Greetings Economists, On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Autoplectic wrote: Although absolutistic lines of thought often lead to very implausible conclusions [and the absence thereof :-)] there is something seductive and comforting about them after the death of god, and they have captivated not only a wide range of thinkers from a wide range of traditions but also billions of human beings under various religious/theological doctrines......................
Doyle, Well, I see where you are going with that. For me, I see a certain opening up of a vista in this regard. In particular, I have this thought experiment I've used for my own purposes, I'm walking down the street and hundreds of people pass me by in which I have the most superficial knowledge of. In no sense do we feel connected. I'm not interested in religious shared beliefs, but connection is a very foggy notion. Now prejudice in people is common so they walk down the street and see someone and go hateful toward that person in their mind. The tools we have to oppose prejudice, say a hate crime law about misogyny are brutal and cruel methods. I have no problem in acting to prevent racist acts, but the connection process seems to me awful. Usually we think close relationships, loving partners is a model of connection processes. We have no similar way to approach or understand large scale connection. Would this look like religion, theological doctrines? I don't think so. We don't want rigidity, or emotional intensity as the chief means of determining social connection. Boundaries. William Reddy proposed a concept he calls emotional liberty. I think the concept is like 'freedom of expression' invented a couple of centuries back. Now this Reddy concept defies stoic and epicurean precepts much less the book religions. And Buddhism especially. Lets go back to the thought experiment, hundreds of people passing by with hardly any connection, and probably a lot of raw mean destructive thoughts being produced. This is an anarchy of a sort of brain work. For example, each person is really an empty cypher but we see a target we 'feel' about in ignorance of their reality. The source as it were of the anarchy of intensities we call prejudices and so on. Are we really confined to that production process of brainwork? The common build of this structure or architecture might allow any sort of emotional intensity, but decouple that from the way we attach the feelings to people. That would meet Reddy's concept. Just a thought. thanks, Doyle
