On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyespam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"...Why would you not accept this
semantics? " - gabby
Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his
interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the case,
he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term
'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in apparently
different ways.
> <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in its
> formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a complexity
> reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat constructedness. The
> point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would then mean
> shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not accept this
> semantics?
>
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind
> ...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > thought... " – paradox
>
> > IF you somehow interpreted my having said "Relativism and
> > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of
> > disillusionment." as a call for blindness, nothing could be further
> > from the truth.
>
> > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term 'disillusionment'.
> > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly high
> > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close to
> > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term itself
> > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, in
> > this context, such a realization compared to how most people apprehend
> > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful –
> > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain
> > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is 'waking
> > up' is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is
> > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time.
>
> > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin to
> > open one's eyes metaphorically.
>
> > As an aside, Sartre's novel, "Nausea", is an example of the psyche
> > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are
> > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. Thus
> > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness of
> > the emptiness of life is quite acute.
>
> > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have
> > > thought...
>
> > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the
> > > > well of disillusionment.
>
> > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any
> > 'right'
> > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this
> > view
> > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet
> > what
> > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about
> > debt
> > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could
> > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
> > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
> > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
> > > > > that.
>
> > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all.
> > Makes
> > > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you
> > think
> > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then
> > the
> > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who
> > thinks
> > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity,
> > and the
> > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith
> > may
> > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not?
> > Culture does,
> > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to
> > outline
> > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor
> > seems
> > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than
> > the
> > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples
> > morality,
> > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The
> > weakness
> > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly
> > shows
> > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to
> > protect
> > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope
> > for is some
> > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so
> > many
> > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on
> > grounds
> > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication.
> > We might
> > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on
> > with
> > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way
> > around!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions,
> > Lee; you're
> > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not
> > "opposing labels
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is
> > "ethical" or
> > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought
> > or action is
> > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by
> > ordination,
> > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values.
> > It is this
> > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks
> > "deconstructs"
> > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <
> > leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same
> > thing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of
> > action, both as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is
> > an individuals
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or
> > disagree with my
>
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment