm to the potential of each attaining their own fullness 2)
believing, instituting, simple and well known universal values as may
be found in French constitution or are included in Declaration of
Human Rights 3) accord with agreed global programs to prevent hunger,
limit population, promote and provide basic sanitation and drinking
water needs, food growth, education, democratic ways, livelihood, etc.

Whatever "modern" morality may be... it may be educative but not
enforceable without structures to oversee, prevent and punish
transgression.

On May 30, 10:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the world is
> a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
> change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is we do
> know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
> liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
> Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
> wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't just
> a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
> Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
> would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
> could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
> situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key problem
> with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this - hence
> the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know the
> rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
> can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
> equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
> 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
> to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
>
> I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
> just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me is how
> we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
> of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
> cheat and exploit.  We have a world in which much we think of as human
> rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
> tragedy of the Commons writ large.  Who amongst us really wants to
> deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?  Yet
> which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
> early death?  These matters look unanswerable in our current
> morality.  Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
> constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
> moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
> female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
> older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.).  I would
> not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
> control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
> broader lack of breeding in my own country.  What of those people who
> think procreation is work done for god?
>
> My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
> address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.  I'll try
> and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
> morality later (Lee's suggestion).  We could all do this - not to come
> up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
> what would need to change to make them possibilities.
>
> On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
> > take responsibility for them..  It seems that the people start writing laws
> > they are trying to figure out  how to get around  the concept thus trying
> > to avoid responsibility.
> > Allan
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes beyond our
> > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
> > > and be absolutly  sure that a particular stance is doing the least
> > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
> > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
> > > handling the dilema.
>
> > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
> > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
> > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
> > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
> > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
>
> > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try to
> > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions are
> > > right.
>
> > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline
> > > that
> > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like
> > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use
> > > what
> > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it,  the questions should
> > > be
> > > > if you are a family  of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of
> > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by
> > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or
> > > eliminate
> > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> > > > The real problem is  understanding just what is causing harm..  the
> > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It
> > > > seems most laws today are written  to allow people to get around this
> > > very
> > > > law.
> > > > Allan
> > > >  On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though
> > > innit?
>
> > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> > > > >> and collective morality.  Economics as our political and business
> > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> > > > >> view,  My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud.  Only lay people
> > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> > > > >> science.
>
> > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > >> rational-response<
> > >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
>
> > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
> > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics.  I'm a world-weary old
> > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
> > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
> > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs.  I think the problem is our attitude
> > > > >> towards morality.  The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
> > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
> > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
> > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich.  It is this latter factor
> > > > >> that is repeating itself.
>
> > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex.  This all largely based in old fables
> > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
> > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
> > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'.  The
> > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
> > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
> > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on.  We have
> > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
> > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
> > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
> > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
>
> > > > >> We are still at war.
>
> > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
> > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
> > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
> > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
> > > > >> agriculture.  We could have a great deal more through doing less and
> > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
> > > > >> scientific advance.  My view is it's immoral that we won't take
> > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures.  I believe this
> > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
>
> > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
> > > > >> farce.  The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
> > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view.  The implications of
> > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
> > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name.  We
> > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
> > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual.  We are
> > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
> > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
>
> > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
> > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
> > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.

Re: Mind's Eye dependency

I hear ya, at work I keep multiple browsers open with hundreds of tabs,
thousands of bookmarks, multiple desktops, tabbed shell terminals (green
on black of course), shared keyboard/mouse (synergy app) between
multiple workstations managing several systems including virtualized
platforms. It is still restricting for me performance-wise, really a
24/7 mental linkup would allow explosive possibilities for me,
especially in the areas of working memory (which reading philosophy
helps a lot with). Well, my memory sucks, though it can be uncannily
accurate at times like always having to move a wall to find things, but
very interesting details just pop out like blueprints. I'm weird. :p

On 5/31/2012 5:50 PM, Allan H wrote:
> I did that and do that quite often even when. I am able to go online.
> Just don't like the door locked.
> Allan
>
> On May 31, 2012 11:13 PM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashkashal@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The net is not a destination, it is a doorway, indeed I consider it
> just another like that to go outside or grab something to eat. A
> very liberating thought, no?
>
> On 5/31/2012 2:57 AM, Allan H wrote:
>
> I could not come on line with my transformer yesterday. Kind of a
> frustrating experience, All though I could access it using my
> telephone, I bought a Galaxy Note,, first smart phone that I
> actually
> like, at least for a while I have unlimited internet contract.
> hehe
> some time I use it to the max since I bought the Note it is
> really handy
> to look something up on the internet,
>
> I have had a data connection since just before my daughter was
> born that
> makes 27 years the early years were terrible truth be know,,
> download time was expensive,, It actually was cheaper to go and buy
> the program rather than download it. Has a small BBS (bulletin board
> service) Mostly for my Geek friends who kept my system running,
> they
> liked it because I had the best telephone lines and the fastest
> modem
> (thanks to their efforts)
>
> That is a lot of year of use and it is very much part of my life. I
> have Wi-Fi radar built into both my transformer and telephone by
> which I
> can locate any wifi that is in the area and if I can access it..
>
> There is a need within me to connect with the world,, I actually
> meet my
> wife chatting on line..and fell in love online 1/3 the way around he
> world.. (I thought it was a safe distance to flirt from and so
> did she..
>
> When I really look at it though I very much enjoy the world
> around me
> and my garden, with Joey terrorising the frogs and birds. I
> enjoy the
> internet to the point that it really is a dependency.
> Allan
>
>

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

I have had time to read the last few post and found myself interested
in this string. I returned to the original post and am wading through
the ideas on the various links. To me, this is a very complex issue.
Utopia does not come easy. Arcytas's idea of attempting to put
forward an idea of what a world would be like based on modern morality
is compelling. I will be interested to see what comes of it.

On a simpler note I like the idea of "least harm" linked to
responsibility for actions. Very often the best of our intentions kick
us in the teeth but accepting the responsibility is crutial and often
leads to a growth experience.

Heaven knows how such moral stances could be integrated into society
in any formal way. I would welcome any pointers to precedents.

On Jun 1, 9:43 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what wrote
> I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live their life.
> My experience is when people start to justify there is something not quite
> right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do you
> view it.
> Allan
> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
> > "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
> > diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
> > trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
> > earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
> > life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
> > survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
> > you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
> > find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
>
> > On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the world is
> > > a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
> > > change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is we do
> > > know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
> > > liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
> > > Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
> > > wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't just
> > > a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
> > > Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
> > > would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
> > > could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
> > > situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key problem
> > > with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this - hence
> > > the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know the
> > > rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
> > > can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
> > > equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
> > > 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
> > > to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
>
> > > I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
> > > just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me is how
> > > we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
> > > of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
> > > cheat and exploit.  We have a world in which much we think of as human
> > > rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
> > > tragedy of the Commons writ large.  Who amongst us really wants to
> > > deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?  Yet
> > > which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
> > > early death?  These matters look unanswerable in our current
> > > morality.  Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
> > > constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
> > > moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
> > > female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
> > > older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.).  I would
> > > not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
> > > control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
> > > broader lack of breeding in my own country.  What of those people who
> > > think procreation is work done for god?
>
> > > My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
> > > address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.  I'll try
> > > and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
> > > morality later (Lee's suggestion).  We could all do this - not to come
> > > up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
> > > what would need to change to make them possibilities.
>
> > > On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
> > > > take responsibility for them..  It seems that the people start writing
> > laws
> > > > they are trying to figure out  how to get around  the concept thus
> > trying
> > > > to avoid responsibility.
> > > > Allan
>
> > > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes beyond our
> > > > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
> > > > > and be absolutly  sure that a particular stance is doing the least
> > > > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
> > > > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
> > > > > handling the dilema.
>
> > > > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
> > > > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
> > > > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
> > > > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
> > > > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
>
> > > > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try
> > to
> > > > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions
> > are
> > > > > right.
>
> > > > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple
> > guideline
> > > > > that
> > > > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things
> > like
> > > > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really
> > use
> > > > > what
> > > > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it,  the questions
> > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > if you are a family  of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> > > > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the
> > expense of
> > > > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are
> > made by
> > > > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or
> > > > > eliminate
> > > > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> > > > > > The real problem is  understanding just what is causing harm..  the
> > > > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break
> > them. It
> > > > > > seems most laws today are written  to allow people to get around
> > this
> > > > > very
> > > > > > law.
> > > > > > Allan
> > > > > >  On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by
> > though
> > > > > innit?
>
> > > > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet
> > I'm a
> > > > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of
> > personal
> > > > > > >> and collective morality.  Economics as our political and
> > business
> > > > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific
> > world-
> > > > > > >> view,  My view of science is that it is full of values and the
> > notion
> > > > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud.  Only lay
> > people
> > > > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free"
> > notion of
> > > > > > >> science.
>
> > > > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern
> > science in
> > > > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > > > >> rational-response<
>
> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> > > > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
>
> > > > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against
> > the
> > > > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics.  I'm a
> > world-weary old
> > > > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
> > > > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think
> > the
> > > > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs.  I think the problem is our attitude
> > > > > > >> towards morality.  The tendency in history is to focus on
> > religion for
> > > > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten
> > that much
> > > > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness
> > and the
> > > > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich.  It is this latter
> > factor
> > > > > > >> that is repeating itself.
>
> > > > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex.  This all largely based in old
> > fables
> > > > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive societies
> > such
> > > > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative
> > youth
> > > > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'.  The
> > > > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
> > > > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality
> > of
> > > > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on.  We
> > have
> > > > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such
> > an
> > > > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
> > > > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
> > > > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
>
> > > > > > >> We are still at war.
>
> > > > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth"
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> you view it.

I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and
professional life to consider what effects their actions or inactions
will have on those effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual
dilemmas that arise. A kind of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a
personal code like this. Some take an oath to preserve the trust
imparted by power and station, I think it should be expanded quite a
bit! The bar is set too low.

On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to understand
'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.


> Allan
>
> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigsy03@yahoo.com
> <mailto:rigsy03@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
> "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
> diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
> trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
> earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
> life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
> survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
> you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
> find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
>
> On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
> <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > My rather lengthy response has just blown up! My view is the
> world is
> > a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
> > change anything. This is easy enough to say. The conundrum is we do
> > know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
> > liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
> > Lyotard-Habermas debates. Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
> > wanted, one must act on what is left. How do we know this isn't just
> > a rationalist fantasy? Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
> > Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
> > would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any
> intellectual
> > could be. He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
> > situation where only the power of Reason was in play. The key
> problem
> > with this is there are no rational humans. Habermas knew this -
> hence
> > the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber). Once you know the
> > rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
> > can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
> > equations with two solutions). This itself may be no more than
> > 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group
> pretending
> > to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
> >
> > I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
> > just a more dangerous animal than others. The question for me is how
> > we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some
> form
> > of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
> > cheat and exploit. We have a world in which much we think of as
> human
> > rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
> > tragedy of the Commons writ large. Who amongst us really wants to
> > deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?
> Yet
> > which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
> > early death? These matters look unanswerable in our current
> > morality. Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
> > constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so
> maybe the
> > moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
> > female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
> > older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.). I would
> > not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
> > control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
> > broader lack of breeding in my own country. What of those people who
> > think procreation is work done for god?
> >
> > My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
> > address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.
> I'll try
> > and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
> > morality later (Lee's suggestion). We could all do this - not to
> come
> > up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
> > what would need to change to make them possibilities.
> >
> > On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
> > > take responsibility for them.. It seems that the people start
> writing laws
> > > they are trying to figure out how to get around the concept
> thus trying
> > > to avoid responsibility.
> > > Allan
> >
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com
> <mailto:malc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes
> beyond our
> > > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to
> unravel them
> > > > and be absolutly sure that a particular stance is doing the
> least
> > > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the
> ideas of
> > > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
> > > > handling the dilema.
> >
> > > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
> > > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown
> around
> > > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self
> evident.
> > > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
> > > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
> >
> > > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless
> and try to
> > > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our
> perceptions are
> > > > right.
> >
> > > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple
> guideline
> > > > that
> > > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with
> things like
> > > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is
> really use
> > > > what
> > > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it, the
> questions should
> > > > be
> > > > > if you are a family of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> > > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at
> the expense of
> > > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions
> that are made by
> > > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do
> exist. or
> > > > eliminate
> > > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
> >
> > > > > The real problem is understanding just what is causing
> harm.. the
> > > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can
> break them. It
> > > > > seems most laws today are written to allow people to get
> around this
> > > > very
> > > > > law.
> > > > > Allan
> > > > > On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas"
> <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live
> by though
> > > > innit?
> >
> > > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity,
> yet I'm a
> > > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our
> lack of personal
> > > > > >> and collective morality. Economics as our political and
> business
> > > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a
> scientific world-
> > > > > >> view, My view of science is that it is full of values
> and the notion
> > > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud. Only
> lay people
> > > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the
> "value-free" notion of
> > > > > >> science.
> >
> > > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in
> modern science in
> > > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > > >> rational-response<
> > >
> >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
> >
> > > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
> >
> > > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure
> against the
> > > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics. I'm a
> world-weary old
> > > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as
> narcissist
> > > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though
> I think the
> > > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs. I think the problem is our
> attitude
> > > > > >> towards morality. The tendency in history is to focus
> on religion for
> > > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have
> forgotten that much
> > > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against
> unfairness and the
> > > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich. It is this
> latter factor
> > > > > >> that is repeating itself.
> >
> > > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex. This all largely based in
> old fables
> > > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive
> societies such
> > > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and
> non-penetrative youth
> > > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring
> thing'. The
> > > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can
> achieve this
> > > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about
> quality of
> > > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so
> on. We have
> > > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries -
> to such an
> > > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime
> despite
> > > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed
> countries
> > > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
> >
> > > > > >> We are still at war.
> >
> > > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and
> "consumption" and notions
> > > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount
> of work we
> > > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6
> months of a year.
> > > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard
> work like
> > > > > >> agriculture. We could have a great deal more through
> doing less and
> > > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and
> very different
> > > > > >> scientific advance. My view is it's immoral that we
> won't take
> > > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures. I
> believe this
> > > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us
> simply animal.
> >
> > > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just
> a purposeless
> > > > > >> farce. The first step in a new attitude towards
> morality is to
> > > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view. The
> implications of
> > > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves
> from a false-
> > > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in
> our name. We
> > > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear
> and demons to
> > > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the
> individual. We are
> > > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics
> developed with
> > > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire
> disasters.
> >
> > > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we
> might recapture
> > > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's
> 'Debt: the first
> > > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
> >
> > > --
> > > (
> > > )
> > > |_D Allan
> >
> > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>

