Re: Mind's Eye Towards a modern morality

Lying among the dusty tomes are a few good nuggets of wisdom, lest we
forget parochialism is highly adaptable, we seem to be hell bent on it.
Now I know my thinking was stuck on fear, how much of our way of life is
based on insecurity and getting pulled into a multitude of necessary
evils we must accept, in how we treat eachother on through to what we
must eat and when. Fanatics, puritans, and worse predators abound who
eye honesty, caring, sensitivity and openness as an easy mark and savor
righteous malefic. But if our _imagination_ is bounded by fear we are
imprisoned from the outset, unable to make bold advances, take advantage
of untapped potential. Imagination for the mind is akin to materials
science in technology, that's a profound statement I think- an obviously
flawed analogy in one aspect at least, but then again..

"My view is it's immoral that we won't take responsibility for this and
review our failures. I believe this failure inhibits our spiritual
growth and renders us simply animal."

One could say plenty of work gives people purpose, energy that would
otherwise be used for mischief, costing society rather than fueling
progress.

"We are social animals and need to get back to some basics developed
with modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters."

Where I look for a syncretic boost is in places that attract many views
to focus constructively on a challenge, like the DIY communities. What
you are saying sounds like a serious challenge, like how to map an
optimal evolutionary path. Science does indeed have much to say, both in
the how and why, while the humanities have a bit of anecdotal and case
reference material.

On 5/24/2012 8:45 PM, James wrote:
> This is interesting, if I remember you teach in this field is there much
> in the way of emphasis regarding communities taking steps between values
> and economy to shape more intentional outcomes? This is a neat
> application of boundary work similar to what I heard in your criticism
> of neutral science. I mean something better than the assumption that
> whatever is good for business trickles down sort of logic.
>
> On 5/24/2012 6:04 PM, archytas wrote:
>> 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 »
>