helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on Apr 9, 2023 12:30:06 GMT
A friend recently sent me a City Journal article on an economic alternative to military defense of countries or regions threatened by other nations – In this case, China. This Journal is from a right-wing think-tank. Predictably, it advises “free” market solutions to problems ultimately brought about by the marketing orientation that it promotes. I’ll copy the first few paragraphs to give you the sense of its argument:
The overall impression I get from this article is that our main focus should be on others. I believe our main work should be on ourselves, both in personal and in national/collective matters. The paragraphs above make a 1950's-style appeal to the US to do its duty as "leader of the free world." Knowing what we know about history, were the US and NATO ever a force for democracy and human rights? I can understand a desire to connect with freer societies as against more aggressive ones, but using NATO as a model keeps us in the capitalist/nationalist status-quo. I would start any connection with a statement from each society using language like: " I pledge to set self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of my community's policies. Our community pledges to help all fellow growers, and any children born into it, to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management." I’d be interested in the board’s opinion of this pledge.
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on Apr 28, 2023 14:07:54 GMT
“ The more the arts funders talked about the independent sector, the less independent it was […] we allowed ourselves to be sucked in by the lure of the money and we didn’t realise that our freedom was disappearing, until it was too late.” - Peter Thomas, collective member, Exploding CinemaFrom the 1980’s to the 1990’s our area had a popular art center which, as well as displaying the work of local artists, had a yearly exhibit which allowed anyone who submitted their work to have it shown in its gallery. It also had local musicians play regularly and showed videos made by local artists. It shut down, according to a friend who was one of those who ran it, due to people becoming “cynical.” I recently found an article about – among other things – the heyday of such centers and what led to their decline. A close reading reveals that one of these things is the change from the “Liberal” paradigm, in which progressives had some power within parties such as the American Democratic and the British Labor Parties, to the “Neoliberal” one, when the leadership of both switched to people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The more important aspect of the article is its distinction between the artistic process vs. its finished works. The piece includes a fascinating interpretation of modernist art history, starting with Manet: As the “business model” increasingly appropriated and commodified more institutions, it drained resources and time necessary for the artistic process, turning art appreciation into consumerism and artists into Warholian “factories.” The article ultimately provides strategy for melting the culture of consumption into one of care.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on Apr 28, 2023 15:39:49 GMT
A friend recently sent me a City Journal article on an economic alternative to military defense of countries or regions threatened by other nations – In this case, China. This Journal is from a right-wing think-tank. Predictably, it advises “free” market solutions to problems ultimately brought about by the marketing orientation that it promotes. I’ll copy the first few paragraphs to give you the sense of its argument:
The overall impression I get from this article is that our main focus should be on others. I believe our main work should be on ourselves, both in personal and in national/collective matters. The paragraphs above make a 1950's-style appeal to the US to do its duty as "leader of the free world." Knowing what we know about history, were the US and NATO ever a force for democracy and human rights? I can understand a desire to connect with freer societies as against more aggressive ones, but using NATO as a model keeps us in the capitalist/nationalist status-quo. I would start any connection with a statement from each society using language like: " I pledge to set self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of my community's policies. Our community pledges to help all fellow growers, and any children born into it, to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management." I’d be interested in the board’s opinion of this pledge. For whatever it's worth I have no issue with the pledge...with the caveat that this assent tenuously relies on my assumed understanding of the glittering generalities it holds as tenets. To pledge to cultivate empathy to an authority in power who proceeds to murderously purge those it labels obstacles to the cultivation of empathy can claim it is an action I have approved. The devil has always been in these details. A long and exhaustive sequence of 'if by whiskey' scenarios must be processed and vetted before the pledge can be allowed to apply to what it promises. Who is defining empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management? And are those authorities going to prepare the community to address issues in which one of them conflicts with another in the practical application of everyday life?
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on Apr 29, 2023 11:25:39 GMT
A friend recently sent me a City Journal article on an economic alternative to military defense of countries or regions threatened by other nations – In this case, China. This Journal is from a right-wing think-tank. Predictably, it advises “free” market solutions to problems ultimately brought about by the marketing orientation that it promotes. I’ll copy the first few paragraphs to give you the sense of its argument:
The overall impression I get from this article is that our main focus should be on others. I believe our main work should be on ourselves, both in personal and in national/collective matters. The paragraphs above make a 1950's-style appeal to the US to do its duty as "leader of the free world." Knowing what we know about history, were the US and NATO ever a force for democracy and human rights? I can understand a desire to connect with freer societies as against more aggressive ones, but using NATO as a model keeps us in the capitalist/nationalist status-quo. I would start any connection with a statement from each society using language like: " I pledge to set self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of my community's policies. Our community pledges to help all fellow growers, and any children born into it, to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management." I’d be interested in the board’s opinion of this pledge. For whatever it's worth I have no issue with the pledge...with the caveat that this assent tenuously relies on my assumed understanding of the glittering generalities it holds as tenets. To pledge to cultivate empathy to an authority in power who proceeds to murderously purge those it labels obstacles to the cultivation of empathy can claim it is an action I have approved. The devil has always been in these details. A long and exhaustive sequence of 'if by whiskey' scenarios must be processed and vetted before the pledge can be allowed to apply to what it promises. Who is defining empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management? And are those authorities going to prepare the community to address issues in which one of them conflicts with another in the practical application of everyday life? Thanks for your thoughtful reply, darkramj. To have empathy, though, does not mean to be an enabler – even if for some religions and other ideologies it has been sold that way. (My sister-in-law, the kindest person I know, has demonstrated to me the danger of this type of “empathy.”) I believe the three qualities in the pledge balance each other to avoid excess of any one of them. The statement about putting self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of policies is supposed to reinforce this balance. If you have ideas for how to make this clearer, I would be interested.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 29, 2023 13:32:09 GMT
A friend recently sent me a City Journal article on an economic alternative to military defense of countries or regions threatened by other nations – In this case, China. This Journal is from a right-wing think-tank. Predictably, it advises “free” market solutions to problems ultimately brought about by the marketing orientation that it promotes. I’ll copy the first few paragraphs to give you the sense of its argument:
The overall impression I get from this article is that our main focus should be on others. I believe our main work should be on ourselves, both in personal and in national/collective matters. The paragraphs above make a 1950's-style appeal to the US to do its duty as "leader of the free world." Knowing what we know about history, were the US and NATO ever a force for democracy and human rights? I can understand a desire to connect with freer societies as against more aggressive ones, but using NATO as a model keeps us in the capitalist/nationalist status-quo. I would start any connection with a statement from each society using language like: " I pledge to set self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of my community's policies. Our community pledges to help all fellow growers, and any children born into it, to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management." I’d be interested in the board’s opinion of this pledge. While your pledge no doubt has a deep meaning, it is difficult to understand and very imprecise . International experience in different countries has shown that any statement of intent that is not crystal clear and unambiguous will be twisted to a countrys internal policy objectives. Going back to the rest of your post, the US it seems to me, already punishes other countries with sanctions which it claims breaches its noble ideals. Americas problem is that it focusses on its enemies and ignores the fact that the US also indulges in the behaviour it abhors and ignores that behaviour in its friends. That is, Americas allegiance to a moral standing is hindered by its hypocrisy. Regarding China, Australia has attempted to deal with China as honest brokers (that is, cultivating trade dependencies to foster peaceful dialogue), but China has used its trade muscle to enhance its political posturing.
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on Apr 29, 2023 17:50:51 GMT
A friend recently sent me a City Journal article on an economic alternative to military defense of countries or regions threatened by other nations – In this case, China. This Journal is from a right-wing think-tank. Predictably, it advises “free” market solutions to problems ultimately brought about by the marketing orientation that it promotes. I’ll copy the first few paragraphs to give you the sense of its argument:
The overall impression I get from this article is that our main focus should be on others. I believe our main work should be on ourselves, both in personal and in national/collective matters. The paragraphs above make a 1950's-style appeal to the US to do its duty as "leader of the free world." Knowing what we know about history, were the US and NATO ever a force for democracy and human rights? I can understand a desire to connect with freer societies as against more aggressive ones, but using NATO as a model keeps us in the capitalist/nationalist status-quo. I would start any connection with a statement from each society using language like: " I pledge to set self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of my community's policies. Our community pledges to help all fellow growers, and any children born into it, to cultivate empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management." I’d be interested in the board’s opinion of this pledge. While your pledge no doubt has a deep meaning, it is difficult to understand and very imprecise . International experience in different countries has shown that any statement of intent that is not crystal clear and unambiguous will be twisted to a countrys internal policy objectives. Going back to the rest of your post, the US it seems to me, already punishes other countries with sanctions which it claims breaches its noble ideals. Americas problem is that it focusses on its enemies and ignores the fact that the US also indulges in the behaviour it abhors and ignores that behaviour in its friends. That is, Americas allegiance to a moral standing is hindered by its hypocrisy. Regarding China, Australia has attempted to deal with China as honest brokers (that is, cultivating trade dependencies to foster peaceful dialogue), but China has used its trade muscle to enhance its political posturing. Hairynosedwombat, thanks for your reply. I tried to be precise, but darkramj made a similar comment, using empathy as an example of a word that could be twisted to a country’s internal policy objectives. As I understand your concerns, my reply to them is the same:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 7:57:52 GMT
I'd definitely say the US and Nato were a force for democracy (look at Nazi Germany and then the Soviets became the enemy; it's sphere of influence with Germany and the Eastern European nations). Not so sure about human rights-maybe at first or the situations that were easy to fix (that dont involve major players) but probably later on a by-product. Achieving democracy in other countries is a large step in the right direction for human rights in general obviously. Special interests and money always get in the way and with that pledge, it's no different
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on Apr 30, 2023 15:13:53 GMT
I'd definitely say the US and Nato were a force for democracy (look at Nazi Germany and then the Soviets became the enemy; it's sphere of influence with Germany and the Eastern European nations). Not so sure about human rights-maybe at first or the situations that were easy to fix (that dont involve major players) but probably later on a by-product. Achieving democracy in other countries is a large step in the right direction for human rights in general obviously. Special interests and money always get in the way and with that pledge, it's no different I find less evidence of US support for democracy than of our disruption and corruption of attempts to establish democratic governments around the world. From Korea, where we set up the puppet government of the murderous Syngman Rhee, through the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and our refusal to sign an agreement (that we helped to create) to hold elections in Vietnam, to the present day, our history is riddled with disavowed imperialism. Truman formulated his doctrine in large part to keep Greece a monarchy, and this doctrine led to the formation of NATO. NATO swallowed the European Western Union, creating a tool to make capitalism hegemonic. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can see the success of this tool in how money always gets in the way – especially in its corruption of education to bring about “the end or history.” (Contrary to Fukuyama’s claim that history would move toward liberal democracy, however, we have moved toward neoliberal kleptoracy.) I wrote the pledge, with its call for self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom and for development of the listed qualities, to help get money out of the way both of education and of conversation in general. If you can find a way to make this clearer, I’d be interested.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on May 1, 2023 12:30:04 GMT
For whatever it's worth I have no issue with the pledge...with the caveat that this assent tenuously relies on my assumed understanding of the glittering generalities it holds as tenets. To pledge to cultivate empathy to an authority in power who proceeds to murderously purge those it labels obstacles to the cultivation of empathy can claim it is an action I have approved. The devil has always been in these details. A long and exhaustive sequence of 'if by whiskey' scenarios must be processed and vetted before the pledge can be allowed to apply to what it promises. Who is defining empathy, critical thinking, and emotional management? And are those authorities going to prepare the community to address issues in which one of them conflicts with another in the practical application of everyday life? Thanks for your thoughtful reply, darkramj. To have empathy, though, does not mean to be an enabler – even if for some religions and other ideologies it has been sold that way. (My sister-in-law, the kindest person I know, has demonstrated to me the danger of this type of “empathy.”) I believe the three qualities in the pledge balance each other to avoid excess of any one of them. The statement about putting self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of policies is supposed to reinforce this balance. If you have ideas for how to make this clearer, I would be interested. I agree, I'm simply pointing out that ambiguity of language comes with certain exploitable vulnerabilities. I mentioned 'glittering generalities' deliberately and did not make the term up to fabricate a hypothetical or imaginary concern. Search the term for a more in depth explanation for why I mentioned it and the liabilities it can create. The three qualities are idealisms and from experience there is always a journey required spanning the distance between the infallibility they hold in theory and realizing them in practice. Many things simple in theory are challenging in reality. Properly sharpening a kitchen knife is a simple matter of conditioning two surfaces to intersect along a line from functional included angles. A perfectly prepared brisket is a simple matter of making the slab of meat reach an internal temperature of about 190°-200° F for roughly an hour. Doing either one of these things in practice can be substantially less simple and require some knowledge, learned skills, experience, possibly sophisticated tools and processes as well. So much more complicated that in the case of a brisket there are competitive contests and achievements surrounding their preparation. I am certain a grand social plan will not be easier no matter how obviously sensible and simple the words describing the idea of it are. I have no doubt that asserting the 3 values of the pledge in practice are far from easy or simple and without a plan, the words cannot produce what we may agree they could promise. No matter how likable the words are...there will be work to be done and errors to be made. The glow of what we want the words to mean is no substitute for that work, trial and error. To hold these ideas as immune from error or distortion in practice is what makes them so exploitable. It will come down to the execution of a decided interpretation of them and whoever decides what that interpretation is wields the power over those who pledged to them. Where that decision is made by individuals, the interpretation remains negotiable in good faith...where an authority is empowered...corruption is an ever-looming possibility to keep in check. As it is, powers catalyzing division over the interpreted meaning of words like these forms a great deal of our otherwise civilized society's obstacles to progress. The word "justice" alone, and everyone choosing from a list of conflicting interpretations, drives tribal hostilities even today. Is it justice to hold wrong-doers accountable or is it justice to mitigate that accountability according to the wrong-doers' circumstances? People in conflict over this both put the word and the idea on it's proper pedestal...which makes the word itself a supporter of civilization's problems. The trick is not finding the best word term(s) to describe our principles with, but how to have society overwhelmingly be on the same best page about their meaning. That is not pledged to, it is earned with work, discipline and sacrifice ideally...but too often dictated, which is where it all goes wrong.
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on May 1, 2023 15:23:46 GMT
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, darkramj. To have empathy, though, does not mean to be an enabler – even if for some religions and other ideologies it has been sold that way. (My sister-in-law, the kindest person I know, has demonstrated to me the danger of this type of “empathy.”) I believe the three qualities in the pledge balance each other to avoid excess of any one of them. The statement about putting self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom at the heart of policies is supposed to reinforce this balance. If you have ideas for how to make this clearer, I would be interested. I agree, I'm simply pointing out that ambiguity of language comes with certain exploitable vulnerabilities. I mentioned 'glittering generalities' deliberately and did not make the term up to fabricate a hypothetical or imaginary concern. Search the term for a more in depth explanation for why I mentioned it and the liabilities it can create. The three qualities are idealisms and from experience there is always a journey required spanning the distance between the infallibility they hold in theory and realizing them in practice. Many things simple in theory are challenging in reality. Properly sharpening a kitchen knife is a simple matter of conditioning two surfaces to intersect along a line from functional included angles. A perfectly prepared brisket is a simple matter of making the slab of meat reach an internal temperature of about 190°-200° F for roughly an hour. Doing either one of these things in practice can be substantially less simple and require some knowledge, learned skills, experience, possibly sophisticated tools and processes as well. So much more complicated that in the case of a brisket there are competitive contests and achievements surrounding their preparation. I am certain a grand social plan will not be easier no matter how obviously sensible and simple the words describing the idea of it are. I have no doubt that asserting the 3 values of the pledge in practice are far from easy or simple and without a plan, the words cannot produce what we may agree they could promise. No matter how likable the words are...there will be work to be done and errors to be made. The glow of what we want the words to mean is no substitute for that work, trial and error. To hold these ideas as immune from error or distortion in practice is what makes them so exploitable. It will come down to the execution of a decided interpretation of them and whoever decides what that interpretation is wields the power over those who pledged to them. Where that decision is made by individuals, the interpretation remains negotiable in good faith...where an authority is empowered...corruption is an ever-looming possibility to keep in check. As it is, powers catalyzing division over the interpreted meaning of words like these forms a great deal of our otherwise civilized society's obstacles to progress. The word "justice" alone, and everyone choosing from a list of conflicting interpretations, drives tribal hostilities even today. Is it justice to hold wrong-doers accountable or is it justice to mitigate that accountability according to the wrong-doers' circumstances? People in conflict over this both put the word and the idea on it's proper pedestal...which makes the word itself a supporter of civilization's problems. The trick is not finding the best word term(s) to describe our principles with, but how to have society overwhelmingly be on the same best page about their meaning. That is not pledged to, it is earned with work, discipline and sacrifice ideally...but too often dictated, which is where it all goes wrong. I see what you mean. I do think the pledge is a good place to begin, but I get the sense that you do too? I understand there are psychological* tests* for* these qualities, and that all these traits can be developed, perhaps indefinitely. I had a peer-review process in mind. If someone in such a community knows a person who seems to have reached a certain level, that person being willing, she could have the test administered by two other members who don’t know the person. Those who reach the highest levels of a quality would be those who can take part in this peer-review process for that quality. Does this seem like it would resist corruption, or do you have an idea to make it more fair and/or foolproof? *In the linked article for “empathy”, a section on “Ontogenetic development,” mentions levels of this trait; and there is a section of "Measurement." More research would help to get the most effective test, but I'm just putting out ideas at the moment. *I linked to an article on the “thinking skills assessment,” but there might be a better one available. *The “emotional intelligence” linked article mentions a “Situational Test of Emotion Management,” which might do for a start. If there is a problem, there is room to refine within a peer-review system. Let me know if you have info on any better tests for any of these qualities.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on May 1, 2023 16:12:38 GMT
I agree, I'm simply pointing out that ambiguity of language comes with certain exploitable vulnerabilities. I mentioned 'glittering generalities' deliberately and did not make the term up to fabricate a hypothetical or imaginary concern. Search the term for a more in depth explanation for why I mentioned it and the liabilities it can create. The three qualities are idealisms and from experience there is always a journey required spanning the distance between the infallibility they hold in theory and realizing them in practice. Many things simple in theory are challenging in reality. Properly sharpening a kitchen knife is a simple matter of conditioning two surfaces to intersect along a line from functional included angles. A perfectly prepared brisket is a simple matter of making the slab of meat reach an internal temperature of about 190°-200° F for roughly an hour. Doing either one of these things in practice can be substantially less simple and require some knowledge, learned skills, experience, possibly sophisticated tools and processes as well. So much more complicated that in the case of a brisket there are competitive contests and achievements surrounding their preparation. I am certain a grand social plan will not be easier no matter how obviously sensible and simple the words describing the idea of it are. I have no doubt that asserting the 3 values of the pledge in practice are far from easy or simple and without a plan, the words cannot produce what we may agree they could promise. No matter how likable the words are...there will be work to be done and errors to be made. The glow of what we want the words to mean is no substitute for that work, trial and error. To hold these ideas as immune from error or distortion in practice is what makes them so exploitable. It will come down to the execution of a decided interpretation of them and whoever decides what that interpretation is wields the power over those who pledged to them. Where that decision is made by individuals, the interpretation remains negotiable in good faith...where an authority is empowered...corruption is an ever-looming possibility to keep in check. As it is, powers catalyzing division over the interpreted meaning of words like these forms a great deal of our otherwise civilized society's obstacles to progress. The word "justice" alone, and everyone choosing from a list of conflicting interpretations, drives tribal hostilities even today. Is it justice to hold wrong-doers accountable or is it justice to mitigate that accountability according to the wrong-doers' circumstances? People in conflict over this both put the word and the idea on it's proper pedestal...which makes the word itself a supporter of civilization's problems. The trick is not finding the best word term(s) to describe our principles with, but how to have society overwhelmingly be on the same best page about their meaning. That is not pledged to, it is earned with work, discipline and sacrifice ideally...but too often dictated, which is where it all goes wrong. I see what you mean. I do think the pledge is a good place to begin, but I get the sense that you do too? I understand there are psychological* tests* for* these qualities, and that all these traits can be developed, perhaps indefinitely. I had a peer-review process in mind. If someone in such a community knows a person who seems to have reached a certain level, that person being willing, she could have the test administered by two other members who don’t know the person. Those who reach the highest levels of a quality would be those who can take part in this peer-review process for that quality. Does this seem like it would resist corruption, or do you have an idea to make it more fair and/or foolproof? *In the linked article for “empathy”, a section on “Ontogenetic development,” mentions levels of this trait; and there is a section of "Measurement." More research would help to get the most effective test, but I'm just putting out ideas at the moment. *I linked to an article on the “thinking skills assessment,” but there might be a better one available. *The “emotional intelligence” linked article mentions a “Situational Test of Emotion Management,” which might do for a start. If there is a problem, there is room to refine within a peer-review system. Let me know if you have info on any better tests for any of these qualities. I wouldn't bank on any tests for more than their research potential, even if they are well-constructed. For one thing, it establishes a worthiness requirement for the social mores and liberties and that is inherently an organization that qualifies the liberties of it's members. There is an appropriate place for this (who gets to be a doctor, a pilot, a college professor, etc.)...but it is not appropriate by arbitrary default. For another, scientifically administered tests such as these are most useful in conditions under a level of clinical control. For example, Milgram's authority experiment showed that most people will carry out immoral actions out of perceived obedience. Not for malice or any intrinsic immorality...but because they trust the authority to have addressed the moral issues prior to their participation and objecting to them is to be a liability to the system of which they are the tiniest and have the least significant role in deciding the course of. You can very well give status to and promote people who show themselves to be exceptions...but what to do; A, with everyone who, while innocent of any actual wrongdoing or immorality, is obedient to authority and, B, having a group maintain any cohesive long-term plan while exclusively giving the greatest representation to the disobedient. Lastly of course, once you place a value benefit on the outcome of a test or tests...then it becomes subject to the human creative potential devising ways to game them. And that potential is astounding. This is basically why we have an ecosystem of competing parties and socio-political ideologies already who agree with the progress of the American experiment and American values, but mortal enemies with regard to what they mean and how they are upheld...already. You just put out a different pledge, I see no reason why those words would be any more transformative to human kind than any other set already have shown to be. Better, in my opinion, to just have an active, lifetime commitment to them personally with an understanding of unconditional positive regard and let the social benefits of that bear fruit organically. Nature will ultimately pick the winning ideas and the losing ones, any departure from that derived from what we wish the world and humanity was instead, is a commitment to a blissful utopia we'll just drive all the way to extinction. To me, civilization has one simple purpose: to allow people who can cohabitate in a space through means that make it increasingly unnecessary to kill someone else and take their shit. We don't just make a pledge not to do that because it's nice, and we don't strive to increase that distance because it's nice either. So the increase of that distance from where we are now, with what you assert, demands more than the simple agreement that the words are good ones...they must do the work of lifting and moving something that is really very heavy in it's best direction. Nature doesn't intrinsically reward 'nice', so nice isn't a sufficient motive force to keep nature (our own or more broadly) from ending us...it is a byproduct at best. What I am trying to articulate keeps that priority in it's proper place. Because reality forces us to face all manner of dilemma and challenge. You can pledge to never kill another human being...then face the reality that a person you may be in a position to kill prevents the deaths of 5 people they intend to kill. So the devil is always in the details regarding where that pledge encounters reality and how it stacks up morally and ethically. We've tried the "can we all just be nice to each other" philosophy before with religion, laws and all kinds of rules...it's always imperfect, there will always be struggles. That's life, though. Pledges are nice, but in the end we will only ever be able to do the best we can with the circumstances we find ourselves in.
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on May 1, 2023 21:04:35 GMT
I see what you mean. I do think the pledge is a good place to begin, but I get the sense that you do too? I understand there are psychological* tests* for* these qualities, and that all these traits can be developed, perhaps indefinitely. I had a peer-review process in mind. If someone in such a community knows a person who seems to have reached a certain level, that person being willing, she could have the test administered by two other members who don’t know the person. Those who reach the highest levels of a quality would be those who can take part in this peer-review process for that quality. Does this seem like it would resist corruption, or do you have an idea to make it more fair and/or foolproof? *In the linked article for “empathy”, a section on “Ontogenetic development,” mentions levels of this trait; and there is a section of "Measurement." More research would help to get the most effective test, but I'm just putting out ideas at the moment. *I linked to an article on the “thinking skills assessment,” but there might be a better one available. *The “emotional intelligence” linked article mentions a “Situational Test of Emotion Management,” which might do for a start. If there is a problem, there is room to refine within a peer-review system. Let me know if you have info on any better tests for any of these qualities. I wouldn't bank on any tests for more than their research potential, even if they are well-constructed. For one thing, it establishes a worthiness requirement for the social mores and liberties and that is inherently an organization that qualifies the liberties of it's members. There is an appropriate place for this (who gets to be a doctor, a pilot, a college professor, etc.)...but it is not appropriate by arbitrary default. For another, scientifically administered tests such as these are most useful in conditions under a level of clinical control. For example, Milgram's authority experiment showed that most people will carry out immoral actions out of perceived obedience. Not for malice or any intrinsic immorality...but because they trust the authority to have addressed the moral issues prior to their participation and objecting to them is to be a liability to the system of which they are the tiniest and have the least significant role in deciding the course of. You can very well give status to and promote people who show themselves to be exceptions...but what to do; A, with everyone who, while innocent of any actual wrongdoing or immorality, is obedient to authority and, B, having a group maintain any cohesive long-term plan while exclusively giving the greatest representation to the disobedient. Lastly of course, once you place a value benefit on the outcome of a test or tests...then it becomes subject to the human creative potential devising ways to game them. And that potential is astounding. This is basically why we have an ecosystem of competing parties and socio-political ideologies already who agree with the progress of the American experiment and American values, but mortal enemies with regard to what they mean and how they are upheld...already. You just put out a different pledge, I see no reason why those words would be any more transformative to human kind than any other set already have shown to be. Better, in my opinion, to just have an active, lifetime commitment to them personally with an understanding of unconditional positive regard and let the social benefits of that bear fruit organically. Nature will ultimately pick the winning ideas and the losing ones, any departure from that derived from what we wish the world and humanity was instead, is a commitment to a blissful utopia we'll just drive all the way to extinction. To me, civilization has one simple purpose: to allow people who can cohabitate in a space through means that make it increasingly unnecessary to kill someone else and take their shit. We don't just make a pledge not to do that because it's nice, and we don't strive to increase that distance because it's nice either. So the increase of that distance from where we are now, with what you assert, demands more than the simple agreement that the words are good ones...they must do the work of lifting and moving something that is really very heavy in it's best direction. Nature doesn't intrinsically reward 'nice', so nice isn't a sufficient motive force to keep nature (our own or more broadly) from ending us...it is a byproduct at best. What I am trying to articulate keeps that priority in it's proper place. Because reality forces us to face all manner of dilemma and challenge. You can pledge to never kill another human being...then face the reality that a person you may be in a position to kill prevents the deaths of 5 people they intend to kill. So the devil is always in the details regarding where that pledge encounters reality and how it stacks up morally and ethically. We've tried the "can we all just be nice to each other" philosophy before with religion, laws and all kinds of rules...it's always imperfect, there will always be struggles. That's life, though. Pledges are nice, but in the end we will only ever be able to do the best we can with the circumstances we find ourselves in. “O ne of the simplest ways of evolving a favourable environment concurrently with the development of the individual organism, is that the influence of each organism on the environment should be favourable to the endurance of other organisms of the same type.” - Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern WorldThese words imply that to live as a sentient being requires living with other people (or sentients.) Sentients working together are what create all art, science, and anything that makes human life matter. I call the sum of these creations, “The Great Conversation.” This does not imply trying to create a utopia – as long as we see that there is no perfection at the end of this conversation – only more growth. The principle that begins my pledge, to put “self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom” at the heart of a community’s policies, comes from this idea. I chose the three qualities mentioned in the second part as those which, together, would most help people to follow this principle. Thus I don’t consider the peer-reviewed tests which decide peoples’ readiness to contribute to and/or support the great conversation arbitrary. We use precedents – tests which have proven useful in determining levels of these abilities - and refine them as we struggle with dilemmas and challenges. I agree that desire for status can corrupt a system, but with the above standard, and the many ways to support/protect it without needing to assert one’s status as against others, this corruption should be avoidable. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on May 2, 2023 12:17:43 GMT
I wouldn't bank on any tests for more than their research potential, even if they are well-constructed. For one thing, it establishes a worthiness requirement for the social mores and liberties and that is inherently an organization that qualifies the liberties of it's members. There is an appropriate place for this (who gets to be a doctor, a pilot, a college professor, etc.)...but it is not appropriate by arbitrary default. For another, scientifically administered tests such as these are most useful in conditions under a level of clinical control. For example, Milgram's authority experiment showed that most people will carry out immoral actions out of perceived obedience. Not for malice or any intrinsic immorality...but because they trust the authority to have addressed the moral issues prior to their participation and objecting to them is to be a liability to the system of which they are the tiniest and have the least significant role in deciding the course of. You can very well give status to and promote people who show themselves to be exceptions...but what to do; A, with everyone who, while innocent of any actual wrongdoing or immorality, is obedient to authority and, B, having a group maintain any cohesive long-term plan while exclusively giving the greatest representation to the disobedient. Lastly of course, once you place a value benefit on the outcome of a test or tests...then it becomes subject to the human creative potential devising ways to game them. And that potential is astounding. This is basically why we have an ecosystem of competing parties and socio-political ideologies already who agree with the progress of the American experiment and American values, but mortal enemies with regard to what they mean and how they are upheld...already. You just put out a different pledge, I see no reason why those words would be any more transformative to human kind than any other set already have shown to be. Better, in my opinion, to just have an active, lifetime commitment to them personally with an understanding of unconditional positive regard and let the social benefits of that bear fruit organically. Nature will ultimately pick the winning ideas and the losing ones, any departure from that derived from what we wish the world and humanity was instead, is a commitment to a blissful utopia we'll just drive all the way to extinction. To me, civilization has one simple purpose: to allow people who can cohabitate in a space through means that make it increasingly unnecessary to kill someone else and take their shit. We don't just make a pledge not to do that because it's nice, and we don't strive to increase that distance because it's nice either. So the increase of that distance from where we are now, with what you assert, demands more than the simple agreement that the words are good ones...they must do the work of lifting and moving something that is really very heavy in it's best direction. Nature doesn't intrinsically reward 'nice', so nice isn't a sufficient motive force to keep nature (our own or more broadly) from ending us...it is a byproduct at best. What I am trying to articulate keeps that priority in it's proper place. Because reality forces us to face all manner of dilemma and challenge. You can pledge to never kill another human being...then face the reality that a person you may be in a position to kill prevents the deaths of 5 people they intend to kill. So the devil is always in the details regarding where that pledge encounters reality and how it stacks up morally and ethically. We've tried the "can we all just be nice to each other" philosophy before with religion, laws and all kinds of rules...it's always imperfect, there will always be struggles. That's life, though. Pledges are nice, but in the end we will only ever be able to do the best we can with the circumstances we find ourselves in. “O ne of the simplest ways of evolving a favourable environment concurrently with the development of the individual organism, is that the influence of each organism on the environment should be favourable to the endurance of other organisms of the same type.” - Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern WorldThese words imply that to live as a sentient being requires living with other people (or sentients.) Sentients working together are what create all art, science, and anything that makes human life matter. I call the sum of these creations, “The Great Conversation.” This does not imply trying to create a utopia – as long as we see that there is no perfection at the end of this conversation – only more growth. The principle that begins my pledge, to put “self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom” at the heart of a community’s policies, comes from this idea. I chose the three qualities mentioned in the second part as those which, together, would most help people to follow this principle. Thus I don’t consider the peer-reviewed tests which decide peoples’ readiness to contribute to and/or support the great conversation arbitrary. We use precedents – tests which have proven useful in determining levels of these abilities - and refine them as we struggle with dilemmas and challenges. I agree that desire for status can corrupt a system, but with the above standard, and the many ways to support/protect it without needing to assert one’s status as against others, this corruption should be avoidable. I’d be interested in your thoughts. My thoughts on this are that I respect your optimism and passion, but that you haven't considered practical application very well...assuming that invoking the words alone will produce the intended unified result. This is not "a start", for one thing. It started tens of thousands of years ago when one primate standing upright decided to share food, water or fire with, instead of club to death, another primate standing upright. Over 200 years ago, the founders of my country spent roughly a decade writing a Constitution with as much optimism and spirit as you have written this pledge. And yet to this day that document is examined and scrutinized under the finest microscope humanity has been capable of devising...and for good reason. And yes, while arbitrary might not be the most accurate word I chose it for how well it matches scientific realities you haven't taken into account. You know that scientific certainty...even when it is perfectly dispassionate in the rendering of conclusions...changes over time. Also, there is not nor has ever been a scientific process for predicting human behavior with precision. We are, at best, able to condense and document credible associations surrounding it. Because the human psyche is dynamic, not a fixed set of decisions and automatic processes that remain consistent for an individual's entire life. Because we couldn't survive if they were. You are, in my opinion, relying on science to engineer a correction and control mechanism for that fluidity at humanity's peril when it's appropriate purpose is to better understand it. So my conclusion is that dividing star-bellied sneetches from those without...even using scientifically derived terms and methods...establishes a psychological version of eugenics to "improve" society with. No bueno. Also, every test of the "big 3" a person passes does not account for tomorrow...and that's something you have not accounted for. A person who "passes" may be one trauma, one personal setback, one trigger-event away from becoming someone who no longer passes (or a series/combination of them) tomorrow. Neurological disorders for example can appear at any time in a person's life. Obviously, a society prioritizing empathy will summarily opt to treat that person and restore their status...the caveat being that there are limits to this capability. Circumstances may make it impossible to fully restore them to qualifying parameters and should the cause have been circumstances beyond their own control or making...then the empathic society DEMANDS a person who does not qualify for the 'big 3' ...be equally tolerated and accepted among those who do. That becomes a population within the society over time who do not measure up according to the scientific requirements to attain the necessary uniformity. So the 'big 3' are inevitably subject to necessary compromise. Then the society you have imagined falls prey to the perpetual question all societies eventually struggle with: how much compromise/sub-optimal people is the society equipped to tolerate? And if empathy demands they all be tolerated, it will become a failed experiment and testimony of what not to do for future societies. Not what you had in mind, I'm sure. The word arbitrary describes the ultimately realized value of the scientific tests' contribution. It appears naive to me that you would expect to have produced an original idea above any such scrutiny by the mere value of the words in it alone. You assume the system standards you outlined are incorruptible for the meaning of the words when there are no words which are immune from variable interpretations and application wherever there are people to interpret them. Moral codes require enforcement where moral relativism is allowed and moral relativism is, in part, the provision of civilization in which the comfortable bosom of you have written yours. So what you have created here exists only for the seeds of it's own destruction. My thought is that your pledge is sufficiently idealistic, insufficiently realistic. And I also think that relying on scientism to organize it undermines the unity it's success ultimately depends upon. Many human atrocities have resulted from the effort to systematically categorize the "right people" for society from the "wrong people". Although this remains something that always needs to be done, summary pre-judgement criteria (even scientifically asserted ones) for it is a system for history's monsters. If this is not a perpetual struggle and effort...then you aren't doing it correctly. What you have laid out is a one size fits all proclamation. History has shown that these can produce substantial social improvements...as well as tremendous harm. I'm not convinced that the guard-rails making it the one and not the other, science and signaled virtue...will be sufficient as you've described them. They have not been sufficient in humanity's past. A just government with a monopoly of force is what's been working so far...so long as the 'just' part is adequately maintained.
|
|
helena
Pussy Galore
"Maybe somebody should've labeled the future 'some assembly required.'" - Babylon 5
Posts: 29
|
Post by helena on May 3, 2023 11:28:37 GMT
Those in power continue to fund the meme of capitalist realism – the idea, as expressed by Margaret Thatcher, that “there is no alternative” to an unbridled market and that “there is no society.” Although the bankruptcy of this idea is now transparent, they are still pushing the narrative with spokesmen like darkramj. His last message plainly shows his belief that societies that value empathy, even when balanced by emotional management and critical thinking, are doomed. He believes that only “his” country’s system can “work” – a system with the highest child poverty rate in the developed world as well as an epidemic of deaths of despair.
He accuses my proposal of being invalid for having “glittering generalities” but upholds “his” country (btw, he seems to have overlooked that this thread makes it clear that I am a US citizen) for being “just” – as used by him, a glittering generality meant to cover the country's being a kleptocracy and that his admiration is for the fact that those in control of it have not (yet) been held accountable for its crimes. Because I have persistently defended my ideas, he has called me “naive,” compared my proposal to a child’s story, and otherwise mischaracterized my ideas with his condescending verbal diarrhea.
Authentic dialogue is always welcome – Those who have proven their dishonesty through methods like darkramj’s are not.
|
|
|
Post by darkramj on May 3, 2023 14:41:54 GMT
Those in power continue to fund the meme of capitalist realism – the idea, as expressed by Margaret Thatcher, that “there is no alternative” to an unbridled market and that “there is no society.” Although the bankruptcy of this idea is now transparent, they are still pushing the narrative with spokesmen like darkramj. His last message plainly shows his belief that societies that value empathy, even when balanced by emotional management and critical thinking, are doomed. He believes that only “his” country’s system can “work” – a system with the highest child poverty rate in the developed world as well as an epidemic of deaths of despair. He accuses my proposal of being invalid for having “glittering generalities” but upholds “his” country (btw, he seems to have overlooked that this thread makes it clear that I am a US citizen) for being “just” – as used by him, a glittering generality meant to cover the country's being a kleptocracy and that his admiration is for the fact that those in control of it have not (yet) been held accountable for its crimes. Because I have persistently defended my ideas, he has called me “naive,” compared my proposal to a child’s story, and otherwise mischaracterized my ideas with his condescending verbal diarrhea. Authentic dialogue is always welcome – Those who have proven their dishonesty through methods like darkramj’s are not. Sorry you feel that way. BTW, I did not get the memo that you are an American...in lieu of that I chose my responses intentionally to be free of that assumption. On that basis I object to you implying an intent to insult you with them. It would be arrogant instead for an American to lecture someone they don't know to be a fellow American on America's history and ideals and talk down to them in the process. I'll concede the error, but no malice was asserted. History has proven, whether you spare the messenger or not, that sustaining and advancing civilization from where it is now requires a commitment to diligence, comprehension and the application of robust ideas. Real, difficult and perpetual work in which empathy has played a role and shown it's value already. Pledges alone have never been enough. The 10 Commandments, The Magna Carta, The US Constitution. There is no rational basis to concur that yours rises further above the constant and rightful scrutiny and examination that these are all subject to. Because unembodied words are meaningless ones to humanity. Words as embodied by the few, instead of the many, are meaningless to the greater society the words promised to serve. Meaningless at best...a road sign to false paths at worst. If you are not prepared to address constant and myriad "what if" questions with regard to the words you have chosen in your pledge...then their meaning cannot deliver what they promise to all the people with questions to ask. Those people are the society. Indeed, capitalism is the economic system by which, ironically, from each according to their gifts and to each according to their needs is both most optimally and robustly served. Ideally, the system's productive potential is maximized...the obstacles between producers and consumers of things with value are minimized...and the interaction between the two is the most optimal. There are certainly ways to fuck that up which have corrupted it. But what fool believes there is a system that is truly uncorruptible in human hands? Imperfect, no disputing that...but it is known to be unwise to make perfect the enemy of the good. Most proposals for a better society, including yours, places the greatest emphasis on the existing one's problems and takes most for granted what it's achievements are. I have not asserted that we can make the problems go away without changing anything. I literally earn my living knowing better than that. What I have asserted is that no one can successfully assume all the benefits we enjoy today will remain no matter what we change. Not even you. Its all trade-offs, trade-offs to be made very carefully every single day...forever. And no, prioritizing empathy, celebrating what it accomplishes and inculcating it is far from doomed and something civilization would benefit from better sophisticating. I know first hand that trained specialists providing mental health care are prepared to excel in building the foundation of a therapeutic relationship with it. This is maximized because the provider remains an observer of the client's life and experience and not a participant beyond the door of the office. Mandating it to eliminate or replace the inevitable stresses of everyday life, instead of supporting people through them with it...is instead a society doomed to fail. Because, like a car, proper driving habits and maintenance, like empathy to a society, is essential for the optimal functioning of it's purpose. Not the purpose itself. A car is there to convey you from one place to another...not sit in a mechanic's garage being worked on. Society has a purpose too and empathy plays a part in it supporting that...replacing what purpose it serves with it's supporting factors compromises a function that you cannot replace.
|
|