Re: Mind's Eye Towards a modern morality

My sense of things is we need a modern version of a way to live. We
don't really have a modern 'creed' and our thinking, particularly in
economics. Our thinking is almost instantly derailed by very old
ideologies like work ethic, nationalism and so on. What I want is to
imagine a morality without the old Idols.

On May 23, 9:30 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe teaching how to use the I Ching. Some ancient wisdom might help. I
> keep a copy I'm my phone
> Allan
> On May 19, 2012 10:36 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
> > > > > >> 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
>
> > > ...
>
> > > read more »