Hm. I see. Would it somehow be conceivable to you that your masterplan is what it is, namely your masterplan? Which then would allow for the option of you not understanding paradox'es meaning/intention? But I agree with you that he could have written that his response was a continuation of your exchange of worldviews in order to make it absolutely clear that he is not you.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > "...Why would you not accept this > semantics? " - gabby > > Because it was not what I had intended. I fully accepted that his > interpretation was his interpretation. And, as appears to be the case, > he didn't understand my meaning/intention. The use of the term > 'semantics' here implied that we both were using words in apparently > different ways. > > On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hm, Orn. I thought paradox'es thought was quite appropriate in its > > formulation. The "well of disillusionment" can also be seen as a > complexity > > reduction to one point. No depth, no up, only flat constructedness. The > > point "where one begins to see things as they actually are" would then > mean > > shutting your eyes to the complexity of life. Why would you not accept > this > > semantics? > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:54 AM, ornamentalmind > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > “Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > thought... “ – paradox > > > > > IF you somehow interpreted my having said “Relativism and > > > deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of > > > disillusionment.” as a call for blindness, nothing could be further > > > from the truth. > > > > > Perhaps it is the semantics involved with the term ‘disillusionment’. > > > If so, in an attempt at clarification, this term to me is fairly high > > > up the ladder of levels of consciousness. In fact, it is very close to > > > where one begins to see things as they actually are. The term itself > > > means that one is no longer held by the trance of illusions. And, in > > > this context, such a realization compared to how most people apprehend > > > the world before reaching being disillusioned, can be quite painful – > > > thus the reference to depths of a well. Here, even though such pain > > > has always been part of the psyche; at this level, one who is ‘waking > > > up’ is no longer anesthetized to their ego (illusion) pain… it is > > > being felt quite strongly consciously for the first time. > > > > > So here, with the awareness of pain, one actually is able to begin to > > > open one’s eyes metaphorically. > > > > > As an aside, Sartre’s novel, “Nausea”, is an example of the psyche > > > reaching this particular level of consciousness. And, as most are > > > aware, Jean-Paul was opening his eyes rather than closing them. Thus > > > it can be said that this level of transition is where the awareness of > > > the emptiness of life is quite acute. > > > > > On Aug 27, 10:57 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Complexity is never a reason to shut our eyes, i wouldn't have > > > > thought... > > > > > > On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the > > > > > well of disillusionment. > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois > morality > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I > take > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To > abandon > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low > and > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering > a > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder > what > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any > > > 'right' > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that > is > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - > one > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could > replace > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with > some > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can > be > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful > review > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example > would > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this > > > view > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet > > > what > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - > even > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' > and > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of > debt > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. > We > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about > > > debt > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding > history. > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least > in > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we > could > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of > 'return' - > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things > through - > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' > in > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. > > > Makes > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick > in > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when > you > > > think > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but > then > > > the > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, > religion, > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and > expectations > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out > the > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody > who > > > thinks > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight. > > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of > deity, > > > and the > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious > faith > > > may > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the > intent to > > > outline > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's > professor > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate > than > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less > cripples > > > morality, > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The > > > weakness > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle > hardly > > > shows > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to > > > protect > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can > hope > > > for is some > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral > because so > > > many > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral > on > > > grounds > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of > fornication. > > > We might > > > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get > on > > > with > > > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need > decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other > way > > > around! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your > distinctions, > > > Lee; you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are > not > > > "opposing labels > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is > > > "ethical" or > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a > thought > > > or action is > > > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed > (by > > > ordination, > > > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" > values. > > > It is this > > > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that > Marks > > > "deconstructs" > > > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the > same > > > thing? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms > myself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of > > > action, both as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst > morality is > > > an individuals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or > > > disagree with my > > > > ... > > > > read more »
