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

Not adding much right now, I seem to always be in such a hurry.. losing
weight. It might be useful to some of us to refer to the general schools
of sociology (perspectives), it's been a while and I don't have time to
properly ref but I say a nice summary in the wikischools materials, some
are exploratory while some offer reductions in other directions. Neil is
doing well I think in the exploratory area, the point I'm making is the
ability to traverse the tree until the relevant variables become more
apparent (requires redundancy and re-cycling) and problem solving- crap,
gotta go, sorry for no link. :-/

On 6/4/2012 4:00 AM, Vam wrote:
> I feel the real issues did not connect, Neil.
> So, here's it in plain text :
>
> People believe what THEY want to believe...
> not what science says.
> Call them modern, post modern... whatever.
> In fact, I find all such divides as polemic and fake.
>
> It makes no difference, for instance, to Christianity even if it is
> established, as has indeed been done, that Jesus is fiction. For the
> anchors at the helm, there's too much money and power in it. And the
> people... they need it.
>
> All politicians, economists, dictators, wealth advisors, fund
> managers, shares brokers, religious heads, bureaucrats, leaders...
> will tell you in private that there are very few people who will or
> can think for themselves.
>
> Surprisingly, despite it all, I would argue that many people do lead
> moral and ethically aligned lives, with consequent difficulties and
> much forbearance. They are simple, honest, creative, respectful
> towards others and the environment, and having ready access to
> happiness through sheer choice.
>
> That's real, without terminological embellishment.
>
> On Jun 4, 7:39 am, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What I really mean by 'modern morality' is more guesswork - imagine we
>> invent a bullshit meter. When politics or other salespeople ply their
>> scripts they are drowned out by the meter's bell. The meter would
>> eventually make honesty the best policy - or someone who produced
>> another machine that countered the bs meter invisibly very rich. A
>> modern morality would come after we become modern. I contend there
>> had been no modernity and believe the main reason for this is our
>> populations are broadly ineducable in science (at least as currently
>> taught) and where there is universal education it is broadly the means
>> to keep us living in non-modern traditions.
>> Science has blasted holes in all religions as fables - but is yet to
>> take on economics and democracy as such - in my view the control fraud
>> has moved from churches, mosques and temples to free market economics
>> in claims this muck is scientific or technocratic when it is fable.
>> What are the moral implications, say, if science could demonstrate
>> very little banking is skilled and a few robots could give the world
>> what it needs in terms of financial services?
>>
>> On Jun 4, 12:42 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Just re-read... the word "overgrowing" needs to be read as
>>> "outgrowing" ...
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 9:29 am, Vam<atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »