Re: Mind's Eye Towards a modern morality

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 »