I dug up the file this afternoon- Spring "73- no mention of the professor's name but a reference to Tuft's- another university. He was older and soft spoken- his shirt sleeves had been shortened for some reason. I got an "A" for the final grade so I must have hooked into the material and my notes look complete and tidy. The course covered more than Plato- it was called Greek Thought/Classics Dept.- and I was taking 3 other courses that quarter. But this simply opened a can of worms=memory.
So all these years, Plato just sat waiting with a collection of Modern Library books- so out of sight-out of mind! In the meantime, I had my hands full with ordinary life plus in Plato's world I would have been stuck at home. I thought the Greeks preferred young boys and wives were for breeding- though Pericles seems to have loved Aspasia... On Sep 1, 5:56 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > You may have been taught without a caste or read Plato through someone > who liked him rigsy. I even teach Kierkegaard as a Danish humourist. > I found PLato as despicable as Joseph Heller in 'Picture This' or > Popper in vol. 1 of The Enemies of the Open Society. There seems no > reason to regard an elite who can learn at least some of what's hard > to special privileges, but at the sane time trying to mash the stuff > into people's heads by academic means seems cruel. I share something > of Vam's view that a small number in power create a system that causes > great discomfort and disempowers others (social mice are a good study > in point). Finland gets a lot of its people to high standards of > education (one can google the PISA studies) - so there's a lot we > could do. > The problem as I see it is that we educate to make people 'successful' > in a society that has gone wrong instead of to change it. And the > vast majority can't cope with what we have made this education and I > now believe this is cruel. I guess what I want to see is a society in > which people can fit in without a caste system or some equality in > mediocrity. Democracy isn't it for me - I tend to see it and its > economics as religious and past sell by date. We need something more > peaceful that recognises its been the best game in town and its > faults. > Education based on making individuals 'moral' or 'virtuous' really has > to come after structuring social freedom - we have to be brave enough > to try this. A young American student burst into my office some years > ago (I don't hold a regular position or teach much now) after a > business ethics class. He was appalled by the teacher (my ex-boss - a > jerk) and claimed the lesson was just about teaching excuses for bad > management behaviour. The ethics teacher was one of the most > unethical perverts it had been my misfortune to meet. Soon there was > a queue and I was asked to run an alternative. I'd conclude after 20 > years that much management teaching simply reinforces prejudice and > the wrong way to do things. I'd sum it up with something research > methods students with work experience say - 'you don't expect us to do > any of this at work do you Neil - telling the truth there is like > writing a resignation letter'. They are soon assured i don't. > > My feeling is that much early religion may have been about rebellious > moral assertion - freedom from indenture. This has been lost and > maybe we need something like this back. This is probably what I mean > by something 'more simple' Lee. Teaching (effectively) 'honesty is > the best policy' seems wrong in a world that doesn't reward honesty - > even if one does this through difficult concepts. We need a movement > to make life happier and more decent and then maybe John Rawls would > make sense. But we can't do it by teaching Rawls. Or by designing > the life for Plato's few through massive training in which we become > so moral we deign to share wives, in a manner that rather suggests we > own them. > > On Sep 1, 4:08 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just joining in... with a Wow ! > > > Much of what Neil deprecates in ineducable human beings is also > > evident in this very group discussion ... morality, ego, ethics, > > or read Plato social order / values / effects ... and much talk, many > > words, wider > > canvas, saying for the sake of saying, an activity that satisfies ... > > but really going nowhere, reaching noplace. > > > Lee's relative morality is a fact... not the truth. The difference is > > that facts are truths of the moment and truths are facts for life. > > Facts can be spotted, by individuals on account of what the moment or > > one's situation in life means to him, and by the collective on issues > > which Neil is acutely concerned about. In contrast, truths are only > > available, if at all, either when one is breathing for the last time > > or to one who has lived through expelling that "last" breath while > > still relatively young ! > > > The founder of Lee's spiritual order has no such " relativistic " > > ambiguities in what he prescribes, both as ethics and morals. They > > very explicit, and abundantly clear when implicit. So does the Buddha. > > So is Spinoza. And Kant. Or, Gandhi and Luther King. And Faulkner, > > Steinbeck, Camus. And the reason why are clear, even when they admit > > the relativistic paradigms commonplace or narrate the saga of human > > failings, is that they have a vision IN TRUTH that is simple... Say, A > > SOCIETY IN WHICH PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE NEED TO, AND THEY ACTUALLY DO > > NOT, SETTLE ANYTHING WITH VIOLENCE ! If you take a representative > > worldwide survey 99% of the population would find it most agreeable > > thing to happen. The 1% who'd disagree are those who actually hold on > > to power and spoils for themselves through the exercise of violence. > > > It is this which is SIMPLE. The rest of it complex, more complex, > > absolutely knotted and compounded to boot. But that didn't deter them > > from proceeding down to laying out the content and elements of this > > ONE simple truth... and what it implies for each one of us as > > individuals, our morals and our ethics. > > > What comes in the way of us actually subscribing to such morals and > > ethics is IGNORANCE... of what ? that vision, that simple truth. And > > EGO comes into the picture because it loves this ignorance, of not > > having to subscribe to and subject itself to such rules for itself, > > morals and ethics, because the fact of our moment is that they do not > > pay. Why ? Because the people who will make the payment do not > > subscribe to such rules and, in fact, require that we who are looking > > to be paid also do not do so ! > > > This in fact is the nature of the argument I see for ourselves. And > > that we do dissipate ourselves in mere words, learning and desire to > > say the last word ! > > > On Sep 1, 7:10 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Democracy is simply a new system of control- like Christianity was > > > back in the first centuries A.D. Few churchgoers are going to read > > > about Constintine or Julian or the corrupt early Church Fathers. > > > > One cannot educate a dull brain. > > > > Simplicity is elegance in disguise. > > > > On Sep 1, 6:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yours is the standard scientific view Lee - scientists tend to be > > > > amazed anything looks simple. We use the term 'simplexity' because we > > > > always found almost chaotic complexity under what appears simple - and > > > > sometimes find simple equations that remarkably describe complexity. > > > > At school we get taught that there are right answers - the ones up the > > > > teachers' sleeves. In fact things are much more complicated than this > > > > and I wonder what actually does get learned. Mot students find it > > > > hard to cope with ideas that disrupt authority, or that distinguish > > > > immanent and analytic (critique from within a system or from outside > > > > with different fundamentals) - they get restless with doubt and can't > > > > understand it doesn't destroy everything. Logic, which often gets > > > > perverse in extremes,is beyond most. They are used to needing to be > > > > certain and find it difficult to learn to be wrong or to learn for > > > > themselves. > > > > > My reasoning is that we have failed to 'teach' over eons and aren't > > > > learning from this. I suspect the origin of schooling and believe its > > > > main function is discipline to the status quo. Most people can learn > > > > to drive - we need more learning like that on social-democratic issues > > > > - by doing different stuff at a level where the actions become the > > > > learning. Most people would rather 'get rich' than get rich in > > > > learning - they want to be able to support families or what they see > > > > as good times. They confuse having with being - but why not given the > > > > game of life in front of them? Students are not desperate to learn > > > > but frantic about passing. They learned something to get to this > > > > position. Where from, how - and how might this be changed so they > > > > learn something else? My 'simpler' would be a social change they can > > > > cope with instead of the intellectual which they can't start. > > > > > On Sep 1, 9:29 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I would love to hear the tought process behind this guess Neil, it > > > > > seems to fly in the face of my own experiances? > > > > > > I used to belive that things are ultimatly more simple than they > > > > > appear to be, I no longer belive this. Life is complex, we live in a > > > > > complex system/universe. > > > > > > Yes we use all sorts of things other than intelect and reasoning to > > > > > guide us, belifes, best guesses, feelings, emotions and intuition are > > > > > part of the human physche. > > > > > > On Aug 31, 10:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > My guess is we are not as individual as we think Lee. And there has > > > > > > to be something simpler than intellectualism to guide. I'm inclined > > > > > > to see the moral field like the Python poverty joke = on can always > > > > > > outdo the hairy shirt or crown of thorns! > > > > > > > On Aug 31, 5:32 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here is the rub Neil. > > > > > > > > What duties do you speak of, by what law do these duties arise? > > > > > > > > There are of course laws that say you will not murder and if you > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > you will be punished/face rehabilitation. But we all know that > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > are free to hold to or brake laws at their own whim. > > > > > > > > So there are no duties except those that the individual imposses > > > > > > > upon > > > > > > > himself. > > > > > > > > OM does offten suggest there are errors in all kinds of thoughts, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > of course he is free to do so, but that to is a function of the > > > > > > > canny > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
