Yes- language can be beautiful or terrible!!!
On Aug 30, 6:17 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess you are right Gabs, but I can't help feeling same thing > differant words. Ahhhh the power of language huh. > > On Aug 30, 12:13 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I find the words debt and sin are less useful to activate oneself than the > > IOU, which is lacking the heaviness of the "to be indebted to anybody" and > > opens up for an identification option to either side. > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Lee Douglas > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is ridden with > > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes to be > > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be fiscal > > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free from debt > > > agian. > > > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can also > > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a slavery > > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not rest untll > > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it is > > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in turn > > > move. > > > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human physche. > > > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then that > > > person is not thought highly of. > > > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual freedom, and > > > the fettering of choice. > > > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > socities ethical values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not > > > belive that > > > > > > > > > > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a > > > personal > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding or what is right or wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he > > > > > > > > > > > > says > > > that this is > > > > > > > > > > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire. > > > Excuse me for > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our > > > greatest > > > > > > > > > > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks > > > like moralyity > > > > > > > > > > > > equated with our desires here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