Re: Mind's Eye Re: Other Countries

Ah. Slow down you move to fast. Got to make the morning last.  I loved sailing .. yes it was very much a slow boat to no where.   Memories well worth the time spent
Allan

On May 31, 2012 11:20 PM, "malcymo" <malcymo@gmail.com> wrote:
Steamer trunks and porters: cant think of anything much more
civilised. Read an enjoyable little travel book called 'A slow boat to
China' which gave me some idea of how things were when you could
travel the world by boat as a passenger on cargo ships, ocean liners
and ferries. My father took a cargo ship from Hong Kong to Durban in
the seventies. Such travel is only possible now by crewing on private
yachts, I think. We are all in such a hurry.

On May 31, 11:55 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I could have put a smile on the end of that post, I guess, as I am
> quite critical of the certain things in the USA. I envy your backpack
> style- I grew up in the last era of steamer trunks and porters- ah,
> well, all things change. Anyway, finding the exotic is a "frame of
> mind", for instance Georgia O'Keefe did not travel abroad until she
> was in her mid-60's. I have travelled a bit but guess I have brought
> the world to me via books, art, music, etc. and arm-chair travel via
> Globetrekker or other travel shows which I enjoy but rarely envy...I
> think I envy other eras and I am glued to my own. My ultimate excuse
> is motherhood having had children at 20, 28, 37 and 40 without
> responsible husbands/fathers and that has been quite the adventure and
> still is.
>
> On May 30, 11:09 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sorry Rigsy. I was thinking that the originator of this string would
> > not find the north american continent to be an exotic location for
> > him. I certainly did not mean to demean.
>
> > Malc
>
> > On May 30, 10:31 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > America and Canada count to Americans and Canadians, thank you very
> > > much!
>
> > > On May 29, 3:16 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I forgot America and Canada but I guess they dont really count.
>
> > > > I always backpack and go to non tourist areas. This way I enjoy
> > > > meeting regular people with no hidden agendas. Likewise I am forced to
> > > > get a smattering of the language which helps to get a feel for their
> > > > culture.
>
> > > > On May 19, 7:16 am, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is just random.. since i dont yet earn.. i dont have much
> > > > > mobility .. and have only travelled places in my country... But i was
> > > > > wondering how many of you guys have been to different countries and
> > > > > have you ever wanted to settle there...- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Re: Mind's Eye dependency

I did that and do that quite often even when. I am able to go online. Just don't like the door locked.
Allan

On May 31, 2012 11:13 PM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
The net is not a destination, it is a doorway, indeed I consider it just another like that to go outside or grab something to eat. A very liberating thought, no?

On 5/31/2012 2:57 AM, Allan H wrote:
I could not come on line with my transformer yesterday.  Kind of a
frustrating experience,  All though I could access it using my
telephone, I bought a Galaxy Note,,  first smart phone that I actually
like,  at least for a while I have unlimited internet contract.  hehe
some time I use it to the max since I bought the Note it is really handy
to look something up on the internet,

I have had a data connection since just before my daughter was born that
makes 27 years    the early years were terrible truth be know,,
download time was expensive,,  It actually was cheaper to go and buy
the program rather than download it. Has a small BBS (bulletin board
service)  Mostly for my Geek friends who kept my system running, they
liked it because I had the best telephone lines and the fastest modem
(thanks to their efforts)

That is a lot of year of use and it is very much part of my life.  I
have Wi-Fi radar built into both my transformer and telephone by which I
can locate any wifi that is in the area and if I can access it..

There is a need within me to connect with the world,, I actually meet my
wife chatting on line..and fell in love online 1/3 the way around he
world..  (I thought it was a safe distance to flirt from and so did she..

When I really look at it though I very much enjoy the world around me
and my garden, with Joey terrorising the frogs and birds. I enjoy the
internet to the point that it really is a dependency.
Allan


Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.

The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do you view it.
Allan

On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
"figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life" whether
earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't think
life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence, talent or
survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting- that
you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking as I
find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.

