I have been reading the I Ching for material to think about during the day... well i looked up how to read the coins. (The program kind of does it all automatically) What is amazing is how serious people are. It seems they are even using it to determine if they are to use 2 or 3 ply maybe it is 4 ply that is needed after the latest dump.
I do believe. It can show you things you need to think about regarding any given subject.. along with correct moral responses... but make a decision as to what ply of toilet paper to use when wiping ones buns this time. No not only No but Hell No!!!
Allan
On May 27, 2012 9:46 AM, "Allan H" <allanh1946@gmail.com> wrote:
Times are changing, the problem I see people who are just in the morality game for their own prophet. (sic)
AllanOn May 27, 2012 3:47 AM, "archytas" <nwterry@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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment