Allan
--
(
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 2:09 AM, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
The "good old days" were still lousey for most of humanity- unless you
are referring to your own youth as a golden time of life.//Our
earliest morals come from our parents usually and they are "tested"
against religion and society plus one's own nature- often leading to
rebellion and trial and error. Errors are costly and they often repeat
themselves until you learn your lesson.//There are lists of many
beyond the age of 60 that have continued to create and contribute to
society so that notion is relative.//We cannot control the factors of
an age- wars, depressions, waste, etc. but we can influence a small
circle.//Universal ignorance and superstition didn't work either.:-)
> ...
On May 19, 3:36 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'm thinking is that we get our moral decision-making very
> wrong. Every generation ends up as old farts with notions modern
> youth is chronic and desiring a return to the good old days. We don't
> see our pathetic failures as contributing. Moral judgement is left in
> the domain of Idols. Given universal education hasn't worked, we
> might try a new set of Idols that are at least modern.
>
> On May 19, 9:09 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > " The reason I think we need to review morality and come up with a modern
> > > one is that I find almost no one can understand stuff like this. "
>
> > May I suggest an alternative:
>
> > I think the purpose of morality needs to be understood by every individual,
> > which is why the main purpose of education is not to forget to always keep
> > this door open. These are our real debts.
>
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:04 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't mind being backward Gabby. I don't, of course, propose any
> > > return to the kind of religion suffered by so many for so long and the
> > > often revolting treatment of women. Here is a fairly simple treatment
> > > of much that's been going wrong in the financial system.
>
> > > "While most economists agree that the world is facing the worst
> > > economic crisis since the
> > > Great Depression, there is little agreement as to what caused it. Some
> > > have argued that
> > > the financial instability we are witnessing is due to irrational
> > > exuberance of market
> > > participants, fraud, greed, too much regulation, et cetera. However,
> > > some Post Keynesian
> > > economists following Hyman P. Minsky have argued that this is a
> > > systemic problem, a
> > > result of internal market processes that allowed fragility to build
> > > over time. In this paper
> > > we focus on the shift to the "shadow banking system" and the creation
> > > of what Minsky
> > > called the money manager phase of capitalism. In this system, rapid
> > > growth of leverage
> > > and financial layering allowed the financial sector to claim an ever-
> > > rising proportion of
> > > national income—what is sometimes called "financialization"—as the
> > > financial system
> > > evolved from hedge to speculative and, finally, to a Ponzi scheme.
> > > The policy response to the financial crisis in the United States and
> > > elsewhere has
> > > largely been an attempt to rescue money manager capitalism. Moreover,
> > > in the case of the
> > > United States. the bailout policy has contributed to further
> > > concentration of the financial
> > > sector, increasing dangers. We believe that the policies directed at
> > > saving the system are
> > > doomed to fail—and that alternative policies should be adopted. The
> > > effective solution
> > > should come in the way of downsizing the financial sector by two-
> > > thirds or more, and
> > > effecting fundamental modifications."
> > > explain
> > > The paper can be found at the Levi Institute along with loads more.
> > > The rub is that banking is mostly parasitic and we need a return to
> > > primitive banking that supports productive projects. The reason I
> > > think we need to review morality and come up with a modern one is that
> > > I find almost no one can understand stuff like this. One can barely
> > > get students to look up the papers and our news programmes are aimed
> > > at a teenage mentality. We are both over-complicating and
> > > trivialising decision making so that ordinary people can't take part
> > > other than as voting dupes. The pressures on me are not to explain so
> > > most people can understand, but to take part in esoteric debate to
> > > earn my academic corn. Pol Kid sets out some of the dangers and Gabby
> > > often has - yet if we are to retain democracy (I'm not a fan, but it
> > > sure beats not being able to vote - though here in the UK I never have
> > > a real vote) we have to find ways to stop it being abused by a
> > > financial-political class.
>
> > > My own suspicion is that rational debate is essentially violent and
> > > hence doomed to fail other than as a domination strategy (or as
> > > refined chattering). There are structural answers about - such as
> > > having the people make law and government administer it. There have
> > > been at least half-way successful changes in, say, feminism and gay
> > > rights (surely moral causes both in repression and emancipation
> > > stages). I would recommend 'The Life and Times of Colonel Blimp' to
> > > get in the swing of things and begin to consider how 'there is no
> > > alternative' mentalities screw us.
>
> > > On May 18, 7:45 pm, "pol.science kid" <r.freeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > no i guess Schopenhauer said.. religion is philosophy of the masses...
>
> > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:48 PM, pol.science kid <r.freeb...@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > > d the generally revolting treatment of women
>
> > > > > Your post touches many relevant points.. but right now the point about
> > > > > religion comes to my mind... its true religion has been a source of
> > > > > morality for the most people...like it was schopenhauer(?) who
> > > > > said religion was the morality or ethics of the masses.. dont remember
> > > > > clearly ... anyways... see what i observe is.. the ethical hold of
> > > religion
> > > > > is fast disappearing...i rather see religion being appropriated for
> > > > > political propaganda..or communal menace... plus.. i wonder how you can
> > > > > remove religion form the past legacy in invoking it for morality
> > > afresh...
> > > > > religion does not have a glorius history.. i dont know really know..
> > > havent
> > > > > read religious history... i often wonder how it would be if there was a
> > > > > community.. functioning politically, terrtorially integrated and
> > > sovereign
> > > > > composed of all atheist people... i guess our brains or minds are too
> > > > > steeped in history to be entirely radical(Routine and familiarity have
> > > > > such a powerful hold)... how many would support the system of ethics
> > > not
> > > > > enforced by an idea of the divine or sacred.. or God.. but it would be
> > > > > wonderful if we had something of the 'Kantian' ethics .. based on
> > > > > humanity... i wonder if any doctrine to live by has the force of
> > > religion..
> > > > > is religion a condition of the mind? i guess any system can turn
> > > > > tyrannical..
> > > > > from a personal example- i had a friend.. who was an atheist.. a very
> > > > > radical dude..until.. he suddenly changed.. we find out after one
> > > summer
> > > > > break hes turned into a devout christian(going to church regularly and
> > > > > sometimes quoting stuff from the bible!)..we totally freaked out.. see
> > > he
> > > > > was originally from a tribe...their own tribal religion was sort of
> > > weak he
> > > > > had once told us... but to continue.. all our friends had a very
> > > negative
> > > > > reaction to his sudden change... though none of us were really
> > > atheists we
> > > > > sort of had an aversion to devout practising of religion... it was also
> > > > > weird because he was an atheist... and then suddenly hes so full of
> > > faith
> > > > > and everything... our reaction was wrong..though it didnt ruin our
> > > > > friendship(we stilll loved him and realised we were being fools).. in
> > > our
> > > > > rush to be free of all this dogma and superstiton sorrounding us we
> > > > > dismissed his individual choice.. and didnt respect his decision.. we
> > > were
> > > > > acting like some dogmatic superstitous people ourselves.. my point of
> > > this
> > > > > lame story was that maintaining balance is a tricky thing...
> > > > > ... i am a cynical person too you know... but i guess you would know
> > > > > better cos youre older than me.. but i have been proven wrong in my
> > > > > estimate of the people around me.. which is reassuring... you view of
> > > the
> > > > > young generation is valid.. its true.. but i think we cant possibly
> > > become
> > > > > worse than we already are.. in the whole sum of things...
>
> > > > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:43 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> 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.
> > > > >> 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
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário