Didn't realise Manning had to live in Wales Nom - poor sod! They don't really speak Welsh in Pembroke, so at least he was spared that. I pretty much reject the idea there is moral or ethical philosophy or that religion works on morals. The law clearly ain't about it. There's always some nonce in a skirt and silly hat to tell us we are engaged in a just war and clergy never shag children.
On 3 May, 15:59, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning > Have you read this wikipedia entry?....There's a lot there that I didn't > know. It definitely looks as though the poor (said sympathetically) guy was > fighting his personal war on a whole lot of fronts... personal and > political and otherwise.... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg > > There is a precedent... I would say that Manning should be released without > punishment.... but it appears that the "right" wants to make an example of > him.....SHit-Headed sons of daughters of pigs and bitches... the Right.... > > Libertarianism..... License to Steal.... basically.... that's all they > want.... on the social or civil rights side.... they are mostly > totalitarian..... that's why I call them Fascists... > totalitarian/capitalists.... but they manage to lie about their agenda and > appeal to the naive and impressionable youth.... you know... the Fascists > and Nazis have their appeal to the youthful "action" oriented... > > We could discuss morality more in depth....IMO, wherever it comes from.... > there are some deeply held notions (at least for some), there... > > Rumor has it that "austerity" is about to break (collapse) in the Eurozone > and Britain..... any truth to that? Changing of the "conservative" guard? > > http://www.cnbc.com/id/100705271http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/03/rbs-sell-off-close-downhttp://www.freep.com/article/20130502/BUSINESS/305020077/GM-reports-p...http://rt.com/op-edge/ecb-refinancing-rate-oulds-748/ > > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:23:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > 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.
