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

This does not address the desire to improve humanity's lot. I think
Democracy has a confused definition and is too tied up to Capitalism
and private ownership rather than as an intellectual/spiritual mode of
life and that would also include what Freedom really means versus how
it is distorted. No- we are not free to do as we please. So far, no
historical system has been a solution for inequality- even the
cloisters or monasteries- and that's what really bothers many. You
also neglected war which certainly is a crime against Others but there
is a wealth of examples which point out the cupidity and competition
of humans. In fact, it may be that the Individual is best hope to buck
the corrupt systems but the rewards are iffy because the last word
goes to society/the crowd/the market.

On Jun 4, 5:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I doubt the individual as the centre for morality, even if I am
> sometimes swooned by the existential hero, the individual making a
> difference.  I guess most of us really don't want to interfere in
> others' lives - though I'm trying to convert my grandson from smelly
> teenage foul-the-place-upper at the moment.  I suspect a truly modern
> morality is about a system that makes it very difficult to commit
> crimes against others, including the crimes of police and religious
> states.  This must involve structuring freedom, rather than any simple
> ability for us all to be free to do anything we want to.  In computer
> simulation, cheaters do well at first, but once exposed more
> cooperative models follow.  My guess is our current world model is
> crucially corrupt in terms of being able to expose the cheaters.
>
> On Jun 4, 1:35 pm, James <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not adding much right now, I seem to always be in such a hurry.. losing
> > weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
> > of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
> > properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
> > are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
> > doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
> > ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
> > apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
> > gott is cruciallya go, sorry for no link. :-/
>
> > On 6/4/2012 4:00 AM, Vam wrote:
>
> > > I feel the real issues did not connect, Neil.
> > > So, here's it in plain text :
>
> > > People believe what THEY want to believe...
> > > not what science says.
> > > Call them modern, post modern... whatever.
> > > In fact, I find all such divides as polemic and fake.
>
> > > It makes no difference, for instance, to Christianity even if it is
> > > established, as has indeed been done, that Jesus is fiction. For the
> > > anchors at the helm, there's too much money and power in it. And the
> > > people... they need it.
>
> > > All politicians, economists, dictators, wealth advisors, fund
> > > managers, shares brokers, religious heads, bureaucrats, leaders...
> > > will tell you in private that there are very few people who will or
> > > can think for themselves.
>
> > > Surprisingly, despite it all, I would argue that many people do lead
> > > moral and ethically aligned lives, with consequent difficulties and
> > > much forbearance. They are simple, honest, creative, respectful
> > > towards others and the environment, and having ready access to
> > > happiness through sheer choice.
>
> > > That's real, without terminological embellishment.
>
> > > On Jun 4, 7:39 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> What I really mean by 'modern morality' is more guesswork - imagine we
> > >> invent a bullshit meter.  When politics or other salespeople ply their
> > >> scripts they are drowned out by the meter's bell.  The meter would
> > >> eventually make honesty the best policy - or someone who produced
> > >> another machine that countered the bs meter invisibly very rich.  A
> > >> modern morality would come after we become modern.  I contend there
> > >> had been no modernity and believe the main reason for this is our
> > >> populations are broadly ineducable in science (at least as currently
> > >> taught) and where there is universal education it is broadly the means
> > >> to keep us living in non-modern traditions.
> > >> Science has blasted holes in all religions as fables - but is yet to
> > >> take on economics and democracy as such - in my view the control fraud
> > >> has moved from churches, mosques and temples to free market economics
> > >> in claims this muck is scientific or technocratic when it is fable.
> > >> What are the moral implications, say, if science could demonstrate
> > >> very little banking is skilled and a few robots could give the world
> > >> what it needs in terms of financial services?
>
> > >> On Jun 4, 12:42 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>> Just re-read... the word "overgrowing" needs to be read as
> > >>> "outgrowing" ...
>
> > >>> On Jun 3, 9:29 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>>> Slavery since antiquity... eh. Yes, the hope is then that there are
> > >>>> societies that would have experienced it over the millennia, duly
> > >>>> noticed it, would experimented and succeeded at evolving a solution of
> > >>>> some kind... before stumbling back to similar chaos.
>
> > >>>> Distribution is definitely a primary issue which, contrary to what
> > >>>> people jump to, is above all about societal values, even before
> > >>>> investing in institutions and processes.
>
> > >>>> But, equally important is the creation or production process, which
> > >>>> need to have the required freedoms and a measure of empowerment. This
> > >>>> again must start off at societal values, as Preamble to defining what
> > >>>> those freedoms would be, within the agreed societal values.
>
> > >>>> The law would not be an ass, if all laws are derived from values. The
> > >>>> values need to be defined in simple, unequivocal form, with adequate
> > >>>> reinforcing stories and metaphors for people to relate to and
> > >>>> recount... not science and art, please ! Should that happen, the
> > >>>> values... there would little work for lawyers and no scope for
> > >>>> subjectivity, without it becoming clear that the societal values are
> > >>>> being changed !
>
> > >>>> One glaring, overarching matter is the economic model. This More>
> > >>>> More>>>  Sky Is The Limit value to both Growth, market expansion !,
> > >>>> and Profit, ROI - Dividend - Compensation ... is too stupid, from the
> > >>>> values perspective we've broached.
>
> > >>>> An almost exact solution is in the concept of overgrowing...
> > >>>> knowledge, attitude, skill, career position, social status,
> > >>>> entrepreneurship, corporate values ... as in evolving out of one and
> > >>>> entering into quite, quite another, of new paradigms.
>
> > >>>> Naturally, it takes several centuries, thousand years would be in good
> > >>>> proportion, to steer the changes and establish such a society. Which,
> > >>>> very sincerely, Europe and American civilisations of today simply do
> > >>>> not have. To my mind, any one with a perspective rooted in them would
> > >>>> be the proverbial blind, leading the blind. Maybe Incas, North
> > >>>> Indians ... that are wiped out.
>
> > >>>> Our current global values system abhors communes and communities. The
> > >>>> reason is that we have little of the language, markets, economy,
> > >>>> judiciary, culture, environmental distinctions that foster and bind
> > >>>> communes and communities.
>
> > >>>> I know the Islamic ones are very, very very, poor examples but they
> > >>>> also provide opportunities to elucidate. In them, at least the more
> > >>>> regressive ones, the religious values are pretty much the societal
> > >>>> values. They live as a community with their language, customs,
> > >>>> culture, symbols, common sense of justice... However distasteful, the
> > >>>> society we are speaking of needs to have such social integration with
> > >>>> desired values.
>
> > >>>> Sorry, apparently, I wrote all this for my blog !
>
> > >>>> On Jun 3, 3:22 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Much I agree with Mal.  There's no problem with doing our bit but how
> > >>>>> do we know how much that should be or whether we need all the
> > >>>>> economics and other Mumbo Jumbo of the control system?
>
> > >>>>> On Jun 2, 11:09 pm, malcymo<malc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Hey Vam,
>
> > >>>>>> Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler.  Credit has more to answer for
> > >>>>>> than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
> > >>>>>> stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?
>
> > >>>>>> Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
> > >>>>>> food and shelter, I guess.   What fucks our brains is when we realise
> > >>>>>> that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
> > >>>>>> superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
> > >>>>>> there.
>
> > >>>>>> As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
> > >>>>>> the associated crime is my present stance.
>
> > >>>>>> There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
> > >>>>>> the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
> > >>>>>> secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
> > >>>>>> answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
> > >>>>>> species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
> > >>>>>> glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
> > >>>>>> denying the existence of opportunities to grow.
>
> > >>>>>> On Jun 3, 4:00 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> What would you call a man who has mortgaged / taken a loan against his
> > >>>>>>> future earnings... ?
>
> > >>>>>>> The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
> > >>>>>>> right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
> > >>>>>>> state of greater slavery...
>
> > >>>>>>> What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
> > >>>>>>> and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
> > >>>>>>> own agendas to make a call ... ?
>
> > >>>>>>> The bugger is no position to refuse.
>
> > >>>>>>> What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
> > >>>>>>> earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?
>
> > >>>>>>> They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
> > >>>>>>> kids, estate...
>
> > >>>>>>> On Jun 2, 12:29 am, malcymo<malc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> > >>>>>>>> by our greed.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -