One could say Bradley Manning was in the same situation. Financial cops should be nicking banksters. I had a bit of a flirtation with libertarianism years back - as an alternative to central planning. I didn't take it very far because I could see the inevitable corruption and monopoly power of money. Much of what we call morality is urged on us through work ethic and other nonsense.
On 30 Apr, 20:33, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > I've thought about this "thematic" of "leadership " as I've run across it > in many "literary" contexts.... here's what I said about it (below) in a > rudimentary " web online" analysis I did of the Grimm Snow White > tale........ I don't view it as simply as a logical contraposition between > "leadership versus anarchy".....I don't think that theer is such a logical > contraposition, at all.... they are different logical questions > altogether....There are different "leadership" siituations.... some are > morally valid others are not.... just as there are different Opposition to > authority situations (anarchy).... again, some of which are morally valid > while others are not..... > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/humanities/nom... > But I want to treat this issue of power as it "may" relate to the > story....You may recall that the queen "summoned" the huntsman and > pretty much "told" him what to do to Snow White. The queen was in a > position of "authority" over the huntsman.... what do you suppose his > "status" was.... more than a plain "subject", I would think.... > probably more like a Castle "officer" who was charged with > participating in the hunts for game that may have served as either (or > both) a pastime for the nobility or a means to stock up the castle > larder with meat. So, when the queen told the hutsman to take Snow > White and kill her.... well, I would think that the hutsman was > "expected" to do it.... The relationship between them consisted of the > queen's Authority( GOOD concept)/ to summon and command (GOOD > reference) and the huntsman's Subordination (GOOD concept)/ to obey > (GOOD reference). But what happens when the queen's moral compass > points in the wrong direction?.... Then instead you get something like > the queen's Tyranny (BAD concept)/ to compel (BAD reference) and the > huntsman's Subjugation (BAD concept)/ to submit (BAD reference).Now. > you can mix and match those "Applied Signs" in various ways, depending > on if you want to logically "square them according to the single > individual (queen "or" huntsman) or to the paired relationship (queen > "and" huntsman) > (queen) > authority / order.............. tyranny / compel > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD/ > > BAD > > authority / compel..............tyranny / order > BAD/ GOOD.......................BAD / BAD > **** > (huntsman) > subordination / obey............subjugation / submit > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / BAD > > subordination / submit..........subjugation / obey > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / GOOD > **** > I want to get across the notion that there are two ways of > doing(REFERENCE) the (almost) same thing and there are two ways of > thinking(CONCEPT) about the (almost) same plan. The difference is in > the details... details like, in this case, Snow White's "innocence". > So, what happens in the story?....Here's what I think.... the huntsman > was faced with a moral dilemma.... an "unethical" order from a > "superior Officer" what should he have done???? here's my next "mixed" > dialectic..... > > independence / rebel.......... servitude / acquiesce > (?) / (?)......................(?) / (?) > independence / acquiesce.......servitude / rebel > (?) / (?)......................(?) /(?) > We saw that the huntsman asserted his independence and rebelled....but > he was still a subordinate or a subjugate to the queen.... what could > he do? face the consequences? would he be punished? then? or > nowadays?.... he chose to try to deceive the queen..... how did he do > it and was that moral or ethical? > nominal9 > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:23:57 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > You make the points I think should be investigated Nom. To take > > leadership as a given is nonsense - but so is the denial in full > > anarchy. > > > On 26 Apr, 19:34, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > sport / compete........survival / cooperate > > > > sport / cooperate......survival / compete > > > > It's an actual old thematic dialectic I came up with analyzing a play > > > "Aminta" by Torquato Tasso in the 1980's....plug in your "ethical > > > preferences" and go from there....If you value sport / compete as "good > > / > > > good"... then by contrary necessity you have to value survival / > > cooperate > > > as "bad / bad"....etc....it all depends on point of view of moral or > > > ethical predicated value....I agree that capitalist economics is more > > akin > > > to a sport / compete situation.... the referees are definitely > > beneficial > > > in keeping the cheating and fouls in check.... but my broader point > > is..... > > > could a survival / cooperate template for economic activity be better or > > > more attuned (at least) to some situations.....that's a rhetorical > > > question, of course... some say yes, others no.... but at least > > recognize > > > (or acknowledge openly) the range of option, I'd suggest.... > > > > leadership.... this gets into another set of thematic oppositions, not > > the > > > least of which is the following > > > > freedom / choice.... dominance / compel > > > > freedom / compel....dominance / choice > > > > same thing... value one "course of action" option and the others are > > also > > > valued on the basis of contrariety... whatever your point of view... > > > Leadership defined how?.....is my point here. There are situations in > > life > > > and society where, perforce, a dominance / compel relation is made to > > > apply.... think military....chain of command.. orders being given by > > > superior officers to subaltern soldiers.....but these military > > conditions > > > of "leadership" are extraordinary and are assumed to apply on the > > > assumption (in civilized or moral countries) that the leadership will > > only > > > make orders in and ethical manner (at least most of the time)....but > > how > > > about business or economic leadership.... the tension to dominance / > > > compel there is greater and the ethical mandate more tenuous if even > > > existent at all......... > > > > Great leaders.... ?..... me..... anarchist..... remember? ... but I > > > acknowledge "reality"..... > > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013 1:07:12 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > The Mussolini woman not quite my cup of visual tea. I did, many moons > > > > back have a dalliance with the daughter of a French fascist. The > > > > bloke was actually very decent to me and helped with an inquiry - > > > > amazing what he was able to shift out of my way. I think the pork > > > > sword wanted to stay but I had a chance to make the minor counties > > > > cricket team. > > > > > I'm fairly convinced on revolution and if the only 'victims' were a > > > > few bankers swinging from lamp-posts it would be a good thing for the > > > > greater good. They do enough violence to us through redundancy and in > > > > letting third world farmers die because a tractor has taken their work > > > > or they give up to debt through suicide (250,000 in India alone in 10 > > > > years). When it comes to such social experiment what price 92,000 > > > > super rich against this? I think its time we took moral talk back > > > > from sinecured Harvard professors and realised facts make oughts. > > > > > My problem with revolution is leadership. I'll spare you the crap > > > > I've read that business schools and history produce. I've been > > > > looking for a critical history of leadership and come up blank for > > > > now. You can tell something is wrong when you ask people to list > > > > great leaders - its rare anyone mentions anyone they actually met or > > > > whose brain I wouldn't summarily test with a lead projectile (or two > > > > to make sure). Quite a few come up with total myths from heroic > > > > tragedy or religion. > > > > > One assumes we can only be conned in "appointing" tossers with shell > > > > shock trauma like Hitler - I read a book on how he was conjured up > > > > recently (though I'm not sure we can swallow the idea it is an Anglo- > > > > American trick used to pit Germany against the USSR). I glanced at a > > > > list of British PMs since Walpole (a couple before too) and they all > > > > look like nondescript turkeys or villains of the elite like Churchill, > > > > Thatcher and Blair. I fancy a history of their crookery and cronyism > > > > would enlighten. I have Churchill and Blair as US spies - why do > > > > novelists stick on such safe ground as the Da Vinci Code? Further > > > > down the pecking order how do the stuffed shirts and crooks get to > > > > lead our organisations generally? One survey of people going through > > > > INSEAD (French major business school) failed t find a single instance > > > > of a student not networked by nepotism or the 'royal route' through > > > > the best European schools, universities and grandes ecoles. > > > > > What one finds is all kinds of "leadership skills" bandied about as > > > > real but the connection I make is with religious lying (from gods met > > > > just past the second burning bush up the mountain trail on the right, > > > > the prophet we must not name who probably never existed and on to the > > > > salamander in hat). The only thing special about leaders (in this > > > > sense) I've met as CEOs and so on is that they could give me money, > > > > let me stay in my job and so on. > > > > > In biology we can find leadership from insects up - indeed lower than > > > > that (algae) - but it's quite rare for the death of a leader to cause > > > > much trouble - one of the weedy proles just steps up to the mark, even > > > > if it has to change sex and grow (clown fish?) - vile king mouse is > > > > easily replaced by any male mouse you feed up and train to fight. > > > > Elephants may be the exception in that the matriarch may have many of > > > > the memories of collective > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
