Another day, Archytas..... everyone ignores my dialectics.... until they function like a kick in the ass...HAR,.... then it's "theme" this and "theme" that..."point of view" here and "point of view" there... "motivation" this and "motivation" that.....etc..... everyone tries the words.... but they still don't get it.....because they all look for "the Answer".... which is the answer that "they" want (personally as in selfishly)....not the answer that's obvious....given the "dialectical logic" of things....Ethics seems to work ( I reiterate).... pragmatically (I think)) .....sooner or later.... the best interests of the most (whatever) .... fill in the blank..... takes hold..... until the next time most (whatever).... changes....
Good plan... let's get back to the economics....Capital of all sorts....money is fungible.... but should all "goods and services" be "liquid"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity Here's what I'm getting at.... can (should) the "illegal" "stuff"... criminal sales (drugs, etc) or otherwise ill-begotten gains (stolen goods converted to cash) under the table... be "unvcovered" and all be"unliquified"....either restored to the defrauded victims or confiscated by the state (in lieu of some taxes to taxpayers, say).....? On Monday, May 6, 2013 3:23:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > 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 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.
