Re: Mind's Eye Towards a modern morality

It's at the heart of capitalism.

On May 26, 8:47 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Almost every little thing we do contributes to our carbon footprint,
> which increases greenhouse gases, which could in turn ultimately
> threaten hundreds of millions of lives in some remote time and place –
> the uncertainty only adding to the sublime awfulness of our
> responsibilities.  Contrary to Gardiner's concerns about moral
> corruption, climate change does not tempt us to be less moral than we
> might otherwise be; it invites us to be more moral than we could ever
> have imagined. Unlike the Dashwoods, we never knew how many relatives
> we had. Climate ethics is not morality applied but morality
> discovered, a new chapter in the moral education of mankind. It may
> tell us things we do not wish to know (about democracy, perhaps), but
> the future development of humanity may depend on what, if anything, it
> can teach us. (the last lines of a book review essay at LRB)
>
> I'm watching a South American farce called 'The Pope's Toilet' as I
> write.  It's a very moral film.  I don't doubt, as James points out
> that there are plenty of nuggets in our literature.  I doubt anyone in
> here would miss the point of the film.  They are doing Allan's last
> line above.
>
> If we forget moral philosophy, or at least suspend it, we might catch
> a glimpse of a morality that is largely about suppressing the poor and
> is based in non-modern attitudes.  If this is rather obvious, I doubt
> we realise the consequences - one being the limitation of our
> dialogue.  I wonder if we should take Wittgenstein seriously and look
> for what bewitches us as moral incompetents.  I suspect at core the
> problem concerns a technocracy that isn't scientific and operates by
> stopping us taking part in dialogue as competents.  I suspect this is
> a very old trick at the heart of education.
>
> On May 26, 8:31 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > James so finding a sinkhole, now apparently that is very easy, after
> > watching Clare Prophet, the Rev. Moon, the new kid Cohen, the "Hour of
> > Power" and many other religious ministries of great variety you can see
> > they develop sink holes for money with the other end a lavish life style.
>
> > You are right we need to work for the betterment of mankind. The emphasis
> > needs to be on the poor but politics often gets I'm the way. Oddly enough
> > it can be circumvented peacefully.
> > Allan
> >  On May 25, 2012 11:38 PM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think one aspect to consider is what types of thinking it would take to
> > > build up an infrastructure of citizenry with a more scientific world view,
> > > and what that even means (hopefully more rational). This comes with some
> > > challenges in assimilation and integration, what entry points are there, is
> > > there even interest (or is it a funding sinkhole).  And ethically, should
> > > we develop defenses to teach to our young for identifying and combating
> > > faulty reasoning and logic, what forms this might take. Maybe through
> > > introducing a broad immersion of diverse concepts they will self-immunize
> > > and make the changes generationally (and is that process fast enough for
> > > current/future challenges) if we just concentrate more on exceptional
> > > qualitative development. It takes time and attention, people are overworked
> > > and full of anxiety.
>
> > > I was trying to wrap my head around a challenge between technology and
> > > culture a little while back that involved high performance materials like
> > > stainless steel, high pressure steam and platinum plated ceramics and
> > > getting these things into the hands of your average third world farming
> > > community or poorer. Then it hit me, people don't need a source of gadgets,
> > > universities, a western way of life, industries and all that to benefit
> > > from modern knowledge, all that is necessary is an accessible vehicle, a
> > > friend, neighbor, or community. A few minutes later I had drafted an
> > > integrated energy refinement system using natural resources like clay,
> > > wood, soil, and rock to produce clean, high efficiency centralised heating
> > > with waste byproduct applications for sterile drinking water, safe human
> > > waste processing, personal/laundry cleaning chemicals and medicinal
> > > applications. It's gathering dust somewhere around here in the form of a
> > > scribble and a few notes.
>
> > > An accessible vehicle for the modern layman might be in how scientific
> > > approaches can be used to refine, redirect redefine and optimize our ends
> > > and means- and the Idols need to be outed as ill defined means that set an
> > > unrealistically low bar for problem solving capacity. That is one emphasis
> > > for science at the inroad of ethos, what potential could we released by
> > > directing a portion of energy toward actually solving problems and making
> > > solutions accessible? I wonder.
>
> > > Just a couple thoughts while trying to find that voice I put down
> > > somewhere. ;-)
>
> > > On 5/18/2012 12:13 AM, archytas 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<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 amount of work we
> > >> need to do probably equates to 3 days a week for 6 months of a year.
> > >> 75% of GDP is in services and only 6% in really hard work like
> > >> agriculture.  We could have a great deal more through doing less and
> > >> doing what we do with more regard for conservation and very different
> > >> scientific advance.  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.
>
> > >> Human life may be much less than I value it at and just a purposeless
> > >> farce.  The first step in a new attitude towards morality is to
> > >> consider living with a scientific world-view.  The implications of
> > >> this are complex and probably entail shaking ourselves from a false-
> > >> consciousness to be able to see what is being done in our name.  We
> > >> need a modern morality not based in the creation of fear and demons to
> > >> enforce it, or the feeble existential view of the individual.  We are
> > >> social animals and need to get back to some basics developed with
> > >> modern knowledge, not in past religious and empire disasters.
>
> > >> Religion has a role in this in my view - religion we might recapture
> > >> from sensible history - I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: the first
> > >> 5000 years' as a read here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -