It really is a circus- a very costly one. The voters may as well be voting for "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars"! I was thinking yesterday that if we are tested every five years for a driver's license, why not for voting intelligence but that would not fly, would it? There is so much money and special interests invested in these two parties- am not sure how you would break that power down to allow for other parties gaining real competitive strength. And when an Oprah can swing a selection we have to realize how low the denominator has sunk. I am considered a "black sheep" at this point! :-) One old friend thinks I have gone over to the "dark side"- she has a photo standing with Obama so Lord knows what kind of moolah she dropped in his basket!
On Sep 3, 7:21 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Besides sharing different stories of political analysis with friends, > I continue to drive home the truth that as long as people in the USA > stay in the trance of believing that voting for someone not in the two > main parties is ‘throwing away a vote’ (a notion most likely > promulgated by these two parties) there will be little to no > responsiveness to what ‘we the people’ want…something that is > obviously ignored these days. When a politician actually might have to > be responsive and yes, even be congruent in word and deed, only then > can our form of representative democracy have any impact on how those > selected to lead will not only act but actually be chosen rather than > remaining in the terror that one might vote for someone who stands the > chance of not winning! > > To me, throwing away a vote is voting for the status quo. > > Sadly, the trance state remains in full force today. > > On Sep 3, 4:27 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I am trying to think about how we could improve the minds/choices of > > voters but get stumped. Part of the problem is that classical > > educations do not always translate into common sense in real life- one > > still must scrub the floors in those ivory towers. But I think most > > attend college/grad studies with a work goal in mind these days. I > > remember shop classes and vocational schools in public highschools but > > perhaps that would invite a lawsuit by the ACLU these days- who knows? > > And manufacturing/labor needs have changed drastically in our day due > > to automation, robots and technology as well as every aspect of modern > > life from home to office. So there is this vacuume. On the other hand, > > I find great solace in my books and interests but since I refuse to > > produce anything for the market, I guess I am worthless. :-) Oh- and I > > decided to quit going to funerals altogether save my own. > > > The military is another consideration as a form of "education" and > > employment. > > > I came across your screen name in my old class notes- just a line or > > two re Plato and his visit. > > > Another problem with setting up a culture/form of government is that > > you still are left with human nature! > > > On Sep 2, 10:14 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm no expert on the Greeks to be sure. I remember that women got to > > > leave home when they were about 60 to go to funerals! I understand > > > the 'men of their time' arguments - and we tend to forget Greece is > > > really middle eastern - but I have real problems with the 'high' > > > philosophy and no grasp of the wrongs on the treatment of slavery, > > > indenture and women. It hardly suggests much of a route to a > > > materially enlightened society. The Italian aristocracy was almost > > > exclusively homosexual in the 17th century and much of the Middle East > > > remains 'homosocial'. In scientific argument and practice we often > > > work hard at excluding wads of common sense and religious muck under > > > pretense of objectivity, yet we are really trying to include all > > > options that aren't ludicrous (and we entertain these too to some > > > extent). I find human thinking that ends up with notions that a sex > > > or race is 'unequal' or unmeriting not wrong but intolerable, but this > > > doesn't lead me to believe we can't have abortion or not give deaf > > > people hearing if we can (and so on) - the intolerable remains a > > > heuristic open to situational particularism. Equality doesn;t mean I > > > won't lift the heavy box, think sport should be unisex, regard men as > > > potential sexual partners and so on - but it does mean I don't approve > > > of daft notions of banning girls from playing soccer because they > > > can't share the changing rooms. And it does mean I tend to despise > > > argument that excludes what should matter in the pretense of > > > objectivity. Our people who can't do much academic are not sub-human, > > > but I suspect much intellectualism is - including daft economists > > > suggesting inter-generational mortgages, or that we have to have a > > > super-rich for the benefit of all. I am not led to conclusion much > > > and think this is a result of perverse schooling and a fixation with > > > 'strong leadership'. My guess is we need moral assertion on the basis > > > of likely outcomes on social issues and that we are ignoring an > > > interesting history of this at our peril, including the distraction > > > from actual change that wordy words becomes when we lack courage. The > > > key in this is probably deep in a form of mentality that can't work > > > out the metaphor of fiddling while Rome burns or banksterism as a > > > criminally organised road to serfdom. Socrates called the unexamined > > > life pointless and its easy to agree faced with yet another class of > > > students who don't read, populations who vote 'on the economy stupid' > > > knowing nothing of economics - yet he was wrong. What we have failed > > > to do is provide the technology of it that people can use. > > > > On Sep 2, 1:05 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
