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. / Archytas
I agree with a lot of that... but how about you personally, Archytas?... I'm certain (knowing something about you through these talks) that you have developed a fairly good "moral compass"... there are, probably... call them judgments or principles (moral or ethical) that you hold as important or "dear"...I know that there are some for me.... The bit about nonces in skirts and silly hats holds quite true, without a doubt.... but, still,... there is something more there, too... I was raised Catholic, but, more importantly, I've had some literary exposure to the works of some of the "religious" folks, be it sacred or "lay".....there is something worthwhile in it at a cultural level, if not a spiritual one... They, "Clergy" have a "pulpit".... literally..... so, like it or not......they do speak at the moral or ethical level..... and they do influence an "audience"..... They have in many cases framed the discussion on morals or ethics..... and one way or another, anyone who wants to deal in those questions has to learn their "lay of the land", as it were... Anyway.... like I said....I'm pretty certain you have your own takes on these"ethical" matters... which have probably been formed not in a contextual vacuum but in some relation or other to many notions floating around from all points or directions..... On Friday, May 3, 2013 2:36:07 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > 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 ยป > -- 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.
