'We want' personal commitment in all kinds of areas - one might include here 'honour amongst thieves'. Some of our prison governors are in trouble at the moment for moving prisoners just before inspections (this is actually a common incident in quality schemes where managers shift inventory to show efficiency in their areas, resulting in great charts until the overall is seen). There are many old schemes of virtue and whilst one wants this to be internalised (preferably a world of virtuous individuals), it seems we need external checks. Capitalism claimed to do this through the disciplines of markets and the bottom-line. Blair is very happy to make his peace with god on the basis of his integrity.
In Hobbes, one can see a claim to accept regal authority as a least worst evil. We need something else, something in which virtue is its own reward, yet not the Blair-like excuse for not demonstrating what is right whilst posturing 'virtue'. I would not see this as a block to progress. Currently little taught (though one can do a whole undergrad course in the US on same) are the ideas of 'public choice theory' which aim to cope with the selfish individual decision-maker by encouraging a match between the individual and public interest. The theories or many and I'm sure I could establish some as mutually incompatible. You have said a great deal that is interesting Orn - one sure sign of unity may well be that we share a 'lust' for it that goes beyond any personal disagreements (themselves a plus I would say, rather than squalid jockeying). Let me put up a quick thought experiment we won't do. Imagine we meet and 'brainstorm' our ideas out. A day would produce reams. Francis could then use his brilliant skills to reduce this output to a couple of A4s (we Brits always put the hard work out to the Irish!). This would probably constitute the first meeting of the Manifesto Group! At least two things might happen from there. We might plan action on the basis of an accepted draft, or we might spend the next year writing all Francis' edits back in! The latter has been typical of much I've seen. Wittering forever on what Witters meant by 'a place of safety' in his ethics lecture. My point here is that I think there is much to be drawn up, yet this is not the process we are ultimately interested in. Given my background, I'm inclined towards the notion of a research programme - establishing a core that accepts evidence and can change on the evidence. Science has pretty good ways of doing this, but I think you know I'm not advocating science. It is a failure beyond those with its skills and most scientists are not much more than of the 'tropical fish' variety (there is no deep metaphysics we follow as scientists we pay much attention to - though plenty of commentary on such). Most people seem ineducable in science - the OECD-PISA studies have found most 15 year-olds struggle to use it in regarding life- problems - only 1.3% manage 'difficult' problems (if you look at this study and what it considers 'difficult' it's scary - we are not talking rocket science, but what should be simple common sense problems). I assume we don't want to create a 'new manifesto in Latin' for a few priests to go missionary with? I don't mean to be dispiriting here Orn - I'm just returning to the beginning in questioning what it is sensible to be up to. I sense a key problem in asking rationality to do something it can't - something I have long suspected you understand and which is difficult to articulate. I think the problem is this - we are looking to people to make their own decisions fairly and on an informed basis. This seems fine, yet is riddled with the real problem that most people just don't do this. Rationality would have us be rational in constructing the core, yet this is the problem - perhaps one of pearls before swine? How do we find a 'theosophy' that does not simply usurp this rationality as another not-internalised authority? My sense of this argument is that 'perfection' won't do. At the same time, we need a 'new utopia' as a frame for action with a purpose. Corporal punishment is now illegal in the EU. Yet we use it all over the place. Kids are told they need education to get good jobs and not become underclass slackers, our women forced to wear the veil, our streets bombed, if we don't stop the demons abroad, you are so ugly you need to use our cosmetics to be 'worth it', you will be treated to pain and derision if you blow the whistle ... all this is meted out by the silent brotherhood. Plenty want to run from this. We may well be limited to writing the dream. Plenty would simply deride this - they have been taught to do so. Moore's Utopia was less a dream than plagiarism (once one has scanned a classic or two) - though the word itself is interesting with a connotation of 'nowhere that can exist'. Writing might spread, but now there are not simply readers. In a way, Chomsky has said it all (and very well) - we are not seeing his ilk much in the new generation. It is not so much the problems I write here, but a 'concern' that concerns me. We are asking people to be grown up in a world kept in perpetual childhood. Can we establish a path to unity (or the paths that create it) in some form of awareness of new forms of argumentation? I'm very appreciative of what you are writing, pretty sure it is what we should be trying, yet in our own cause and what others might make of it the unity cannot be such as to leave out the idiot, put others in the cold for our own glow. This is precisely what politicians do as they urge more school on those it cannot benefit as schooling exists now. They are merely urging voters, establishing the focus-group-led holy cause and themselves as its priests. Dawkins is no different. At bottom, my guess is that we need a minimal materialism (granting matter a role in thought), itself recognised as spiritual, to bring about a contentment of new ideal possibilities and creation. Contentment, not soma. Otherwise we are thinking martyrs of a world at war, or writing, licking our wounds in hiding, for those who may one day be able to take on the Undead. In those experiments (occasions of experience) we conduct in which we sweep such as the above away, perhaps to commune, to feel fellowship or even in the existential moment under fire, there is something else. This is only part of the story for me. On 20 Oct, 01:41, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd guess it will be important to recognise how fresh the start may > have to be. I have read Habermas and Rawls - though I'm not a patient > reader of such stuff. I wonder more on why I feel so let down. Part > of this is that managerialism is not confronted in a language of human > action I recognise. We have sunk into a deep pit of this, almost to a > point of 'no exit'. Strangely, perhaps, some game theory analysis > seems to give some pointers. The main one is that it becomes clear > that no one is taking responsibility and we seem to have all kinds of > existing politics that encourages this. I can't remember the actual > numbers, but on climate change typically 90% sign up to do nothing and > the 10% who agreed to do anything quickly enter a renegotiation to > change what they did sign up to. > > On 19 Oct, 23:47, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “I think I'd do go back in terms of 'beginning'. If we want unity, > > then we have to accept some painful messages…” – Neil > > > Agreed. > > > “…The first is that we live in fear of creating enemies. This means > > that we 'beggar our neighbours'. Soon we have foreign policies that > > do just this and also require us to stay ahead in the race. There is > > no point in proceeding without recognising that we can't just accept > > reaching a point where this kind of 'dirty world' argument wins > > because we haven't dealt with it…” – Neil > > > I agree that humans deal with relations as well as security. And, I > > agree that not dealing with unexamined associated fears and phobias > > maintains the status quo. > > > “…Religion becomes a 'handy' means of social control along with myths > > of origination, superiority and the rest…” - Neil > > > Religion, at its core, deals with unity as I see it. Neighboring > > domains include morality/laws and perfection. Most of the current > > trappings thereof far exceed even the term dross. Yet, as a species, > > we do contain the set of beliefs associated with society supporting > > our views and needs as well as a more complex set of unexamined > > beliefs. And, yes we all have an area of the psyche that deals with > > beliefs about origin as well as one about hierarchies etc. It would > > seem that these need to all be examined and clarified as much as > > possible...as an omnipresent methodology, epistemology, theology and > > perhaps ontological clarification too. Overall, I suspect little to no > > ‘personal’ ability to impose beliefs thereupon has any place in > > reality. Some more global sense of the One seems preferable to direct > > subjective thoughts. > > > “…This means we can assume no boundaries - we can't leave some > > crackpots alone to work on doomsday weapons and so on - there has to > > be international policing. I'd also say, that because a small number > > of idiots with guns can dominate very large territory, we have to > > accept a role for armed services and policing…” – Neil > > > I miss the meaning of ‘no boundaries’ here and sense it is important. > > Of course for our security, that which would threaten life would have > > to be addressed. And, how many would be involved in such an > > international force? Would it be possible to assign this > > responsibility to us all?? Without personal commitment to > > responsibility, we get what we have, no? > > > And, yes, there have been idealistic societal constructions including > > an analysis of armies. I did learn some while reading Plato. And, I > > felt his presentation to be at once astute and pedantic. > > > I also agree that if we don’t know those who came before us, we are > > doomed to the repetition of the ongoing errors. I feel not very > > erudite when it comes to this study so would benefit from the wisdom > > of others. In the meantime, while asking the question and listening to > > responses, the best I can do is forge a fresh start. This perhaps > > naïve attempt is primarily due to the obvious failure of previous > > attempts and the inevitable (if survival is to be achieved) universal > > recognition of unity. > > “…I believe a major problem in this area is that people don't 'want' > > to join in. And that one needs an attitude of 'repeated beginnings' > > to gunderstand what the issues are. If this unity is there, then > > powerful > > forces have been suppressing it.” – Neil > > > Yes Neil, your quotation marked ‘want’ is acknowledged. It often is > > the case whether one assigns the ability to do to such things or not. > > And, not fully grasping ‘repeated beginnings’, I can only guess that > > noticing cycles would be a part of the mix. If this is it, it is a way > > of groking the issues. > > > And, your and many other people’s skepticism about the eternally > > recognized unity is common and tosses babies out. The implied area of > > study, “powerful forces” is noteworthy and prescient. In fact, this > > ‘work’ is at the core of this exercise. Although I wouldn’t quite use > > the term ‘suppressing’, it is obvious that we all too often take our > > eye off of the prize. > > > So, your new thread has its function in the process and may form a > > type of negative theology when it comes to agreement. > > > On Oct 19, 9:20 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I've swung towards it in recent years. Can't get anyone to do what > > > they should without the threat of making them pay! > > > > Orn - given our penchant for disliking mainstream media - and for > > > another thread - it does seem we ought to be able to detail what it is > > > we don't like about it, and what might be done. I'd see this as > > > teleologically (no Chaz, no pain?) linked to unity too. I'll just > > > give an example here, and start a thread to invite comment. We have a > > > post strike coming this week - news coverage is pisspoor, with union > > > leaders being told they are putting the Royal Mail at risk (as though > > > they wouldn't know this). Gawpy reporting like this needs to be > > > stopped, but how? The anti-unity bullet would work, but I take it we > > > are non-violent? > > > > On 19 Oct, 16:58, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Meh! compo culture, I'd do away with that if I could. > > > > > On 19 Oct, 16:31, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I'd licence all recreational drugs Lee - that way the sucker-punters > > > > > could sue the legal companies supplying them and take a burden off the > > > > > NHS. > > > > > > On 19 Oct, 14:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I think I'd do go back in terms of 'beginning'. If we want unity, > > > > > > then we have to accept some painful messages. The first is that we > > > > > > live in fear of creating enemies. This means that we 'beggar our > > > > > > neighbours'. Soon we have foreign policies that do just this and > > > > > > also > > > > > > require us to stay ahead in the race. There is no point in > > > > > > proceeding > > > > > > without recognising that we can't just accept reaching a point where > > > > > > this kind of 'dirty world' argument wins because we haven't dealt > > > > > > with > > > > > > it. The first text I'm aware of on this comes from Plato, but I > > > > > > suspect earlier origins. Religion becomes a 'handy' means of social > > > > > > control along with myths of origination, superiority and the rest. > > > > > > This means we can assume no boundaries - we can't leave some > > > > > > crackpots > > > > > > alone to work on doomsday weapons and so on - there has to be > > > > > > international policing. I'd also say, that because a small number > > > > > > of > > > > > > idiots with guns can dominate very large territory, we have to > > > > > > accept > > > > > > a role for armed services and policing. > > > > > > > I'm not going to go on just now. This debate is forever old. > > > > > > Plato, > > > > > > Aristotle, Moore, Margaret Lucas Cavendish, Hobbes and many others > > > > > > have left some good and some useless pedantry and rationalisation. > > > > > > I > > > > > > don't recommend the books as good reading to say the least, but we > > > > > > should be able to recognise others and try not to re-invent too many > > > > > > wheels. > > > > > > > I believe a major problem in this area is that people don't 'want' > > > > > > to > > > > > > join in. And that one needs an attitude of 'repeated beginnings' to > > > > > > understand what the issues are. If this unity is there, then > > > > > > powerful > > > > > > forces have been suppressing it. > > > > > > > On 19 Oct, 11:57, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ohh you are a brave one OM. > > > > > > > > What can this group who's concepts of politics, and faith or lack > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > are many abd veried agree on. > > > > > > > Umm well lets give you my insight and we'll see whathappens. > > > > > > > > 1. The right to life. (even though at some point > > > > > > > overpopulation > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > have to be addressed.) > > > > > > > > What does this mean? The right to live how you choose? Then yes > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > should each be able to do tis within the scope of the law of > > > > > > > course. > > > > > > > > 2. Liberty. Where does one place limits here, if at all? > > > > > > > > Agian as with the right to life within the scope of the law. > > > > > > > Should we > > > > > > > endevour though to make those laws undermining liberty viod? > > > > > > > Some yes > > > > > > > and some no. For example it does seem silly to me to not make all > > > > > > > recreational drugs legal. > > > > > > > > 3. Health. How do we as a people help to assure less > > > > > > > suffering > > > > > > > when it > > > > > > > comes to our bodies and even our emotions and mind? > > > > > > > > We must help those in our societies that need help, so a more than > > > > > > > decent helath care system that costs little to the pacient is a > > > > > > > must. > > > > > > > > 4. Justice. How is this determined? > > > > > > > > Makeing restitution for wrongs done, I would say. > > > > > > > > On 19 Oct, 03:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