On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the world is
> a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up than
> change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is we do
> know people should live in peace - but to say this is to 'enforce
> liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found in the
> Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as Habermas
> wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't just
> a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as "rational".
> Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we all
> would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any intellectual
> could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free speech
> situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key problem
> with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this - hence
> the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know the
> rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as their
> can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in quadrilateral
> equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
> 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group pretending
> to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
>
> I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational and
> just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me is how
> we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises some form
> of peaceful policing has to be in effect because we are inclined to
> cheat and exploit.  We have a world in which much we think of as human
> rights (e.g. breeding) lead to disasters like overpopulation - the
> tragedy of the Commons writ large.  Who amongst us really wants to
> deny a couple a child, or yet another carbon foot-print to exist?  Yet
> which of us wants to allow another birth into grinding poverty and
> early death?  These matters look unanswerable in our current
> morality.  Yet at the centre of evil Catholicism, Italy has
> constrained its population growth without 'Chinese law' - so maybe the
> moral argument is defeated by economics (kids are expensive, ruin
> female figures etc.) - though even such population curbing leads to
> older societies and a shortage of productive workers (etc.).  I would
> not have been born as a third child under more restrictive population
> control - though it's likely there would have been room given the
> broader lack of breeding in my own country.  What of those people who
> think procreation is work done for god?
>
> My sense of current morality is that it dodges the issues we need to
> address - from world peace and lack of terror to work ethic.  I'll try
> and find time later to draw up a glimpse of a world based on modern
> morality later (Lee's suggestion).  We could all do this - not to come
> up with the solution - but fictions from which we might track back to
> what would need to change to make them possibilities.
>
> On May 30, 5:14 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > To use do no harm,, really means one must look at your actions and
> > take responsibility for them..  It seems that the people start writing laws
> > they are trying to figure out  how to get around  the concept thus trying
> > to avoid responsibility.
> > Allan
>
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:03 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That to understand just what is causing harm is sometimes beyond our
> > > capabilities. Are not some issues so interwoven that to unravel them
> > > and be absolutly  sure that a particular stance is doing the least
> > > harm is very difficult. The chinese seem to understand the ideas of
> > > good "bad thought" and bad "good thoughts" which is their way of
> > > handling the dilema.
>
> > > Having said this, as far is the environment is concerned it seems
> > > pretty clear to most that inorganic shit should not be thrown around
> > > willy nilly. This like many other examples seem to be self evident.
> > > But maybe only in the sense that they are good for our survival.
> > > Nature itself, in some ways, is totally without morallity.
>
> > > Sometimes I think that the best we can do is to be selfless and try to
> > > act for our perceived good of nature AND hope that our perceptions are
> > > right.
>
> > > On May 30, 1:33 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The law of do no harm is not impossible but rather a simple guideline
> > > that
> > > > is very workable. I know people are always coming up with things like
> > > > killing and animal for food is causing harm. the concept is really use
> > > what
> > > > you need and not destroy the enviorment doing it,  the questions should
> > > be
> > > > if you are a family  of four do you need a 10,000 sq ft house.
> > > > the other part comes form living a luxurious life style at the expense of
> > > > others especially the poor, or wear the latest fashions that are made by
> > > > slave labor in the USA or else where.. and yes they do exist. or
> > > eliminate
> > > > employment so you can have a fatter salary.
>
> > > > The real problem is  understanding just what is causing harm..  the
> > > > solution does not lie in creating laws. just so people can break them. It
> > > > seems most laws today are written  to allow people to get around this
> > > very
> > > > law.
> > > > Allan
> > > >  On May 29, 2012 12:03 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Do no harm is broad brush, and kind of impossible to live by though
> > > innit?
>
> > > > > On Friday, 18 May 2012 05:13:01 UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > >> My stance towards most moralising is one of incredulity, yet I'm a
> > > > >> moraliser and believe most of our problems lie in our lack of personal
> > > > >> and collective morality.  Economics as our political and business
> > > > >> class practice it is fundamentally immoral against a scientific world-
> > > > >> view,  My view of science is that it is full of values and the notion
> > > > >> of it as value-free is a total and totalising dud.  Only lay people
> > > > >> with no experience of doing science hold the "value-free" notion of
> > > > >> science.
>
> > > > >> You can explore some of the moral issues arising in modern science in
> > > > >> a lengthy book review at London Review of Books -
> > > > >>http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/**malcolm-bull/what-is-the-**
> > > > >> rational-response<
> > >http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n10/malcolm-bull/what-is-the-rational-response>.
>
> > > > >> The book's topic is climate change.
>
> > > > >> Coming up to 60 I regard the world as a abject failure against the
> > > > >> promises I thought were being made in politics.  I'm a world-weary old
> > > > >> fart now, tending to see the generations coming up as narcissist
> > > > >> wastrels who don't know what hard work is (etc.) though I think the
> > > > >> blame is ours, not theirs.  I think the problem is our attitude
> > > > >> towards morality.  The tendency in history is to focus on religion for
> > > > >> moral advice - this is utterly corrupt and we have forgotten that much
> > > > >> religious morality is actually a reaction against unfairness and the
> > > > >> wicked control of our lives by the rich.  It is this latter factor
> > > > >> that is repeating itself.
>
> > > > >> Much moralising concerns sex.  This all largely based in old fables
> > > > >> for population control we can still find in primitive societies such
> > > > >> as 'sperm control by fellatio' (Sambians) and non-penetrative youth
> > > > >> sex (Kikuyu) etc. - and stuff like 'the silver ring thing'.  The
> > > > >> modern issue is population control and that we can achieve this
> > > > >> without sexual moralising - the moral issues are about quality of
> > > > >> life, women as other than child-bearing vessels and so on.  We have
> > > > >> failed almost entirely except in developed countries - to such an
> > > > >> extent the world population has trebled in my lifetime despite
> > > > >> economic factors driving down birth-rates in developed countries
> > > > >> without the kind of restrictions such as China enforced.
>
> > > > >> We are still at war.
>
> > > > >> Our economics is still based in "growth" and "consumption" and notions
> > > > >> human beings should work hard - when in fact the amount of work we
> > > > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
> > > > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
> > > > >> agriculture.  We could have a great deal more through doing less and
> > > > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
> > > > >> scientific advance.  My view is it's immoral that we won't take
> > > > >> responsibility for this and review our failures.  I believe this
> > > > >> failure inhibits our spiritual growth and renders us simply animal.
>
> > > > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
> > > > >> farce.  The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
> > > > >> consider living with a scientific world-view.  The implications of
> > > > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
> > > > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name.  We
> > > > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
> > > > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual.  We are
> > > > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
> > > > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
>
> > > > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
> > > > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
> > > > >> 5000 years' as a read here.
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -