Dear Alberto,
I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not
conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am
conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of
rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives seem
to be anti-progressive in their actions and so I think of them as just
naive or worse.
On 8/23/2012 1:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Roger,
I tend to believe what you say. But, in an effort to be objective, I
belive that emotionality is the trait that apeear in a culture when it
is dominant and mostly unchallenged. Now the progressive culture is
dominant, so the lazy-thinking people go to the progressive culture,
but this neither is the root nor defines the progressive culture. At
least I don´t think that people Mill or Rawls are emotional. They may
be very coold. However there is something demagogic and self-indulgent
in every progressive ideology, this makes more lazy.thinking people in
its side.
Both groups have two different ideas of what reality is, and two
different ideas of human nature. Progressives may be or may not be
very rational, but they start with different beliefs, so that even
with equal goals, the consequences for action are completely different
than in the case of conservatives.
I´m conservative, this is evident, this is a disclaimer, but if I as
conservative and more or less rational were persuaded that the social
reality is not a consequence of human nature, but the result of an
external ideological repression which make very difficult a possible
unlimited human and material progress , if I were persuaded that all
men have not inside the seeds for evil, so that the evil could
be eradicated by political measures, then i would be progressive with
the same rationality, and with the same goals of doing the best for
the whole society.
For this reason, it is necessary to gain a scientific knowledge of
human nature, I believe that evolutionary theory brings so. the gofod
news for me is that the picture that emerges from it is conservative.
The bad news is that the progressives feels themselves challenged in
their beliefs and they will not accept it easily.
2012/8/21 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>>
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to
get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet.
They speak completely different languages. Two completely
different views,
two different tribes always at war with one another.
Because of the bicameral mind metaphor (Jaynes and others):
*Left brain metaphor*
(top or intellectual portion of monad humunculus)
Conscious, thinking, discreteness, sequential, control, logic,
yang, male, ego,
insistent, sun
*Right brain metaphor*
(feeling or middle portyion of monad humunculus)
Subconscious, Feeling, global, nonlinear thinking, submission,
aesthetics, yin, female,
noninsistent, moon
Two different tribes, the ought or moral coming from the right
hand brain
metaphor, the "is" coming from the left hand brain metaphor. The
bicameral
mind
Let me just state my basis for the assignments. I think Lakoff
wrote a book
not long ago on the subject of words and politics.
Liberal (ought) arguments are usually morally based (we can't let
the poor starve
so we need to tax the greedy rich) while conservatives try to
reply using the "is"
weapons of facts and logic (we can't afford that stuff, we're
going bankrupt).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."
--
Onward!
Stephen
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
