> On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:38, PGC <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 3:53:36 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Jul 2020, at 00:17, PGC <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: >> > > > > >> playing early stage strategy games purposefully NOT pursuing objectives too >> ambitiously to maximize later degrees of freedom... and philosophically >> questioning individuality with equality in the sense of "doesn't equality >> mean more degrees of freedom for individuals generally?" that intrigues >> yours truly these days. With a strong notion of equality, any cheater is as >> visible as the unfair advantage obtained. PGC > > > Equality in the social domain means equality of right. I am not sure what you > mean by “strong equality”, and very generally, I don’t think there is a mean > to make all cheater visible. > > In a more equal setting, the folks forcing us to acknowledge or suffer the > effects of the fantastic length of their giant yachts, degrees of power, > influence, money etc. would be harder to hide, which is a circumstance not > afforded in the current setting that fetishizes freedom and individuality in > order to gain large unfair advantages that translate into toxic effects for > communities. The visibility of certain types of questions such as: "Do you > really need a yacht that is 20 km in length? Why? Don't you need a therapist > if you get that thing based on an empire in which you underpay folks?" would > be more pronounced.
OK. > > Good gardening implies a form of equality: if I focus all efforts on the > success of a couple of singular roses, then I get a toxic piece of earth. If > I pay attention to the whole, affording equal opportunity for life to thrive, > then cheating may not be entirely eliminated but again... some invasive > species taking up lots of territory would stand out. Same in music: if > everything is geared to a single soloist, or a musician in some orchestra > tries to be more equal than the others... then most of us know we're either > getting payed for the nonsense or they are overplaying. We can expect that, especially in an era where human sciences has been separated from the exact science, making them both inexact, and inhuman. Now, in a democracy we can change that, probably by voting sometimes for the left, sometimes from the right, and by denunciating and fixing the powers in place. Today, the separation of powers leak a lot, and we have regressed globally at the political level. We will see if the democracy will survive or not Trump and the “republicans”, but it seems to me that Trump has already win the election when the senate acquitted him for its (quite plausible) cheating on this. Why would Trump listen more to the result of the election than he is listen to its medical experts, or to anyone for that matter. Trump has many powerful allies (not just Putin, Kim-Young-Un, etc.). When Barr defends Trump, he is defending the "deep state” (which I define by the prohibitionists, to make it simple). > > Equality appears relevant if we want some form of increase in personal > degrees of freedom not based on the ignorance or exclusion of others. OK. > I argue the crazy, radical, unrealistic forms of equality: that starving, > sick, or suffering people receive the same degree of care and attention > afforded to the privileged among us. The insane notion that we don't kill > each other, or spend large amounts of resources to prepare to do so in order > to control each other in some kind of childish psychological personal > fantasy. The crazy idea that we don't abandon each other while maintaining > agility of freedom or that we don't ascribe more intrinsic value to some > lives as we do to others... for whatever reason. I am not sure I understand what you say here. I tend to find rather well the idea that we should not kill the others, unless legitimate self-defence, but I guess this is trivia. > Foremost, it is a question which I want to see taken to extremes by various > discourses to study what emerges. What would it mean to live in a social or > philosophical setting that would be extremely equal? Equality means, at least in my mind in this discussion, equality of right. It is the idea that everyone obeys to the law, especially at the top who has to give the example. It means same amount of money for the same amount of work, independently of the genre, colour skin, etc. It does not mean “freedom of religion” which is an apparently nice idea, but in practice it is the legalisation of moral harassment, the legalisation of lies, etc. In fact, freedom of religion is almost the same as the interdiction to use reason in theology, and is the main trick of most tyrants and pressure groups. Equality of right is what should normally prevent the “extremely equal” setting, when we are asked to forget how different we really are. > Some would try to be more equal than others :) but jokes aside even though > never jokes aside. Dialetheism without the trivial relativism. PGC That makes sense. Bruno > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a252117-2f9b-4dc7-a62a-45b9706d793eo%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a252117-2f9b-4dc7-a62a-45b9706d793eo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/AF215E98-94B5-445F-BE2F-155F133A649C%40ulb.ac.be.
