Re: Mind's Eye Re: Towards a modern morality

Slavery since antiquity... eh. Yes, the hope is then that there are
societies that would have experienced it over the millennia, duly
noticed it, would experimented and succeeded at evolving a solution of
some kind... before stumbling back to similar chaos.




Distribution is definitely a primary issue which, contrary to what
people jump to, is above all about societal values, even before
investing in institutions and processes.




But, equally important is the creation or production process, which
need to have the required freedoms and a measure of empowerment. This
again must start off at societal values, as Preamble to defining what
those freedoms would be, within the agreed societal values.




The law would not be an ass, if all laws are derived from values. The
values need to be defined in simple, unequivocal form, with adequate
reinforcing stories and metaphors for people to relate to and
recount... not science and art, please ! Should that happen, the
values... there would little work for lawyers and no scope for
subjectivity, without it becoming clear that the societal values are
being changed !




One glaring, overarching matter is the economic model. This More >
More >>> Sky Is The Limit value to both Growth, market expansion !,
and Profit, ROI - Dividend - Compensation ... is too stupid, from the
values perspective we've broached.




An almost exact solution is in the concept of overgrowing...
knowledge, attitude, skill, career position, social status,
entrepreneurship, corporate values ... as in evolving out of one and
entering into quite, quite another, of new paradigms.




Naturally, it takes several centuries, thousand years would be in good
proportion, to steer the changes and establish such a society. Which,
very sincerely, Europe and American civilisations of today simply do
not have. To my mind, any one with a perspective rooted in them would
be the proverbial blind, leading the blind. Maybe Incas, North
Indians ... that are wiped out.




Our current global values system abhors communes and communities. The
reason is that we have little of the language, markets, economy,
judiciary, culture, environmental distinctions that foster and bind
communes and communities.




I know the Islamic ones are very, very very, poor examples but they
also provide opportunities to elucidate. In them, at least the more
regressive ones, the religious values are pretty much the societal
values. They live as a community with their language, customs,
culture, symbols, common sense of justice... However distasteful, the
society we are speaking of needs to have such social integration with
desired values.




Sorry, apparently, I wrote all this for my blog !

On Jun 3, 3:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Much I agree with Mal.  There's no problem with doing our bit but how
> do we know how much that should be or whether we need all the
> economics and other Mumbo Jumbo of the control system?
>
> On Jun 2, 11:09 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hey Vam,
>
> > Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler.  Credit has more to answer for
> > than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
> > stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?
>
> > Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
> > food and shelter, I guess.   What fucks our brains is when we realise
> > that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
> > superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
> > there.
>
> > As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
> > the associated crime is my present stance.
>
> > There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
> > the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
> > secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
> > answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
> > species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
> > glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
> > denying the existence of opportunities to grow.
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:00 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What would you call a man who has mortgaged / taken a loan against his
> > > future earnings... ?
>
> > > The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
> > > right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
> > > state of greater slavery...
>
> > > What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
> > > and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
> > > own agendas to make a call ... ?
>
> > > The bugger is no position to refuse.
>
> > > What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
> > > earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?
>
> > > They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
> > > kids, estate...
>
> > > On Jun 2, 12:29 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> > > > by our greed.
>
> > > > On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of us. Our
> > > > > society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> > > > > Allan
> > > > > On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I am currently living in a small pacific group of islands. There is a
> > > > > > central government but many of the islands have no formal policing.
>
> > > > > > So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by the
> > > > > > village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
>
> > > > > > The great advantage they have over a large country with all embracing
> > > > > > laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They can
> > > > > > assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
> > > > > > societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense that
> > > > > > they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
> > > > > > individuals because there is neither the money nor the time available
> > > > > > to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
> > > > > > something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe and 31
> > > > > > mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but it
> > > > > > does seem to lead to less accidents.
>
> > > > > > It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
> > > > > > building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions as
> > > > > > far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself, however,
> > > > > > is difficult because different societies have different views
> > > > > > regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
> > > > > > problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
>
> > > > > > Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
> > > > > > paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
> > > > > > should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
> > > > > > criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society would
> > > > > > consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here which
> > > > > > confounds me.
>
> > > > > > I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you guys
> > > > > > can come up with some useful ideas.
>
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but wonder if
> > > > > > > people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
>
> > > > > > > If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any value? If
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality going?
> > > > > > > On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I read what
> > > > > > > >> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how they live
> > > > > > > >> their life. My experience is when people start to justify there is
> > > > > > > >> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> > > > > > > >> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question is how do
> > > > > > > >> you view it.
>
> > > > > > > > I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and
> > > > > > professional
> > > > > > > > life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will have on
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that arise. A
> > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like this.
> > > > > > Some
> > > > > > > > take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and station, I
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.
>
> > > > > > > > On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
>
> > > > > > > >  Allan
>
> > > > > > > >> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com
> > > > > > > >> <mailto:rigs...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>    Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose their
> > > > > > > >>    "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude); further, wars,
> > > > > > > >>    diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point you may be
> > > > > > > >>    trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good life"
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > >>    earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I don't
> > > > > > think
> > > > > > > >>    life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in intelligence,
> > > > > > talent or
> > > > > > > >>    survival tactics or that my view is anything new.//Interesting-
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>    you are the third child and it may explain some of your thinking
> > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > >>    find birth order or being an only child has a lot of influence.
>
> > > > > > > >>    On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >>    <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>     > My rather lengthy response has just blown up!  My view is the
> > > > > > > >>    world is
> > > > > > > >>     > a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover this up
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > >>     > change anything.  This is easy enough to say.  The conundrum is
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > >>     > know people should live in peace - but to say this is to
> > > > > > 'enforce
> > > > > > > >>     > liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is found
> > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > >>     > Lyotard-Habermas debates.  Once ideology is extirpated as
> > > > > > Habermas
> > > > > > > >>     > wanted, one must act on what is left.  How do we know this isn't
> > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > >>     > a rationalist fantasy?  Even the Nazi's self-justified as
> > > > > > > >> "rational".
> > > > > > > >>     > Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a kid (as we
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >>     > would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as any
> > > > > > > >>    intellectual
> > > > > > > >>     > could be.  He wanted us to act against and ideal-type free
> > > > > > speech
> > > > > > > >>     > situation where only the power of Reason was in play.  The key
> > > > > > > >>    problem
> > > > > > > >>     > with this is there are no rational humans.  Habermas knew this -
> > > > > > > >>    hence
> > > > > > > >>     > the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber).  Once you know
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>     > rational in any totality you are doomed to act in accordance as
> > > > > > > >> their
> > > > > > > >>     > can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in
> > > > > > quadrilateral
> > > > > > > >>     > equations with two solutions).  This itself may be no more than
> > > > > > > >>     > 'rational terror' (and of course just another control group
> > > > > > > >>    pretending
> > > > > > > >>     > to be objective but really acting on their hidden agenda).
>
> > > > > > > >>     > I have little doubt science has shown up humanity as irrational
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>     > just a more dangerous animal than others.  The question for me
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> how
> > > > > > > >>     > we develop a real live and let live morality that recognises
>
> ...
>
> read more »