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

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.
>
> > > > > On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our
> > > > > > society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I am currently living in a small pacific group of islands. There is a
> > > > > > > central government but many of the islands have no formal policing.
>
> > > > > > > So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by the
> > > > > > > village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
>
> > > > > > > The great advantage they have over a large country with all embracing
> > > > > > > laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They can
> > > > > > > assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
> > > > > > > societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense that
> > > > > > > they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
> > > > > > > individuals because there is neither the money nor the time available
> > > > > > > to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
> > > > > > > something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe and 31
> > > > > > > mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but it
> > > > > > > does seem to lead to less accidents.
>
> > > > > > > It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
> > > > > > > building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions as
> > > > > > > far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself, however,
> > > > > > > is difficult because different societies have different views
> > > > > > > regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
> > > > > > > problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
>
> > > > > > > Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
> > > > > > > paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
> > > > > > > should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
> > > > > > > criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society would
> > > > > > > consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here which
> > > > > > > confounds me.
>
> > > > > > > I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you guys
> > > > > > > can come up with some useful ideas.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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" <ashkas...@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" <rigs...@yahoo.com
> > > > > > > > >> <mailto: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
>
> ...
>
> read more »