Power, Personality, Intelligence and the cloud.

[Tridimity]

It sounds like you are willing to give up on trying to make positive changes in the world and to allow needless suffering to continue; to stay warm and comfy in your bubble while the rest of the world goes to the Deuce. We are not able to change the world single-handedly as individuals but it is possible for individuals to unite and to together change the world. I think there is more room for global consensus on ways of life and morality than you admit.

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

Needless suffering?

 

I was thinking that humankind, together HAS eliviated a great deal of suffering.

 

And concurently, there is always the next thing to do.

 

There is a difference between making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble at the expense of others, and making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble that includes others.

 

The angle I am approaching this from, currently in my muses, and particularly in this thread is trying to guage one's role, realistically, in maintaining things, that are already established and working, while keeping an eye out for personal improvement and positive engagement, where and when appropriate. In this, one of the points I am trying to make, or perhaps one of the things I am trying to determine, is how realistic is it, to attempt to extend your own bubble, past your reach. PARTICULARLY in today's current instant information, and GLOBAL reach environment of the internet.

 

You are sitting there in Europe, affecting my thoughts and I am sitting here in the U.S. affecting yours. Our reach is Global but limited to a few score of other folk, and our power to pursuade is limited to the facts. What we might dream is possible and true may not fit the facts. And on the other hand, a workable idea will spread, just by being a workable idea. And this in turn, might affect your next action, and mine, and change reality in Europe and the U.S.

 

I remember a simple corellary from my youth. I was in a cliche of boys my age, lets say 12-15 years old, and recall how easy it was to dictate what we were going to do next, by suggesting it and then doing it. I also remember going easily along with other peoples suggestions, as the burden of the choice, and the wondering what others might want to do, was lifted from me. There was often a simple and instant vote as several suggestions occurred in succession, and one suggester would switch to the "better" suggestion, until there was unanimity and then we would do the thing, whole heartedly, together.

 

It would not have worked out too well, if everybody always went with the first suggestion, and did not voice their own desires, nor if one person always led, nor if each would stick unwaveringly to their personal preference. But as it was, we had a full and happy day, swimming, playing army in the woods, playing "girl hunt" when the lasses would have it, playing "over the top" on the beach, or Monopoly when it rained, or salamander hunting after a rain, or visiting and helping an older lady in a wheel chair, that lived alone, and would give us candy (that we would walk 6 miles thru the Glen to buy for her).

 

My point is, that the world is not so bad, by virtue of all the things already established and maintained by human judgement and agreement. The glass is already 90 percent full, and only 10 percent empty. And it is not realistic to expect the entire world to agree on what to do next. It is better to reveal your desires, and then proceed with the best suggestions offered in unanimity.

 

Regards, TAR2

It is more workable to attempt to fit the world, than to attempt to have the world, fit you. Using good judgement at every turn.

[Tridimity]

There is a difference between making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble at the expense of others, and making effort to maintain a warm and comfy bubble that includes others.

 

 

Well, true.

 

Your childhood sounds lovely. Come to think of it, my childhood friends and I would play in the street: football, telling ghost stories, making a cardboard 'tunnel of terror', playing kerby, riding our bikes/scooters/skateboards/rollerblades, modelling/dancing/singing, tag, hide-and-seek. The decision as to what to play was necessarily made by consensus. Still, this mode of decision-making when it comes to adult individuals leaves the minority vulnerable to the whims of the majority. With the adult equivalents of playground spats - "I want to be the mummy" "No I'm being the mummy"

 

It is more workable to attempt to fit the world, than to attempt to have the world, fit you.

 

 

And what if you find yourself in a genocidal totalitarian state? Are you meant to try and fit the demands of the regime, which may include tolerance of genocide, rather than have the relevant leaders and citizens consider your peaceful philosophy?

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

Well, here is the rub. Afganistan has never, in modern times been conquered, because the tribal leaders just go with the strongest power around and continue being the tribal leaders.

 

I was talking to a Pakistani taxi driver in Chicago who told me about Mullahs. They run their area and keep power by keeping their subjects poor and ignorant. If you stand up against them, or propose changes or a different philosophy, the Mullahs henchmen simply kill you. Not enough room there to make suggestions for improvement.

 

While here in the U.S., although there is established power, in money and politics, and there is sure to be an in crowd and an out crowd, in terms of who is setting the agenda, there is a general attitude that the society is set-up to reward and protect individual effort, and a general attitude that people should and therefore do, strive for excellence in their choosen field of work, whether its the garbage men running to complete the route and get off the two lane highway during rush hour, or the college student striving for the A, or the real estate agent putting together that "killer" presentation.

 

I do not fear my fellow man, here, as I might in Pakistan, or the Middle East. But if I was Pakistani, I would probably do my best to befriend the Mullah, and help him keep the peace. Who knows, I might even be one of the henchmen, silencing the trouble makers. After all, the Koran suggests that Allah does not like those who make mischief. If the Koran was the life guide I had memorized as a child in school, and the words I repeated to myself three times a day at prayer time, I would be likely to try and live the words.

 

Regards, TAR2

And if I did find myself in a Genecidal Totalitarian state, I would probably wish the U.S. and her allies would come and straighten out the situation.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

They run their area and keep power by keeping their subjects poor and ignorant. If you stand up against them, or propose changes or a different philosophy, the Mullahs henchmen simply kill you. Not enough room there to make suggestions for improvement.

 

 

Granted, in some situations there is no prospect for rational discussion as initiated by a lone individual, and under these circumstances it is in the best interests of the persecuted to leave the country and seek refuge elsewhere asap (if possible).

 

After all, the Koran suggests that Allah does not like those who make mischief. If the Koran was the life guide I had memorized as a child in school, and the words I repeated to myself three times a day at prayer time, I would be likely to try and live the words.

 

 

I am aware that indoctrination sometimes does have this effect on children and adults but really I think that you are smarter than that.

 

And if I did find myself in a Genocidal Totalitarian state, I would probably wish the U.S. and her allies would come and straighten out the situation.

 

 

Perhaps. I would wish for diplomatic intervention, and if that proved impossible, then I would hope for targeted military intervention by soldiers of good conscience.

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

Well, interesting you talk of good conscience, as if that is something available inherently. And also suggest that I am "smarter" than to become a henchmen, as if becoming a henchmen to a Mullah does not take capability.

 

Not too long ago, in the U.S., within my lifetime, women had a different societal role, than they do today. The glass ceiling still exists in many ways, even though women burned their bras and demanded equal treatment in obtaining powerful positions, powerful positions are still predominately male. I have no doubt that one of the elements that defines these roles is the Bible, but there is the reality that males are on average bigger and stronger than females, and such a power structure is likely to naturally develop. Also, on the school yard, they did a study that found that girls tended to play cooperative games like jumprope and hopskotch, were there was no winners and losers, and boys tended to play team games where you chose up sides and have a set of rules within which you compete for the victory of you team. Also, no study done, but from my personal observation, women still tend to raise the babies, and men still tend to fight the wars. There might be a personality difference, and hence a capability difference, and hence an inherent difference between the team building success of a man and a women, of equal education and smarts.

 

But the point is, that the society, at least American society, has changed over the last 60 years of my lifetime, but not completely changed, and the rules of society have to always stay consistent with the facts of life. And a man of good "conscience", would be defined, by any society, by the society itself. Best example might be Socrates. In retrospect to us in the West, now, he is a hero of "questioning" the status quo, but at the time, he was put to death because of it. And not too many lifetimes ago, we burned witches, here in the U.S. Nobody EXPECTS the Spanish inquisition. (Monty Python).

 

So what "outside" standards, does an individual have, to establish conscience with? Many think God. Many don't. But I have a theory, that goes like this. There is not a god, as described in the Bible and the Koran, he just has not shown up as we inspect the sky and the heavens, we must be imagining him. But, we each know we are in and of something that has ultimate power over us, and this external world, is securely connected to us, in every way. We can not, but in our imaginations, or by death, get outside of it. It is rather our reality. There is nothing else but it, to know, and nothing else but it to love or hate. So, I have developed a theory that belief in god, is another way of saying that we believe in each other, and the Earth, and the heavens, and we therefore look to each other and the Earth and the heavens, to be our guide and judge. The "feeling" we have, that somebody or something else cares what we do and what we think, and that there is a difference between being good and being evil, comes from the fact that there actually IS the rest of the world, that is affected by our actions, and amongst the rest of the world, are creatures substantially the same as us, subject to the same reality, created by the same reality, and responsible to the same world. And THEY care about the world, as well.

 

So what is a man of good conscience? A man conscious of the world around him, and responsive to its will, would be my guess. And as the world around me is of a certain nature and character, by virtue of the established order, and will of the electorate of the U.S. my responsiveness to the will of the world, would be by definition, different than that of a man of good conscience circling the stone, with his mates in Mecca. There is neither one of us following the will of a "different" god. My conscience is no better than his, and there is not a way to have a good conscience without consideration of the real world of things and people and established order around you.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Tridimity]

Well, interesting you talk of good conscience, as if that is something available inherently. And also suggest that I am "smarter" than to become a henchmen, as if becoming a henchmen to a Mullah does not take capability.

 

 

Sorry, I was using the term ‘good conscience’ as shorthand for ‘of a similar moral disposition to myself’ – which, in this scenario, would mean not killing militants and civilians indiscriminately – but, rather, targeting the leaders/main perpetrators of evil. Undoubtedly henchmen will have certain capabilities – any lacking capability will quickly be removed from the system by opposing forces. I meant ‘smarter’ in the sense that, even if you had been subjected to an entire childhood of religious indoctrination, I think that you would be intelligent enough to independently question the force-fed information and to either reject religion or else settle upon a religion for your own well considered reasons.

 

Not too long ago, in the U.S., within my lifetime, women had a different societal role, than they do today. The glass ceiling still exists in many ways, even though women burned their bras and demanded equal treatment in obtaining powerful positions, powerful positions are still predominately male. I have no doubt that one of the elements that defines these roles is the Bible, but there is the reality that males are on average bigger and stronger than females, and such a power structure is likely to naturally develop. Also, on the school yard, they did a study that found that girls tended to play cooperative games like jumprope and hopskotch, were there was no winners and losers, and boys tended to play team games where you chose up sides and have a set of rules within which you compete for the victory of you team. Also, no study done, but from my personal observation, women still tend to raise the babies, and men still tend to fight the wars. There might be a personality difference, and hence a capability difference, and hence an inherent difference between the team building success of a man and a women, of equal education and smarts.

 

 

I think that the inequity between males and females is a reflection of differences in domestic and child-rearing investments. The average female contributes so much more to domestic wellbeing and child-minding that, frankly, extra provision of resources for the tasks by males is the only way to keep us from immediately eating you males post-conception. I do not think that the situation is fair and especially so for females who genuinely have no carnal desire for a husband or children of her own – she is left to struggle on her own, lacking in resources, due to the outdated societal structure into which she had the misfortune to be born. As for your comments on competitiveness and co-operativeness, I think that both males and females have each of these capacities and while the male version may be overt (outward aggression in competing with other males for females and resources) – do not be deceived. Competition occurs fiercely between females but tends to take a verbal/social format. Teams only work if all participants in team A recognise that they must work together in order to beat team B – in reality, in the workplace, the set-up is such that individuals within the same team are forced into positions in which they are competing with one another far more than they are any external institution. Hence why intra-team co-operation fails under these circumstances. I suppose it is a bit like sibling rivalry – like it or not, love them or not, one is competing with one’s sibling for resources – despite the fact that the family may be considered a “gene propagator” team.

 

In this sense, working and living alone has its advantages: one can be relatively secure in the knowledge that one is not exploiting others nor being exploited by others.

 

But the point is, that the society, at least American society, has changed over the last 60 years of my lifetime, but not completely changed, and the rules of society have to always stay consistent with the facts of life. And a man of good "conscience", would be defined, by any society, by the society itself. Best example might be Socrates. In retrospect to us in the West, now, he is a hero of "questioning" the status quo, but at the time, he was put to death because of it. And not too many lifetimes ago, we burned witches, here in the U.S. Nobody EXPECTS the Spanish inquisition. (Monty Python).

 

 

Here you have rendered the meaning of ‘conscience’ completely arbitrary; subject wholly to the whims of society. There are some fundamentals that can be agreed upon, for example, “an it harm none, do as ye will” (the fun comes in determining what constitutes harm).

 

So what "outside" standards, does an individual have, to establish conscience with? Many think God. Many don't. But I have a theory, that goes like this. There is not a god, as described in the Bible and the Koran, he just has not shown up as we inspect the sky and the heavens, we must be imagining him. But, we each know we are in and of something that has ultimate power over us, and this external world, is securely connected to us, in every way. We can not, but in our imaginations, or by death, get outside of it. It is rather our reality. There is nothing else but it, to know, and nothing else but it to love or hate. So, I have developed a theory that belief in god, is another way of saying that we believe in each other, and the Earth, and the heavens, and we therefore look to each other and the Earth and the heavens, to be our guide and judge. The "feeling" we have, that somebody or something else cares what we do and what we think, and that there is a difference between being good and being evil, comes from the fact that there actually IS the rest of the world, that is affected by our actions, and amongst the rest of the world, are creatures substantially the same as us, subject to the same reality, created by the same reality, and responsible to the same world. And THEY care about the world, as well.

 

 

I would argue that the thing to which we are answerable is society and that this, in turn, is a result of biology. We are evolutionarily programmed to be alternately competitive or co-operative (the latter, although perhaps seeming selfless, may be nothing more than reciprocal altruism, or sexual selection for partners who will spawn offspring who will in turn mesh into society and so pass their genes down the generations). That’s perhaps why, when you ask somebody, ‘why is it wrong to kill another person/to harm another person?’ they will almost always answer that it is ‘self-evident’ or will refer to human rights (a concept, thankfully, that we have invented to express our intrinsic feelings).

 

So what is a man of good conscience? A man conscious of the world around him, and responsive to its will, would be my guess. And as the world around me is of a certain nature and character, by virtue of the established order, and will of the electorate of the U.S. my responsiveness to the will of the world, would be by definition, different than that of a man of good conscience circling the stone, with his mates in Mecca. There is neither one of us following the will of a "different" god. My conscience is no better than his, and there is not a way to have a good conscience without consideration of the real world of things and people and established order around you.

 

 

“A man conscious of the world around him, and responsive to its will”

 

I do not think that this definition suffices because it would also include those who harm others e.g. executioners operating in a genocidal totalitarian regime; they may well be conscious of the world around them and responsive to its will but they are obviously harming others and so cannot be considered to be of good conscience.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tridimity,

 

So what do you figure we go by, when choosing between good and evil? If not each other. And specifically ones tribe.

 

If you reach for a "higher" authority, you are likely to either grasp at nothing, or construct a ideal that you can hold on to.

 

If you are going only by genes, then other humans is as far as you can reach. Any "greater" consideration would be questionable as to what you are basing your feeling of being "better" than a human, on.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

So what do you figure we go by, when choosing between good and evil? If not each other. And specifically ones tribe.

 

 

I do not think that it is helpful to divide humanity into tribes according to nationality or to any other demographic factor. Doing so results in an us/them mentality and the attitude that "we can treat those people however we want to because they are not one of us". It comes back to what you said about expanding the sense of self until others are included in that feeling and to hurt another would be to hurt oneself. Humans must recognise that they are one and the same - so then we may go by our shared identity and choose courses of action which harm neither ourselves or others.

If you reach for a "higher" authority, you are likely to either grasp at nothing, or construct a ideal that you can hold on to.

 

Lofty ideals have a tendency to come down to reality with a crash. Humans do have negative attributes and sometimes become angry/violent/traitors/infidels/etc. To ignore the realities of human nature and to focus on a high brow morality is to misunderstand the nature of humans and so to be left defenceless when one faces the consequences of the negative attributes of oneself or others. By understanding human psychology we are more likely to be able to modify behaviour in the best interests of all.

If you are going only by genes, then other humans is as far as you can reach. Any "greater" consideration would be questionable as to what you are basing your feeling of being "better" than a human, on.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating social Darwinism, although I am arguing that the basis of our morality and certainly our "gut instinct" morality is the biological result of Darwinian natural selection. My version of morality, in principle is simple, in practice is complicated:

i. All sentient beings, being conscious of suffering, deserve a high degree of respect (unless they harm other sentient beings) including the rights to life and to control their own destiny

ii. Any course of action, in order to be permissible, must not harm oneself or others

Tri

Edited November 30, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tridimity.

 

But we have to choose ourselves first. Just by taking a breath, we take oxygen from another and expell carbon dioxide, that warms contributes to global warming. Just by eating a young aspragrass shoot, we take away its ability to grow and go to seed and spread its form. Or by eating a fish or a chicken or a cow. Even eating fruit, the seed will not sit on ground and sprout in the spring, because it will wind up in a septic tank, or a sewage treatment plant.

 

There is a certain selfishness required to live. And this I think is understood and required.

 

Many years ago, I made the realization that reaching Nirvana was a completely selfish thing to do, that had little or nothing to do with the rest of reality. The monk on the hilltop joined with the All, only in spirit, only in mind, only in imagination. The All remains in its original position, of being "other" than the self. Now I am not suggesting that considering oneself to be part of the All is incorrect. Quite the contrary. It is already the case, evident just by taking a breath, eating and apple, and looking up at the stars. But since this is already the case, it is quite imaginary to consider it could be done in a "better" way, than is already the case. And this requires quite strongly the self, inorder to experience the rest. Without the self, you would not be conscious of any distinctions. But since there are distinctions between me, and you and them, then why fight it? It is impossible to see the beginning, or the end, we are well insulated in time and space from the all. It is too big to contain, and too intricate and tiny to know its every part and feature.

 

Which leaves the most important consideration...the other humans, that have, that do, and that will experience the world from the same general vantage point that you and I as humans experience the world. From this particular place, at this particular time, at this particular scale, with the same senses, the same memories, the same desires, live 8 billion such souls. The stories and dreams are understandable by each. The things we have already accomplished and shared and maintained are already purposeful and real.

 

There are already distinctions. There are already limited resources to find a way to husband and use, there are already diseases we have conquered and diseases left to conquer. There is already cities and open space that we have managed. There are alread dangerous wild animals that would eat us, that we have found ways to overpower and contain, together.

 

There are fields of grain and rice where once stood forests and marshes. We have irrigated and built and caused pollution, and cleaned it up.

 

But an American might argue: "Why should I pay the extra to save the environment a little bit more, when the developing countries like China, are polluting the air as we did here 50 years ago, without the scrubbers and regulations that cleaned up our air?"

 

One cannot impose their will, good or bad will, on another, without taking some free will away from that other.

 

So we have a few wars over stuff, and direction and ideas. I am not sure that this is not a perfectly good idea. When one group goes too far, and treads too heavily on the other's rights to self determination, then they have, well....gone to far, and need to be turned back, for the sake of the other's ability to experience this world on their own terms. Not the terms of another.

 

Regards, TAR

I would first like to see my way of life, my tribe, my children survive and be happy. Everybody else is a secondary concern. They are on their own, to make alliances with my tribe, or make war on my tribe, as they see fit.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

But we have to choose ourselves first. Just by taking a breath, we take oxygen from another and expell carbon dioxide, that warms contributes to global warming. Just by eating a young aspragrass shoot, we take away its ability to grow and go to seed and spread its form. Or by eating a fish or a chicken or a cow. Even eating fruit, the seed will not sit on ground and sprout in the spring, because it will wind up in a septic tank, or a sewage treatment plant.*

 

 

Plants are not sentient and so it is not immoral to use them for culinary or medicinal purposes. Animals, of course, are sentient – and so the moral landscape becomes more complicated. I would argue that there is nothing inherently immoral about sacrificing animals for subsequent use as a dietary component or as part of medical research so long as:

i. The animal is sacrificed in a humane way involving no pain or pain that would last less than a second (e.g. instantaneous killing as happens at abattoirs or sacrificing once the animal is under anaesthesia and so cannot feel pain as practiced in medical research institutes).

ii. The animal is to be used to meet an essential requirement e.g. as food, or in medical research

Killing animals for recreational purposes is not moral as it contravenes point (ii) above and possibly also point (i), depending on the nature of the ‘sport’. It is, of course, entirely possible to refrain from eating meat – so, it is not necessarily compulsory that one prioritise one’s own wellbeing over that of other organisms.

*That rather depends on one's toilet habits

There is a certain selfishness required to live. And this I think is understood and required.

 

Heeding one’s own needs is necessary for life – this, however, need not be at the expense of others.

 

It is too big to contain, and too intricate and tiny to know its every part and feature.

 

 

Vastness is not an excuse for ignorance. For example, it is impossible to interact with and know every single human being on the planet – but if one human were to be selected at random and you were to meet the person, the chances are that you would already have a fairly good idea of how he/she would think and feel about certain things. Humanity is vast (by the standards of the individual) but ignorance does not necessarily follow.

 

But an American might argue: "Why should I pay the extra to save the environment a little bit more, when the developing countries like China, are polluting the air as we did here 50 years ago, without the scrubbers and regulations that cleaned up our air?"

 

 

Perhaps because America has and does contribute substantially to the total global greenhouse gas emissions – China may well turn ‘greener’ once their economy has developed further.

 

One cannot impose their will, good or bad will, on another, without taking some free will away from that other.

 

 

This is true – but if everybody abided by the maxim, ‘an it harm none, do as ye will’ then nobody would have to impose their will on others. I just realised that I am doing that thing you mentioned: extrapolating my own version of reality and assuming that the world will change its ways to fit my version. Nonetheless, even if it is difficult to implement, the maxim remains the best possible guide, I think, and so remains true on a conceptual level at least. Besides, there is a great deal of co-operation and mutual consideration of boundaries already existing in the world – so perhaps it is not so outlandish an ideal.

I would first like to see my way of life, my tribe, my children survive and be happy.

 

Of course you do, they are your gene-perpetuation machines

 

Everybody else is a secondary concern. They are on their own, to make alliances with my tribe, or make war on my tribe, as they see fit.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here: humanity as a whole is worth prioritising. In this sense, any endeavour that will benefit humanity universally (e.g. advances in medical research) is worth pursuing – even if the rewards are longer-term and esoteric.

 

Tri

Edited December 2, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

Well there are things a wealthy country can do, that a poorer country can't.

 

This raises the question "is it OK to BE wealthy?"

 

There are things I would like to do, that I can't because I have to work to pay the mortgage and the food bill, and the electricity and the cable and the insurance payments and the taxes on my property and such. If I were to forgo my way of life, I could perhaps feed a starving child and such, but then I would be working for them, and the question would be, who is then going to feed my daughters and pay for my room and board, if not me?

 

I am somewhat against bringing everyone down to the minimal subsistence level, to bring strangers, up to it.

 

After the typhoon in the Philipines many around the world, including me, came to the aid of those devestated. Afterwards, a barber who had lost his shop and belongings found a pair of sheers on the ground and cleaned them up and was giving haircuts for a charge. He said he would probably have enough money to reopen a shop, by the spring...through his efforts, providing a need for others, that wanted to look beautiful. He was asked by the NPR interviewer how he felt about people selling goods that they had looted. He said that people had to get by somehow...then he said "I suppose its not a good thing."

 

Point being, that if people did not make effort to accumulate wealth, there would not be any. It is not an automatic thing, that people will have what they want or even have what they need, without a certain plan and effort to make it so. Like education, and work. Like following successful plans of individuals before.

 

I have this thing against dependency on others. Not that other people are not to be depended on, but everybody is not entitled to other people's wealth, by any moral standard. Tithing is promoted in many religions, to give a tenth of your proceeds of endevors to the "needy", but I think that means the very young and infirmed and the aged and the crippled, I don't think that goes for healthy strong individuals that can do something for others, that others are willing to pay for. Comfort is not an automatic thing. Maybe for the child of a wealthy person, but not for most of the world, even in America, a wealthy nation, sloth creates issues. People that will buy drugs and iPads, before taking proper care of their children's needs, and so on, with the welfare check or the disability check.

 

On your "do no harm" scale, does a person who gets a payment from the government which I pay taxes to, do me any harm?

 

I was wondering this, when I took out loans with my daughter, for her college, when my wife and I made "too much" to qualify for any government assistance.

 

If there is a giver to balance every taker, then things can work. But what happens if everyone assumes the taker role? It would not work. Would it?

 

Regards, TAR

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

Well there are things a wealthy country can do, that a poorer country can't.

 

This raises the question "is it OK to BE wealthy?"

 

 

Matthew 19:24 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter Heaven”. No, I do not agree with the intended meaning of this quote exactly, although I would consider it immoral for a person to be of very great wealth and yet to fail to contribute to the alleviation of the suffering of others by paying taxes or by making private donations to charity.

 

I am somewhat against bringing everyone down to the minimal subsistence level, to bring strangers, up to it.

 

 

Nobody is demanding that you, or anyone else, single-handedly save every poor man and his dog – or even that you contribute to the extent that it substantially impact upon your standards of living. The current taxation system in the UK, for example, seems to be pretty effective at ensuring that the most financially vulnerable are supported in their time of need such that they are able to survive periods of misfortune with basic food on the table, a roof over their head, and healthcare. Despite their contributions to the welfare system, the rich remain rich (and, indeed, are becoming richer relative to the other social classes). My point is that it is possible to devise systems of mutual aid which are sustainable in the long term. No need to break out a cape and sacrifice yourself for the underprivileged like a martyr. There are, of course, ongoing problems with extreme poverty especially in developing countries – but much of this is the result of corruption and money laundering on the of the part of their respective governments and so ought to be tackled by ridding the world of such corruption as well as contributing as much as is sustainably affordable on the part of MEDCs - see Charmian Gooch's TED talk on the hidden players of global corruption here http://www.ted.com/talks/charmian_gooch_meet_global_corruption_s_hidden_players.html. No one country is bailing out another; all nations must and do, to some extent, take responsibility for the humanitarian question on foreign soil.

Point being, that if people did not make effort to accumulate wealth, there would not be any. It is not an automatic thing, that people will have what they want or even have what they need, without a certain plan and effort to make it so. Like education, and work. Like following successful plans of individuals before.

 

 

I have no problem with profit generation per se. The two conditions under which it becomes problematic are:

 

i. Workers are exploited to the extent that their working conditions and/or remuneration threaten their Human Rights and are out of kilter with the sacrifices that they are making for their job.

ii. The development of monopolies resulting in the sequestration of wealth and wealth-generation capabilities, amounting to a substantial proportion of the nation’s GDP, in the hands of a very small proportion of the population. This has the effect of inhibiting any entrepreneurial individuals from being able to generate profit and become wealthy for themselves.

 

It seems to be a global trend that the working classes are unfairly exploited with the resulting profit funnelling upwards and stagnating in the hands of a small proportion of the world’s most powerful and wealthy individuals, who are accountable not even to their country of origin, since their companies are multinationals. They do not re-invest in the infrastructure and people who have made the company successful at a local level in their respective countries – they just take and move on and take some more. It is basically economic rape.

 

I have this thing against dependency on others. Not that other people are not to be depended on, but everybody is not entitled to other people's wealth, by any moral standard.

 

 

 

“Everybody is not entitled to other people’s wealth”. Well I absolutely agree with this statement although I would add the caveats:

i. There needs to be equality of opportunity, and unfortunately this is often crushed in capitalist systems, with the eventual formation of monopolies and the inability of new-starts to emerge into the business world.

ii. Contribution to the state welfare system is mandatory – both legally and morally.

Tithing is promoted in many religions, to give a tenth of your proceeds of endevors to the "needy", but I think that means the very young and infirmed and the aged and the crippled, I don't think that goes for healthy strong individuals that can do something for others, that others are willing to pay for.

 

What about healthy strong individuals who happen to be unemployed and are seeking work? I.e. the 20% of under-25s in the UK and US who are doing everything they can to find work and being punished for the recklessness of their parents’ generation?

 

Comfort is not an automatic thing. Maybe for the child of a wealthy person, but not for most of the world, even in America, a wealthy nation, sloth creates issues. People that will buy drugs and iPads, before taking proper care of their children's needs, and so on, with the welfare check or the disability check.

 

 

I agree that the welfare system ought not to be abused but that is not an argument against the necessity of a functioning welfare system - we have measures in place to detect and rectify abuse of the welfare system – if that system goes awry then it is a problem with the implementation and monitoring, not with the conceptual justification for the system.

 

On your "do no harm" scale, does a person who gets a payment from the government which I pay taxes to, do me any harm?

 

 

 

I cannot answer this question for any particular individual citizen, because there will be extreme cases who would have been better off - in the short term, at least - as an individual, not contributing to the welfare system (i.e. those who are wealthy and never have to rely on state welfare in any shape or form). There will also be extremes at the other end of the spectrum who would be worse off (or, frankly, dead) were it not for the continual support provided by the state welfare system – i.e. the impoverished, economic dependents. However, I would argue that the average citizen is, on the whole, better off by contributing to the welfare system and receiving aid in their time of need – so, on the whole, they are not harmed by contributing, so long as those contributions are sustainable. Don't forget also that even if you are a rich individual, you will rely on the health and financial wellbeing of your employees and servents - if they fail to be able to survive, and their entire class fails to be able to survive, then your entire way of life is endangered. I am reminded of the bats that remember which other bats did and did not give them a bit of blood meal when they could not find food for themselves in hard times, and who then respond to the future blood meal requests of the latter according to their previous experiences i.e. reciprocal altruism. You don’t want to be one of the bats that did not give blood meal.

 

If there is a giver to balance every taker, then things can work. But what happens if everyone assumes the taker role? It would not work. Would it?

 

 

But it is not black and white: any given individual will tend to give and take depending on their circumstances which are liable to change over time. In this way, the system is self-sustaining.

 

Tri

Edited December 5, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

You seem to be arguing in favor of contributing to the welfare system, as if I am against contributing to the welfare system. I don't question a bit, the fact that one should help their neighbor, when in need. That is what good people do. And most people are of this sort. It is the forced altruism that is counter my sense of fairness and personal integrity and self worth, and the intrinsic value of compasion and sharing. It is the impersonal nature of the "system" that creates rules to which no one is accountable. Rules that no one takes responsibility for, and rules that make no sustainable human sense, as to why and for whom and by whom the system is meant to operate. It is the question of the "power" part of this threads investigation. We each give the system the "power" that it has. There is not a system without its contributors, and its maintainers, without those whose goals and purposes the system serves. The wealthy and the poor, both contribute to the system, it is not built or meant to serve the one at the expense of the other. A standard of laws build the framework in which everyone can operate, knowing what to expect from the other. In the U.S. and most other places, there is the enforcement of the concept of private property. A personal space of real estate and possesions that belong to the individual, and those that the individual includes in their feeling of self.

 

I took a peice of pork off my daughter's plate last night and ate it, after seeing see was finished eating, and asking her if she was done with that. It was still her peice of pork, to eat or share, because it was on her plate.

 

It is not up to anybody but me and her, to establish the rules by which that small peice of pork transfers from her possession to mine.

 

Regards, TAR

We had a discussion about locking doors, and trust last night at the event of my 60th birthday dinner, hosted by my wife, and attended by my eldest daughter, who lives at home, my father, my stepmom, my wife's cousin, and her husband. All in attendance would have no reason to lock anything up to protect it from being taken or abused by anybody else in attendance. But neighborhoods are on a level one step removed, where most people can be trusted, but a stranger, or a drugged teen, might not be considerate of ones personal property. The rules in rural areas, and suburbian areas and town areas and city areas, are different, as to when it is wise or foolish to trust too little or too much. And each individual has their own extension of trust in which they are comfortable. Some would rather live open to the world, as to not create a prison for themselves. Others would rather not give thieves and wrongdoers the opportunity to do harm.

[turionx2]

 

Arbitrary blind trust is the surest way to get oneself killed. As for trusting the systems that human judgment creates rather than trusting human judgment - I can see parallels with trust in scientific knowledge. It is wise to place trust in peer-reviewed knowledge resulting from the scientific 'method', because (as you may well agree) Science is the most reliable means of obtaining information about objective reality. The peer review process and subsequent attempts to replicate published data mean that any bias or error on the part of individual scientists is gradually sifted out of the collective body of scientific knowledge. It is foolish to place trust in the claims of any one individual scientist whose work has not been subjected to effective peer review nor to scrutiny by oneself. In this sense, I trust Science (in the sense of trusting the scientific approach, when followed correctly, to yield reliable and accurate information about reality); I do not necessarily trust individuals scientists.

Even those who review the science journals are individual scientists and are highly prone to BIAS, misunderstanding, sometimes lazyness to correct the information to the point of leaving out important information from previous scientific studies. I observe too often the game of telephone in the scientific journals.

 

You don't believe the genius mentality exists?

 

As someone who has a significant trust in the scientific method, have you made any discoveries yourself?

Edited December 8, 2013 by turionx2

[Tridimity]

You seem to be arguing in favor of contributing to the welfare system, as if I am against contributing to the welfare system... It is the forced altruism that is counter my sense of fairness and personal integrity and self worth, and the intrinsic value of compassion and sharing.

 

But the welfare system is forced altruism, so aren't you really arguing against the welfare system?

 

It is the impersonal nature of the "system" that creates rules to which no one is accountable.

 

The populace is collectively responsible for the rules of the welfare system, and their will is (more or less) represented by elected representatives. I would agree that their is a need to more directly gauge consent from individuals before forcing them to contribute to the welfare system, but then such a design would need to ensure that the private individuals, as it were, were unable to benefit from the system to which they have contributed nothing. In principle I think that this would be a great liberal idea but in practice it would be messy and may have unforeseen consequences.

We had a discussion about locking doors, and trust last night at the event of my 60th birthday dinner, hosted by my wife, and attended by my eldest daughter, who lives at home, my father, my stepmom, my wife's cousin, and her husband. All in attendance would have no reason to lock anything up to protect it from being taken or abused by anybody else in attendance.

 

All in attendance believe they have no reason to lock anything up to protect it from being taken or abused by anybody else in attendance. An important distinction, but one coming from a mind turning more and more like that of Godel who, out of paranoia at being poisoned, trusted nobody but his wife to prepare his meals, and subsequently died of starvation when his wife was hospitalised for 6 months and therefore unable to prepare his meals. So, you know, pinches of salt.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tridimity

[dimreepr]

The capacity to trust, it seems to me, is intrinsically linked to one's own trustworthiness; without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit, one's own thinking tends toward personal references, as in 'it takes one to know one'.

[Tridimity]

The capacity to trust, it seems to me, is intrinsically linked to one's own trustworthiness; without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit, one's own thinking tends toward personal references, as in 'it takes one to know one'.

 

 

That's BS. If you do not update your personal belief system according to available evidence (e.g. being cheated on in a relationship; being mugged in the street) then you are putting yourself in danger by trusting others - even if you are yourself trustworthy. For the same reason, TAR chooses to lock his front door when he leaves his house - sure, he would not burgle others and so is trustworthy, but that does not mean to say that it would be sensible for him to assume that others think in the same way that he does.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tridimity

[dimreepr]

"That's BS" is rather strong, considering "If you do not update your personal belief system according to available evidence ( e.g. being cheated on in a relationship; being mugged in the street" is just another way of saying "without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit". Then vector in the abundance of negative sensational news, that merely inspire a sense that the outside world should be feared; when, for instance, were you newsworthy? Everybody I know haven't been, so why shouldn't I trust?

[Tridimity]

"That's BS" is rather strong, considering "If you do not update your personal belief system according to available evidence ( e.g. being cheated on in a relationship; being mugged in the street" is just another way of saying "without external influences, such as a known lie or deceit". Then vector in the abundance of negative sensational news, that merely inspire a sense that the outside world should be feared; when, for instance, were you newsworthy? Everybody I know haven't been, so why shouldn't I trust?

 

The victims are always the ones who trust

 

It reminds me of that saying, 'Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get me'. It's true - the trustworthiness of others is independent of our capacity to trust. Trusting in a criminal isn't going to make him/her more trustworthy and choosing not to trust in a benign person isn't going to make them any less trustworthy. So, it is safer not to trust.

[dimreepr]

"The victims are always the ones who trust"

That's patently not true.

 

"Trusting in a criminal isn't going to make him/her more trustworthy"

Why not?

 

"So, it is safer not to trust"

It's safer to build a prison and never leave but what sort of life would that be?

 

 

Edit/ For prison read fortress.

Edited December 8, 2013 by dimreepr

[Tridimity]

"The victims are always the ones who trust"

That's patently not true.

 

Okay, in the majority of cases the victims are the ones who trust the criminal - people who are distrustful of potential criminals will generally be more difficult to exploit precisely because they will be avoiding exploitation.

"Trusting in a criminal isn't going to make him/her more trustworthy"

Why not?

 

 

Because, for example, if a man has determined to burgle your house having gained your trust and taken a spare key, he is unlikely to back out because you trust in him. His objective was always to steal your belongings and your trust in him is not going to change that.

"So, it is safer not to trust"

It's safer to build a prison and never leave but what sort of life would that be?

Edit/ For prison read fortress.

 

 

A safe one

Edited December 8, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Dimreepr and Tri,

 

But the point, in reference to the thread, and the "cloud", and to personalities engaged in power wielding, is that face to face, one can properly gauge interpersonal trust, earn it or lose it, extend it or withhold it, open oneself up for potential harm, with the full capability of responding in kind to good or bad intentions. Interpersonal relations are not likely to be a one size fits all, rule based situation. You can have people you get along with, and people that you do not. People you know you can trust, and people you know you should not. People you like, people you tolerate, and people you have a problem with.

 

In the cloud you do not know who is interested only in selling you something, or has some alterior motive to gain your focus, and who is interested in your welfare and opinion for some mutually beneficial purpose.

 

In "real life", where the person is infront of you, or in your life on your streets, or even at the other end of the phone or letter or skype, it is a real person, with a mother and father, siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors, a job or school, organisations they are part of, purposes and goals, friends and enemies, and most importantly a NAME and address, and in possession of YOUR name and address. Any and all interactions between you, are real and irreversible. The other, is a complete, and real individual, which the two of you are aware of, and hence each is responsible to the other, for their behavior, in all its intricacies.

 

Such, in terms of personality and interaction, is somewhat lost on the cloud. You become a number, and a type, with which someone can operate for their own reasons, without being obliged to you, to truly know and care about, for some sort of reciprical relationship. People have "stage names" when they converse on the internet, and when they don't, as on facebook, strangers can take snipits of your words or deeds and twist them anyway they want for their own purposes, without consulting you first, or opening themselves up, personally to your disapproval.

 

Here, certain personality types, who might have certain ways of being toward others, when there is immediate reaction and consequences, can engage in fantasy behavior, or hold a image of the world and others in it, that does not correspond to actual people and consequences, and hence can engage in power plays, that are not the type of power plays they can manage at home, or at work, or in the street.

 

Such behavior was evident to me in the conversation about the government shutdown between the conservatives and the liberals. Each was rather sure, that everybody else felt the way they did on the subject, and refused to make consessions to the other's real life condition, of sharing the same country and government, streets and fields, rivers and forests.

 

My contention is that one must think globaly but act locally, and that the other way 'round does not work, is not realistic and is subject to fantasy and incorrect assumptions. Primarily because thinking locally but acting on a global basis, disregards the actual persons you are affecting by your actions, and assumes you have some sort of superiority of vision or insight, that is not possible for the rest of humanity to have.

 

I think it instead true, that ALL humans have human judgement, and are fully capable of judging me, and my behavior, and I therefore am responsible to them, for my behavior, and likewise, they should care about how I feel toward their behavior.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited December 9, 2013 by tar

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

I think you overestimate the advantages of face-to-face interaction: people are capable of manipulating their own body language, voice intonation and facial expressions so as to convey to their viewer whatever message they wish to send, which may not be the message that it is in their mind. Close proximity interaction is no guarantee of mutual honesty. Conversely, even if a person uses an avatar and alias on the web, so long as that avatar or alias remains constant, it really does not matter what the label is. I have become accustomed to your alias TAR, which for me represents a sweet yet worldly family man who errs more towards conservatism than I but who is nonetheless friendly and whom I enjoy talking with. Finding out that your real name is Jeff would not change anything. Even if the above identity is not your true identity, at least I know that whomever is communicating under the alias 'TAR' seeks to represent the above identity. And, in fact, this is as close to the truth as we get in any close proximity relationship. You could be married to a person for 40 years and, at the end, the extrapolation that 'my wife has characteristics X, Y, Z' is still only a hypothesis. You are presented with a portrayal of characteristics and will never know 100% if they are bona fide or mere shadows.

 

As for your global/local thought/action, what of the following:

 

Think globally, act globally?

Think locally, act locally?

 

I think it instead true, that ALL humans have human judgement, and are fully capable of judging me, and my behavior, and I therefore am responsible to them, for my behavior, and likewise, they should care about how I feel toward their behavior.

 

 

It depends what you mean by 'responsible to them for my behaviour.' You have a duty to refrain from harming others but you have no duty to be judged positively by others! (Some people's judgments are not worth caring about and, indeed, endorsement from these people would amount to great insult). As for the last part, this is the most difficult part with regards assertiveness: it is not possible to interact assertively with somebody who does not care about what you think or how you feel.

 

Tri

[tar]

Tri,

 

But, there is, I think, in everyone's mind, people that are real, and people that are hypothetical. People that are individuals that together make groups that are known and interacted with, and people that are more definite "thems" or third party individuals, without any real known and considered connection.

 

My thinking on this is along the lines of personal knowledge of one individual, that you use to adjust your portrayal of the groups that they belong to. Like lets say for instance you have a certain image of all "bankers". How is such an image built, but with the personal knowledge you have of bankers you have run into, or heard about, or read about. There tends to be, in my experience a certain legacy that the actions, intents and behaviors of one individual in a group will cause one to extend the exhibited characteristics to others in that group. This may be fair or unfair, a well considered assumption, or a reckless lumping of people into a certain basket that they have not earned a position in. With eight or nine billion people, currently exercising their will, living and breathing, hating and loving, and engaged in all sorts of endevors, it is difficult NOT to do a bit of lumping into grossly inappropriate baskets. You're wrong if you simplify, and overwhelmed if you conscienciously consider each individual's particular mixture of personality, circumstances, abilities, goals, purposes and will.

 

Such is the problem with "thinking" globally. You do not know near enough people, to make a proper judgement at that level. And "acting" globally is something that very few individuals, but kings and presidents, billionaires, movie stars, famous writers, and leaders in their fields of endeavor in science and industry and the arts, medicine and fashion and such, even have the power to do. Thus the only actual power that most everybody has, is to act locally. If this is done with a certain consideration of global issues, such as the environment, and political and religious and resource realities, then one can think globally and act locally. It seems very unrealistic to me to think locally, as in just considering your own judgement as complete and proper, and then act in a global fashion, as if it is your will that should be done.

 

You have already grouped the world into those that are worthwhile and those who are not worth any consideration. There is a certain problem with this, in that you have no way of identifying, those that belong in the one basket or the other, from a 10,000 ft. in the air, vantage point.

 

Regards, TAR2