Capital is always treated as neutral Nom - but really our food-home- beer vouchers are mixed-up with criminal, tax-dodging, looted and speculative funds, along with all sorts of economic rent. There is little reason for any of this given new technology. It's a long story from this rather obvious start. I have rather neglected your dialectics - must dash - back when more time.
On 5 May, 19:40, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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-Syndicalismhttps://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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
