Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 0:07:36 GMT -5
UnMatched, do you feel superior to homophobes? Is there any sexual behavior that you believe is objectively immoral? Or is it all permissible given a cultural mandate? I'm thinking specifically about NAMBLA, but I'm sure there's one advocating for abolition of age of consent laws for girls. And, most non-western cultures don't sweat these things (at least for the girls) anyway. It's an honest question. My point is that using the "Judgmental" standard is self-refuting. You're either judging others (and superior to them) for having a standard (if you claim to have none), or judging them for a different standard. Simply stating you don't have a standard or basing your standard on nothing does not fix this. You ARE superior to at least the ignorant Homophobe. Deriding other folks' as judgmental seems too easy to me. It always strikes me as, well, Judgmental. I think you have to make judgements all the time. You can't live without making judgements. The question is are you making those judgements on the basis of a 'best effort' to try and understand the world around you, or based purely on a closed mindset that you inherited from somewhere else. I am not saying we can go completely beyond our upbringing or conditioning, but I am saying it is important to try. And in the context of the religious argument above, I think if you can make judgements while intensely aware of just how much you don't and can't know and understand about the world, then those judgements are likely to be a lot more open and compassionate and probably closer to the truth than they might be if you are trying to defend your world view. So do I feel superior to homophobes? It is easier to think about specific people, but honestly yes in the sense that I don't hate them and I try to empathise with them and understand where they are coming from before violently disagreeing. I don't think they are offering the same courtesy to gay people. I find sexual issues generally hard to argue from a moral standpoint. Things which our society frowns upon, other societies don't or haven't in the past, and unless you can show that something is actually harming somebody then I would find it hard to say it was immoral. But I also think as a society you need to make laws which protect people. Can I see a situation where a 14 year old might be mature enough to be in a sexual relationship with the right older person? Probably. Can I see lots of situations where 14 year olds might be abused by the wrong person? Definitely. So for me the law should stand. Fair enough. I've been around this tree of subjective morality and found it to be an unreasonable dead end. It's great until my ox gets gored (think racism and homophobia). Do you think compassion is a virtue? Why? It seems axiomatic, but lots of things we now know to be "Fucked Up" were considered axiomatic 50 years ago. And, I hate to be the bearer of bad news: Most of what you think is Axiomatic today will be considered "Fucked Up" in 20 years. How open minded are you about "Fucked Up" stuff? The fact that you mentioned "Closer to the Truth" makes me think you think there must be a "Truth" to be closer to. Is that correct? Does it change? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 0:14:17 GMT -5
Not for the anti-Austrians. You'd be shocked at the "racism" toward Caviga for running Husqvarna into the ground and then selling it to the Austrians to make it into a blue and white KTM. Then some Christ like Swedes built a better Husqvarna, called it Husaberg, and KTM bought that and turned it into a blue and yellow KTM. Then KTM sold 49% of itself to an Indian company. I have to deal with this shit every day. I feel your pain. I have found Thumpertalk quite useful, but I would prefer to focus on the singletrack and not pay so much attention to whether the blur underneath me is orange or blue. I don't know what your background or technical competence is, but I've seen religious zealots worlds fall apart regarding such experimentally or rationally verifiable subjects as Pressure Washing, Fuel Grades, Oil Quality and Change Frequency, and Ring Break-In. Personally, I'd like to see the Japanese companies make purpose built GNCC bikes. |
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on May 17, 2016 1:38:29 GMT -5
Let me refine what I was trying to say: Just like anything else, building transcendence is like building a pyramid in that you do not start from the top. I was not talking of the spiritual transcendence of somebody like the Buddha, or J.C.
In my original post, I was trying to say that the first step is "know thyself". Understand what influences, cultural, environmental, spiritual, religious, family, lovers, teachers have made you who and what you are.
What ideas, what values have you drawn in from whom.
Once you can separate yourself from the ideas that shaped you, look at them, if you want, from over your own shoulder, then that is the first step to transcend them (i.e. understand them, and be able to think past them). It does not mean leave them behind, abandon them, but it may help you with not judging others on criteria that are not theirs to be judged by.
I come from a culture where education is very highly regarded. How do I interact with someone who sees no value into education, about how their kids behave in school and do not make any effort to learn? See what I mean? If I don't understand where I am coming from, AND where (s)he is coming from, we'll never get anywhere talking to each other. It's just making strange noises with our mouths at each other. I cannot assume that my values mean anything to them. So I cannot talk on that basis.
It was the same with that young woman I previously cited. She was only acting, and thinking, on the premises of the people who sent her out into the world to convert others to their faith, their way of thinking, their values. She could not perceive the possibility that there might be other values, other laws, other valid points of view out there. Total lack of transcendence. Rejected out of hand. Hope she had an epiphany at some point in life.
Religion is ONE way to get hobbled in your thinking. It is, by gum, not the only one. I recall with horror the internecine fighting of various factions of socialist student groups, Maoists vs. Trotskyists vs. Leninists at my university (fortunately nobody got assassinated): endless fighting over exegesis of various scriptures blinkered their thinking. We talk of thread highjack here, imagine that happening constantly in university seminars.
<laughs> Prof Marcuse, I think, was it who said "not every lovers' quarrel is a consequence of the capitalist mode of production". But to some people it may appear to be so.
Transcendence, at any level, allows you to see the bigger picture.
Satori is the Zen Buddhist concept of an event where you suddenly see, and comprehend, a much larger picture, something that you have previously been unable to perceive or fully, deeply, comprehend. Epiphany is a similar concept.
But it starts out small. Just understanding where you are coming from, in terms of values, faith, upbringing can help with understanding where somebody else might be coming from.
Back to judgement, as you were discussing, this is where it really gets messy. So there is a religious-based culture in parts of Pakistan and India where it is perfectly all right to toss battery acid or boiling water over a young woman who does not obey her mother in law unquestioningly. Ok, let's call it the lunatic fringe of Islam, by the same token, the so called 'honor killings' are wide spread. It's fine in those cultures. It's revolting and counter to any kind of human rights as we understand it. So long as there is no stepping past traditional, ingrained thinking, how can we deal with it?
Female circumcision in East Africa is not promoted, ordered, or performed by men .... etc. etc.
People, as I see it, in a mental, cultural, religious, traditionalist mental straightjacket performing abominable acts.
But who sets the absolute moral values here? Are we any more qualified than they are? Are we wrong to say that what they do is abominable?
Am I, vice versa, wrong to say that parts of Christianity mess horribly with their congregations' heads and emotions? We all are suffering to a degree from the fallout of that, as perpetrators or as victims, since nearly all of us here are from countries that have a Christian cultural background.
Philosophers for millenia have tried to find out where to anchor the moral compass, where does it come from? My personal opinion (crude as usual) is, that pulling your head out of your arse is a good way of seeing more of what's going on around you.
|
|
|
|
Post by smilin61 on May 17, 2016 2:19:15 GMT -5
Let me refine what I was trying to say: Just like anything else, building transcendence is like building a pyramid in that you do not start from the top. I was not talking of the spiritual transcendence of somebody like the Buddha, or J.C. In my original post, I was trying to say that the first step is "know thyself". Understand what influences, cultural, environmental, spiritual, religious, family, lovers, teachers have made you who and what you are. What ideas, what values have you drawn in from whom. Once you can separate yourself from the ideas that shaped you, look at them, if you want, from over your own shoulder, then that is the first step to transcend them (i.e. understand them, and be able to think past them). It does not mean leave them behind, abandon them, but it may help you with not judging others on criteria that are not theirs to be judged by. I come from a culture where education is very highly regarded. How do I interact with someone who sees no value into education, about how their kids behave in school and do not make any effort to learn? See what I mean? If I don't understand where I am coming from, AND where (s)he is coming from, we'll never get anywhere talking to each other. It's just making strange noises with our mouths at each other. I cannot assume that my values mean anything to them. So I cannot talk on that basis. It was the same with that young woman I previously cited. She was only acting, and thinking, on the premises of the people who sent her out into the world to convert others to their faith, their way of thinking, their values. She could not perceive the possibility that there might be other values, other laws, other valid points of view out there. Total lack of transcendence. Rejected out of hand. Hope she had an epiphany at some point in life. Religion is ONE way to get hobbled in your thinking. It is, by gum, not the only one. I recall with horror the internecine fighting of various factions of socialist student groups, Maoists vs. Trotskyists vs. Leninists at my university (fortunately nobody got assassinated): endless fighting over exegesis of various scriptures blinkered their thinking. We talk of thread highjack here, imagine that happening constantly in university seminars. <laughs> Prof Marcuse, I think, was it who said "not every lovers' quarrel is a consequence of the capitalist mode of production". But to some people it may appear to be so. Transcendence, at any level, allows you to see the bigger picture. Satori is the Zen Buddhist concept of an event where you suddenly see, and comprehend, a much larger picture, something that you have previously been unable to perceive or fully, deeply, comprehend. Epiphany is a similar concept. But it starts out small. Just understanding where you are coming from, in terms of values, faith, upbringing can help with understanding where somebody else might be coming from. Back to judgement, as you were discussing, this is where it really gets messy. So there is a religious-based culture in parts of Pakistan and India where it is perfectly all right to toss battery acid or boiling water over a young woman who does not obey her mother in law unquestioningly. Ok, let's call it the lunatic fringe of Islam, by the same token, the so called 'honor killings' are wide spread. It's fine in those cultures. It's revolting and counter to any kind of human rights as we understand it. So long as there is no stepping past traditional, ingrained thinking, how can we deal with it? Female circumcision in East Africa is not promoted, ordered, or performed by men .... etc. etc. People, as I see it, in a mental, cultural, religious, traditionalist mental straightjacket performing abominable acts. But who sets the absolute moral values here? Are we any more qualified than they are? Are we wrong to say that what they do is abominable? Am I, vice versa, wrong to say that parts of Christianity mess horribly with their congregations' heads and emotions? We all are suffering to a degree from the fallout of that, as perpetrators or as victims, since nearly all of us here are from countries that have a Christian cultural background. Philosophers for millenia have tried to find out where to anchor the moral compass, where does it come from? My personal opinion (crude as usual) is, that pulling your head out of your arse is a good way of seeing more of what's going on around you.  :thumbup: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 2:34:05 GMT -5
People, as I see it, in a mental, cultural, religious, traditionalist mental straightjacket performing abominable acts. But who sets the absolute moral values here? Are we any more qualified than they are? Are we wrong to say that what they do is abominable?
Am I, vice versa, wrong to say that parts of Christianity mess horribly with their congregations' heads and emotions? We all are suffering to a degree from the fallout of that, as perpetrators or as victims, since nearly all of us here are from countries that have a Christian cultural background. Philosophers for millenia have tried to find out where to anchor the moral compass, where does it come from? My personal opinion (crude as usual) is, that pulling your head out of your arse is a good way of seeing more of what's going on around you. What's the answer to these questions? How do folks with their heads pulled from their butts think about these things? If given a choice, I'd prefer not to have my head in my own or anyone else's butt. |
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on May 17, 2016 6:00:50 GMT -5
I can tell you MY answers, and they will be incomplete and unsatisfactory. Because I call it situationally.
Say, I tell a kid not to do such-and-such, and the kid says 'why?'. Some people would answer 'because I say so' ... which turns the question into a power play, but does not give an answer.
If I do not have that answer ready, then I will examine the assumptions I made or the knowledge that I am using to base that 'don't do that' on - and either I have an answer, or I have to re-evaluate my attitude that made me issue that command.
When I am challenged, I will examine my attitude and my thinking and my decision making. That, to me, is pulling my head out .... and the harder the challenge, the harder the question, the more I have to think about it.
That's the difference to someone who comes with a pre-made code, a doctrine, a faith. They have no doubt, and they don't question. Admittedly, it's easier for them.
But I don't think they have room for much growth so long as they don't question. And I think they are often unable to be fair.
Consider this statement "I will beat my kids if they don't toe the line. My father used to hit me around the head with a 2x4 and it never did me no harm".
Yeah, right. (and b.t.w. I think smacking a 2 year old, who's turning blue during a tantrum, on the bum to wake them up is not wrong -- hitting them with a vacuum cleaner hose IS)
As for absolute moral values - I have to pass. All I can do is use my empathy, and the old "do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I would be outraged at the battery acid in my face. I would be outraged at a bunch of old biddies holding me down and cutting my genitals off with a blunt knife. I don't want those things to happen to me, and so I don't want them to happen to anyone else. That's about all I can go by. In my world there really isn't any such thing as God's Own Truth, self evident, cast in stone. I can only use the measure of "how would I feel, if ....."
|
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on May 17, 2016 6:20:45 GMT -5
petrushka , I know you're comment is intended to suggest that we recognize that elements of our perception are dictated by our cultural (and many other) predispositions. You sated that very eloquently. I'm sure you've all heard the parable of the "Blind Men and the Elephant". If not, you can look it up. Short and concise. The story is probably a Hindu or Buddhist parable about transcendence, "Many Truths", or fallacies based on cultural myopia. My problem with it is that the narrator has to be a truly transcendent being to make the determination of "Truth" or draw any meaning out of the myopic descriptions of the blind men feeling around on the elephant. When that parable has been quoted to me, I always ask what makes the person quoting it to me so transcendent as to see truths others cannot see. This is particularly confounding when the sage that sees clearly beyond the myopia of other folks concludes there is "No Truth". Transcendence has taken him beyond reason. I think a better illustration of transcendence is the mathematical one. Two dimensions transcends one. The two dimensional being has access to all of the one dimensional points without being confined to (or even necessarily on) the line. From a mathematical perspective, none of us can conceive of (really understand or "Feel") anything but three spacial dimensions and one in time. So, we have to just rely on the math and follow it where it goes. I don't think people can even really fully understand two spacial dimensions. They can imagine looking at two dimensions from the perspective of three, but that's a little different. Maybe Socrates's point is that if you think you've transcended, you might think again. The solution to the blind men and the elephant of course is communication, comparing notes, and forming a picture out of the itsy bitsy bits of truth, like you see a mosaic made out of little stones - instead of insisting that your little bit of perception is the WHOLE truth. That's how scientists work, by and large. Socrates' point, as I understand it, is: if you're truly ignorant, you don't know that you are. Once you get a glimpse of understanding and knowledge, you begin to realize that there's more out there than what you know at the moment. You become aware that you do not hold the whole truth in your head. The more you learn, the bigger the vista, the clearer the perception of the existence of all the unknown out there. |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on May 17, 2016 6:26:12 GMT -5
I agree with that. @creelunion was asking if I felt there was a Truth to get closer to, and in an absolute sense I have no idea. But I do think it is very possible to look at our own beliefs and say 'that is NOT true or at least I don't know' and to me that comes quite close to petrushka's description of pulling your head out of your arse and trying to look at what is in front of you. |
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on May 17, 2016 6:39:48 GMT -5
I think you have to make judgements all the time. You can't live without making judgements. The question is are you making those judgements on the basis of a 'best effort' to try and understand the world around you, or based purely on a closed mindset that you inherited from somewhere else. I am not saying we can go completely beyond our upbringing or conditioning, but I am saying it is important to try. And in the context of the religious argument above, I think if you can make judgements while intensely aware of just how much you don't and can't know and understand about the world, then those judgements are likely to be a lot more open and compassionate and probably closer to the truth than they might be if you are trying to defend your world view. Hear, hear! So do I feel superior to homophobes? It is easier to think about specific people, but honestly yes in the sense that I don't hate them and I try to empathise with them and understand where they are coming from before violently disagreeing. I don't think they are offering the same courtesy to gay people. Do I feel 'superior' when I call a bigot out? Or even just if I label them such? I'm more likely angry about their lack of compassion and empathy that they use to hurt others. I may feel disdain for them, because they want to be recognized, yet deny that to others. How much leeway in terms of freedom of speech do you give a Nazi who wants to abolish the right to free speech - that is a paradox that our teachers used on us. I find sexual issues generally hard to argue from a moral standpoint. Things which our society frowns upon, other societies don't or haven't in the past, and unless you can show that something is actually harming somebody then I would find it hard to say it was immoral. But I also think as a society you need to make laws which protect people. Can I see a situation where a 14 year old might be mature enough to be in a sexual relationship with the right older person? Probably. Can I see lots of situations where 14 year olds might be abused by the wrong person? Definitely. So for me the law should stand. A few hundred years ago kids as young as 8 got married off by their parents. There are a bunch of countries where that still happens to 12-14 year old kids. What seems horrid to us might've seemed pretty ordinary to our great-great-great-grandparents. There were plenty of 14 year old girls at my highschool making calls about their sexual activities/involvement back in the 1960s. Others were not interested yet. Boys, not so much at that age, they mostly lagged a few years behind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 19:58:06 GMT -5
To go back to the idea of being judgmental - and maybe I'm oversimplifying - but I think it matters WHY we are making that judgment.
For example, people who make a disapproving judgment of fully functional consenting adults who happen to be gay - why do those people think it's wrong? Is anybody being harmed?
OTOH, pedophiles - whose "partners" (for lack of a better word) cannot consent, because they are children.
I saw something interesting on Fakebook about a man who considers himself a pedophile because he is attracted to children. However, he claims that he has never acted on it, does not want to, plans to avoid doing so.
What about people in that type of situation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 20:27:06 GMT -5
To go back to the idea of being judgmental - and maybe I'm oversimplifying - but I think it matters WHY we are making that judgment. For example, people who make a disapproving judgment of fully functional consenting adults who happen to be gay - why do those people think it's wrong? Is anybody being harmed? OTOH, pedophiles - whose "partners" (for lack of a better word) cannot consent, because they are children. I saw something interesting on Fakebook about a man who considers himself a pedophile because he is attracted to children. However, he claims that he has never acted on it, does not want to, plans to avoid doing so. What about people in that type of situation? That's why they call you SmartKat. Isn't the term "Pedophile" defined by the act? If we are defined by our deepest un-acted upon predilections, I suspect we'd all be imprisoned as soon as we hit some age of accountability. I'd love to smoke pot, shoot heroin, and 50 other crimes I won't admit to, but that doesn't make me a doper, a bank robber, a murder, or an adulterer. Well, I am an adulterer, but the other things I am not guilty of. If you knew someone had a tendency toward National Socialism -- like Hitler -- could you rightly imprison him before he ever acted on it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 22:26:45 GMT -5
There was a movie a few years ago called Minority Report (based on a Philip K. Dick story) that dealt with that idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:09:07 GMT -5
There was a movie a few years ago called Minority Report (based on a Philip K. Dick story) that dealt with that idea. YES! I saw that! A bunch of us had that conversation at the office. Would it be just to kill Hitler before he burned the Reichstag? |
|
:thumbup: 
