Oddly I do think the answer lies in smaller groups working together for the benefit of the community as a whole. They use to be called communes I believe. I am not sure if anyone has ever written guidelines for creating a commune.
Now I am sure I just made a fool of myself.
Allan
On Jun 2, 2012 1:21 PM, "James" <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
..and could it be that all of it it so simple, that we are blind to our predicament trying to avoid and remove the feeling of being small and insignificant. Small communities, could it be the natural result of our societies?
But we do still see people behaving authentically, we are a persistent bunch after all.
On 6/1/2012 3:32 PM, Allan H wrote:
I know
Allan
On Jun 1, 2012 9:29 PM, "malcymo" <malcymo@gmail.com
<mailto:malcymo@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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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>
> > > >> <mailto: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
> > > >> 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>
> > > >> <mailto: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>
> > > >> <mailto: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>
> > > >> <mailto: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
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário