Meh! Gabs I can of course say anything I want to say, we all can. My kids are my kids, but that is not really what I meant. They don't belong to me, they belong to themselves. I have a duty of care towards them until I deem them fit enough to survive without my care, but the reality is, they are not my kids they own themselves.
On Aug 31, 4:56 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Deconstruct authority and you end up with men being taller and having more > muscles. The first article of our constitution says: Die Würde des Menschen > ist unantastbar. The translation may cause the fuss in Lee and make him call > out for the creator God as the father of his children: Human dignity is > inviolable. Fuse with the might of your children, Lee, and don't let me ever > again hear you saying your kids are not really your kids! > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > None of the above stops duties for an individual like not killing, > > stealing and so on being simple ways to express rules of thumb for a > > decent society, or thinking by individuals trying to improve same or > > come up with ideas free of socially approved epistemic authority - > > indeed, given human collective history this is probably a rule of > > thumb itself. > > Orn often suggests that there are errors in nihilist thinking (as a > > broad label) - I agree. Modern deconstruction ends up telling us some > > things are undecidable and we have to do our best with them. A bit > > like playing a leg-spinner when you can't spot his googlie. This is > > unremarkable - what might be important is that socially decision- > > making is broadly established in an elite and the decisions need not > > be - often obviously decidable. This is very animal stuff and we > > surely can't be sensibly voting for it. How can we vote for > > autonomy? We might start thinking that there is a moral cause against > > representative government that so inevitably decides in the interests > > of such a small group. Moral thinking against established authority > > is easily justified - our literature once praised it - often with > > existential heroes battling torpid discrimination masquerading as > > objective good sense. I suspect what goes wrong in merely > > deconstructive thinking is a point at which authority is banished as > > we recognise its violence and forget that this is merely the ground of > > default to might is right. > > > On Aug 31, 12:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Getting out of the mess we're in is perhaps a forlorn hope, but the > > > odd one of hem came off! History as taught is useless other than in > > > creating factional madness. Biology might help us overcome our > > > failure to recognise how animal we are and history could show us the > > > repeated blunders we keep falling for. My thesis is that argument > > > hasn't helped us much - my guess being we are broadly ineducable > > > through schooling and need a more technological form. I think we have > > > the hard technology but have failed to make this socio-technical to > > > date. > > > I see some of this as 'moral' in that we can clearly challenge all > > > morality - this leading to something rigsy said on the hapless ego > > > state of making this mean 'other people are wrong' - surely (the ego > > > state - not rigsy) childish. Most of us still live and die very > > > parochially and one lesson is that the apparent differences in moral- > > > religious thinking are just cultural. I would be more like Vam and he > > > more like me if our birth places and families been exchanged. Born in > > > Islamic families we would both likely be Muslim. This was recognised > > > before Descartes (Maupassant I think). Some of my Muslim students > > > think this is not the case because they are chosen. > > > The question is less one of the nihilist rejection of morality and > > > more one of a global morality we can sensibly adhere to. The term > > > 'global morality' is scary as is any totalising solution. And many of > > > the issues we need to grip and grok are scary too - population control > > > is one - not least because we presumably want people to be able to > > > live in comfort and plenty - something likely to raise breeding > > > potential. If we think of the Earth as a commons, then we should > > > expect the issue of the tragedy of the commons to arise. How do we > > > tell the people who want then 'no more big families'? How do we > > > justify issues on disability that would arise? If we want power to be > > > democratic, How do we prevent power through wealth, whether through > > > capitalist accumulation to a few individuals or the State =both of > > > which have a history of either war or oppression or both? Some will > > > say we are better off not addressing such matters as human planning is > > > always a mess and we are better off leaving things to the chance of > > > evolution, war being part of this - the purpose of man is to be a > > > warrior and women's to be recreation for the warrior and such rot. > > > Others are more fatalist in that none of this mat matter much as the > > > overall plan goes on whatever human trivia makes some believe. > > > My view is that religion and various other myths of origin, all > > > containing perverse views amongst their elites that ordinary people > > > can't cope with the recognition they are myths (Plato is the classic) > > > and only the priests or guardians can, are rationalist fantasies - but > > > what bigger such fantasy as the very idea of anything global that > > > would ask all to take on a 'morality'! > > > We leave out a major 'purpose' in economics in much of our moral > > > thinking - that of the West (still currently the major military power) > > > being on top and staying on top. The idea in this is that to prevent > > > a "backward change" the West needs to dominate economically in order > > > to attract the innovation needed to stay on top. What, for instance, > > > would the current situation be now if Muslim states had equivalent > > > military power, or a dominant one? It is also clear that the same > > > economics is profoundly anti-democratic in that our own ability to > > > manage through it is severely restricted, probably by the accumulation > > > of capital in very few hands. Capital that has invested in such a way > > > as to hand over manufacturing (the essential means of war) outside the > > > West - something that is treason in some thinking. This form of > > > capital has remained imperialist and one can make a good case that it > > > is a form of organised crime. > > > > The key 'moral' issue in all this - which needs book length > > > elaboration - is that there isn't much moral in the form of thinking > > > that doesn't consider what is happening to all people and that moral > > > thinking should be by social animals who recognise that is what they > > > are and that we all start with entrenched views that can merely seek > > > conversion in others without needed reciprocity. I believe strongly > > > in humility - yet this cannot be a one way process. > > > > I don't believe we can change much through argument and that > > > technology is the way forward - even such technology as agrarian > > > living alongside 'hot fusion' energy. I live in a country about to > > > evict 'travelers' from their homes and the frustrations on all sides > > > is clear. I wouldn't want them at the end of my garden, yet the law > > > seems inadequate. We have around 8 million people unemployed (real as > > > opposed to government figures) and yet continue to be a country with > > > net immigration. It becomes more and more obvious that we can't > > > educate our way out of this - indeed, one wonders what effect > > > education, after some basics such as women having fewer babies = > > > actually has - rather like milk yields in cows and genetics/ > > > environment equations. 50% of our kids hardly pass go in schooling > > > terms and we seem content to 'replace' them in our workforce with > > > "better genetic specimens" because this is how economics works. > > > Despite the blarney on only bringing in these highly skilled people > > > (itself morally dubious as this means taking doctors from elsewhere), > > > our taxi drivers are becoming exclusively 'brown' just as jobs are in > > > short supply. > > > > Given the practical mess I'm not surprised the moral flight is into > > > the subjective where an individual can experience control. My guess > > > is this is a flight from the social, much as the wealthy move > > > practically away from the problems, to areas where their kids can go > > > to the schools without the problems or in private schooling and so > > > on. Even Plato, especially Plato, wanted his Guardians free of the > > > normal, corrupting social. My own view is that this may be simply the > > > first step to the immoral. > > > > On Aug 31, 12:34 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed OM indeed. > > > > > I asked once or perhaps twice or even thrice what is it about human > > > > life that many see as sacrosanct, I don't see life that way at all and > > > > so it confussed me why again the majority of us would view the takeing > > > > of a human life by another human as immoral. > > > > > I guess I'm just in a strange place at the mo, beliving in a creator > > > > God without beliving that life is somehow sacred. > > > > > I can see both sides though, I think most would thank their parents > > > > for the 'gift' of life, but I can certianly understand why some would > > > > not. > > > > > Myself I'm a little differant. I had no choice about my birth and so > > > > I neither thank nor revile my parents for their choice in makeing me. > > > > I mean I, Lee, the human and the soul and the mind that makes up the > > > > indivudual we call Lee, had nowt to do with my birth. > > > > > It was my parents choice, and their desire to have kids, I know this > > > > desire, I think most of us humans do at some point or other in our > > > > lives. > > > > > Now of course I have two teenage boys, I don't ask them for their > > > > thanks, not for mine and my wifes desires, our choice. We did not > > > > gift them with life, we simply followed our own wills. > > > > > No I'm more intersted in arming them for their own lifes, so that they > > > > can make their own choices independant of me and their mum. They are > > > > not really my kids but humans that own their own lifes. > > > > > On Aug 31, 11:53 am, ornamentalmind > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
