Hi Archytas... long post... lot to comment on, and I'm skipping much... otherwise it would take tomes.... I think you've seen how I try to deal with the subject of moral or ethical value judgments... identify a "thematic dialectic" contraposition, then plug in the Good or Bad valuations accordingly.... If I'm dealing with an opinion on the "thematic" registered by another person (say an author of a work of literature) then I try to stay true (accurate) to the valuation given by that person.... just to be fair... I might say I disagree, but I say that the disagreement is my own.... professional courtesy, I think.....I figure if I have a different take on it.... I should write my own masterpiece (HAR).... I do the same at the ontological level.... which is to say, valuation of what is taken for fact or fiction in any given context.....This whole "methodology" approach is a way of trying to establish some objectivity (in the common usage)... looking at something in a disinterested or at least in an overtly judgmental manner (as opposed to the ignorant usage IMO of "non-judgmental" by some which usually leads to mean.... whatever the "reader or listener" wants to hear instead of what is actually the case of the "work" under consideration)...I don't say that there is any possibility of a "scientific" knowledge of these ethical (or cultural) judgments and the like, but there can be an "honest reporting" standard, I think, and a "method" to that end is a track on the honesty....
Anyway....I found the following entry on Anarcho-Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism I tried to see how it may apply to my own, personal, preference for usage of the notion of anarchy ... Is there a branch of anarchy without the Syndicalism? I think that would better fit me.....I don't much care for the "group" or "joint' thing.... I'm pretty much the "individual"... that also fits in with my nominalist leanings.... you know, the individual as distinguished from the genus or the class....I like to think of myself as "unique" (HAR). With reference to the wiki article, I tend to feel that the syndicalist groups or "union" of individuals tends to constitute an "institution" in its own right..... I don't rightly know how the dilemma can be righted... I mean by that dilemma, what if as an individual I disagree with the democratically voted majority opinion of my "anarchist" peers?.... Well.... to be true to myself, I like to stand alone and just do what I agree with.... if a group of like-minded "anarchists" (HAR) goes along with me (or I with them) better yet...... More generally, one has to wonder what inspires rebellion against corrupt institutions and their "morality". I have spotted I am a moralist in this sense. / Archytas I have this notion, myself, that ethics or morality often (I avoid "universals") can be seen to gravitate toward what "works" or what is "better" in many senses, be it for the individual or for the society of individuals.... there seems to be a "pragmatic" component to Ethics or Morality... Of course.. that pragmatism depends on a value judgment, too... an "interest" that can be singular or "shared"..... the "shared" interests tend to win out in a pinch.... but often it takes a tussle...So, a rebellion against a "corrupt" institution seems to rely, often, on the fact that the institution is not working to or up to those shared interests of the majority of individuals around....maybe it (the institution) isn't "shared" enough in its applications... maybe it favors the "interests" of the few over the interests of the many....that is often the way it goes in rebellions.....they are all too plain... everybody knows what the problem is.... hence the revolution (HAR). There are many good reasons to recognise and suppress the barbarian temperament. / Archytas Sexual mores are tough.... I have thought of and recognized sexual thematic dialectics in the works of others, You are right, in these matters, there are plenty of "moral" taboos (which make eminent sense, often) and they often get transgressed....incest, first-cousin marraiges,slashing our private parts to simulate menstruation to rid ourselves of dreaded effects of sex with women or sending our daughters out to suffer group rape to satisfy our "honour", cultural relativism.... all of that.... tough.... but I would suggest that these sexual "moral" issues, like all the rest... go through the "rebellion" cycle.... sooner or later (often depending on culture) even these tough issues tend to sort out.....Case in point, not all that long ago, homosexuality was considered as part and parcel of those moral sexual taboos..... We need some kind of meta-analysis - in process philosophy the ground is always, potentially, up for review. Science has "parology". / Archytas Yeah.... I think I agree with that.... (I say , dumbfounded, pointing a finger {humbly} at nominal9 thematic dialectic logic... HAR) Much as we want to protect against child abuse, we should want to defend against the economics of the Undead - which I would see as allowing such abuse under a complex and false show of morality. Austerity shits on the poor in order - er - to improve their lot through love love. Any ideology will do - as Soviet Paradise and Mao demonstrated - and the rich have since history began. ? Archytas Any comment to that on my part would be.... useless.... total agreement, could'nt put it better. transparent money / Archytas.... I'm interested in that notion... can you give me an education? There are answers we could try and some small pockets of cooperative living./ Archytas You know my heart is with "cooperation"......but sadly, I think we both recognize it as a pipe-dream prospect in this day and age......it would take one Hell of a revolution..... On Saturday, May 4, 2013 10:56:06 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > The notion of my development of a moral compass is important Nom - in > the general case. Anarchism posits this in the general case of a > syndical life free of institutions - I reject this. More generally, > one has to wonder what inspires rebellion against corrupt institutions > and their "morality". I have spotted I am a moralist in this sense. > > I'd go to an extreme to consider morality - I'm not actually > interested in the question itself. Chimps share and incest taboo with > us - and break it. One might say the reason for the taboo is to do > with reproducing offspring with chronic conditions (as, say, in > Pakistanis with first cousin marriages). Does this hold now we have > contraception? I doubt it can - though this changes my view on vile > sexual abuse not one jot. Indeed I'd strengthen laws to prevent > such. There are many good reasons to recognise and suppress the > barbarian temperament. > > Morality is very difficult - which is probably why we have taboo and > religious control frauds. As you know, I think economics is a > religious control fraud in need of moral change. Doing things because > they feel right lets in all kinds of sociopath behaviour. You're > right on being forced into the lay of land set by others on moral and > ethical matters - in another society we might be slashing our private > parts to simulate menstruation to rid ourselves of dreaded effects of > sex with women or sending our daughters out to suffer group rape to > satisfy our "honour". I don't like cultural relativism as an excuse > - but do think we need to recognise what may be stupid in our own > version. Whatever morality is it can't be just following a code - it > might be the wrong code. > > We need some kind of meta-analysis - in process philosophy the ground > is always, potentially, up for review. Science has "parology". The > debate is hidden. Ordinary people just can't be trusted with it - so > we get the myth of value-free science - not least because of > instruments of torture. Much as we want to protect against child > abuse, we should want to defend against the economics of the Undead - > which I would see as allowing such abuse under a complex and false > show of morality. Austerity shits on the poor in order - er - to > improve their lot through love love. Any ideology will do - as Soviet > Paradise and Mao demonstrated - and the rich have since history began. > > The key to a new economics would be transparent money - but much as > with CCTV cameras we have to ask whether the available scrutiny would > be a good thing. Many of my mates over the years have seen a few quid > as the means to escape "scrutiny" and have been all too aware what > they had to give up to get it. There are answers we could try and > some small pockets of cooperative living. > > On 3 May, 20:16, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I pretty much reject the idea there is moral or ethical philosophy or > > that religion works on morals. The law clearly ain't about it. > > There's always some nonce in a skirt and silly hat to tell us we are > > engaged in a just war and clergy never shag children. / Archytas > > > > I agree with a lot of that... but how about you personally, Archytas?... > > I'm certain (knowing something about you through these talks) that you > have > > developed a fairly good "moral compass"... there are, probably... call > them > > judgments or principles (moral or ethical) that you hold as important or > > "dear"...I know that there are some for me.... > > > > The bit about nonces in skirts and silly hats holds quite true, without > a > > doubt.... but, still,... there is something more > > there, too... I was raised Catholic, but, more importantly, I've had > some > > literary exposure to the works of some of the "religious" folks, be it > > sacred or "lay".....there is something worthwhile in it at a cultural > > level, if not a spiritual one... > > > > They, "Clergy" have a "pulpit".... literally..... so, like it or > > not......they do speak at the moral or ethical level..... and they do > > influence an "audience"..... > > > > They have in many cases framed the discussion on morals or ethics..... > and > > one way or another, anyone who wants to deal in those questions has to > > learn their "lay of the land", as it were... > > > > Anyway.... like I said....I'm pretty certain you have your own takes on > > these"ethical" matters... which have probably been formed not in a > > contextual vacuum but in some relation or other to many notions floating > > around from all points or directions..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 3, 2013 2:36:07 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > Didn't realise Manning had to live in Wales Nom - poor sod! They > > > don't really speak Welsh in Pembroke, so at least he was spared that. > > > I pretty much reject the idea there is moral or ethical philosophy or > > > that religion works on morals. The law clearly ain't about it. > > > There's always some nonce in a skirt and silly hat to tell us we are > > > engaged in a just war and clergy never shag children. > > > > > On 3 May, 15:59, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning > > > > Have you read this wikipedia entry?....There's a lot there that I > didn't > > > > know. It definitely looks as though the poor (said sympathetically) > guy > > > was > > > > fighting his personal war on a whole lot of fronts... personal and > > > > political and otherwise.... > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papershttp://en.wikipedia.org/w... > > > > > > > There is a precedent... I would say that Manning should be released > > > without > > > > punishment.... but it appears that the "right" wants to make an > example > > > of > > > > him.....SHit-Headed sons of daughters of pigs and bitches... the > > > Right.... > > > > > > Libertarianism..... License to Steal.... basically.... that's all > they > > > > want.... on the social or civil rights side.... they are mostly > > > > totalitarian..... that's why I call them Fascists... > > > > totalitarian/capitalists.... but they manage to lie about their > agenda > > > and > > > > appeal to the naive and impressionable youth.... you know... the > > > Fascists > > > > and Nazis have their appeal to the youthful "action" oriented... > > > > > > We could discuss morality more in depth....IMO, wherever it comes > > > from.... > > > > there are some deeply held notions (at least for some), there... > > > > > > Rumor has it that "austerity" is about to break (collapse) in the > > > Eurozone > > > > and Britain..... any truth to that? Changing of the "conservative" > > > guard? > > > > >http://www.cnbc.com/id/100705271http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/20... > > > > > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 8:23:36 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > One could say Bradley Manning was in the same situation. > Financial > > > > > cops should be nicking banksters. > > > > > I had a bit of a flirtation with libertarianism years back - as an > > > > > alternative to central planning. I didn't take it very far > because I > > > > > could see the inevitable corruption and monopoly power of money. > Much > > > > > of what we call morality is urged on us through work ethic and > other > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > > > On 30 Apr, 20:33, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've thought about this "thematic" of "leadership " as I've run > > > across > > > > > it > > > > > > in many "literary" contexts.... here's what I said about it > (below) > > > in a > > > > > > rudimentary " web online" analysis I did of the Grimm Snow White > > > > > > tale........ I don't view it as simply as a logical > contraposition > > > > > between > > > > > > "leadership versus anarchy".....I don't think that theer is such > a > > > > > logical > > > > > > contraposition, at all.... they are different logical questions > > > > > > altogether....There are different "leadership" siituations.... > some > > > are > > > > > > morally valid others are not.... just as there are different > > > Opposition > > > > > to > > > > > > authority situations (anarchy).... again, some of which are > morally > > > > > valid > > > > > > while others are not..... > > > > >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/humanities/nom... > > > > > > > > > But I want to treat this issue of power as it "may" relate to > the > > > > > > story....You may recall that the queen "summoned" the huntsman > and > > > > > > pretty much "told" him what to do to Snow White. The queen was > in a > > > > > > position of "authority" over the huntsman.... what do you > suppose > > > his > > > > > > "status" was.... more than a plain "subject", I would think.... > > > > > > probably more like a Castle "officer" who was charged with > > > > > > participating in the hunts for game that may have served as > either > > > (or > > > > > > both) a pastime for the nobility or a means to stock up the > castle > > > > > > larder with meat. So, when the queen told the hutsman to take > Snow > > > > > > White and kill her.... well, I would think that the hutsman was > > > > > > "expected" to do it.... The relationship between them consisted > of > > > the > > > > > > queen's Authority( GOOD concept)/ to summon and command (GOOD > > > > > > reference) and the huntsman's Subordination (GOOD concept)/ to > obey > > > > > > (GOOD reference). But what happens when the queen's moral > compass > > > > > > points in the wrong direction?.... Then instead you get > something > > > like > > > > > > the queen's Tyranny (BAD concept)/ to compel (BAD reference) and > the > > > > > > huntsman's Subjugation (BAD concept)/ to submit (BAD > reference).Now. > > > > > > you can mix and match those "Applied Signs" in various ways, > > > depending > > > > > > on if you want to logically "square them according to the single > > > > > > individual (queen "or" huntsman) or to the paired relationship > > > (queen > > > > > > "and" huntsman) > > > > > > (queen) > > > > > > authority / order.............. tyranny / compel > > > > > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD/ > > > > > > > > BAD > > > > > > > > authority / compel..............tyranny / order > > > > > > BAD/ GOOD.......................BAD / BAD > > > > > > **** > > > > > > (huntsman) > > > > > > subordination / obey............subjugation / submit > > > > > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / BAD > > > > > > > > subordination / submit..........subjugation / obey > > > > > > GOOD / GOOD.....................BAD / GOOD > > > > > > **** > > > > > > I want to get across the notion that there are two ways of > > > > > > doing(REFERENCE) the (almost) same thing and there are two ways > of > > > > > > thinking(CONCEPT) about the (almost) same plan. The difference > is in > > > > > > the details... details like, in this case, Snow White's > "innocence". > > > > > > So, what happens in the story?....Here's what I think.... the > > > huntsman > > > > > > was faced with a moral dilemma.... an "unethical" order from a > > > > > > "superior Officer" what should he have done???? here's my next > > > "mixed" > > > > > > dialectic..... > > > > > > > > independence / rebel.......... servitude / acquiesce > > > > > > (?) / (?)......................(?) / (?) > > > > > > independence / acquiesce.......servitude / rebel > > > > > > (?) / (?)......................(?) /(?) > > > > > > We saw that the huntsman asserted his independence and > > > rebelled....but > > > > > > he was still a subordinate or a subjugate to the queen.... what > > > could > > > > > > he do? face the consequences? would he be punished? then? or > > > > > > nowadays?.... he chose to try to deceive the queen..... how did > he > > > do > > > > > > it and was that moral or ethical? > > > > > > nominal9 > > > > > > > > On Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:23:57 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > > > > > > > > You make the points I think should be investigated Nom. To > take > > > > > > > leadership as a given is nonsense - but so is the denial in > full > > > > > > > anarchy. > > > > > > > > > On 26 Apr, 19:34, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > sport / compete........survival / cooperate > > > > > > > > > > sport / cooperate......survival / compete > > > > > > > > > > It's an actual old thematic dialectic I came up with > analyzing a > > > > > play > > > > > > > > "Aminta" by Torquato Tasso in the 1980's....plug in your > > > "ethical > > > > > > > > preferences" and go from there....If you value sport / > compete > > > as > > > > > "good > > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > good"... then by contrary necessity you have to value > survival / > > > > > > > cooperate > > > > > > > > as "bad / bad"....etc....it all depends on point of view of > > > moral or > > > > > > > > ethical predicated value....I agree that capitalist > economics is > > > > > more > > > > > > > akin > > > > > > > > to a sport / compete situation.... the referees are > definitely > > > > > > > beneficial > > > > > > > > in keeping the cheating and fouls in check.... but my > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
