Power, Personality, Intelligence and the cloud.

[Tridimity]

But, there is, I think, in everyone's mind, people that are real, and people that are hypothetical.

 

 

People whose existence is contingent on some other variable?

 

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.

 

 

 

Well, if one is not going to think globally, what is the point in engaging in 21^st century society? It seems like an awful waste to me, to have at one’s disposal the technology and financial and time resources that even greater men and women of previous centuries lacked, and to fail to investigate beyond one’s locality. Taking on an investigation of the whole world’s human populations is an enormous undertaking but vastness is no excuse for ignorance. The study of life itself is a vast undertaking but that does not mean that individual Biologists give up in despair – for one, because they are each contributing and can rely on their mates in a different field to worry about the rest - so too it can be with Anthropology. Even as an individual layman (or laywoman, that sounds wrong, like an instruction, anyhow) there will be benefits to amateur investigation of the nature of the world’s peoples. Some degree of stereotyping, or at least generalisation, will necessarily occur – the same is true with any scientific finding and one expects to meet a statistically small number of anomalies that buck the trend. In fact, I am not sure that locality means very much – currently I am living in certain geographical dimensions, but if I were to travel to different geographical dimensions, then that would become my new locality. My sense of self would be unaltered, except that I would have different experiences. Any action that is performed in locality A or B is going to affect the globe in some way – releasing a greenhouse gas at either locality will impact on the globe. I’m not sure what locality even is – we are citizens of the world, some are unfortunately unable to traverse the globe because of lack of resources, but they are nevertheless citizens of the world.

 

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.

 

 

 

This decision is made on the basis of case-by-case analysis of individuals: if a person is closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited or bullying – then I will not care for their opinion of myself.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

if a person is closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited or bullying

 

So are these criteria against which an individual can measure themselves, and adjust their behavior to be less those things, or are these things unremovable characteristics? I can find in my own thinking and behavior elements of each of those undesireable characteristics or mind sets. I can also remember holding fast to certain ideas at earlier portions of my life, that I have changed my mind about, after certain insights or events. In some cases, I go by the general "feel" I get from the people around me, who bolster or disuade various considerations I might have. And as we as doing on this thread, I think people are influenced by the attitudes of those around. Sometimes this is assisted by laws and rules with punishment and such to influence behavior. Taxes that cause it to be better to do things one way, than the way you would have liked to, and such. In New Jersey we have a number of laws and rules that cause me to characterise the place as a "nanny state", where the individuals seem to be "not trusted" to use their own judgment, and must follow rules that are not deemed required in other locals. Can't jump off cliffs into public waters, can't pump gas, can't smoke in public spaces, or near public entry doors, and the like. There are more, I've gotten so use to it, I don't remember the examples. But for instance, reactionary behavior can cause things like 6 year olds getting removed from school for pointing their finger at someone, like a gun. Or a bus driver can get in trouble for yelling to much at a child to get them to behave on the bus. Bullying and hate crimes are no nos. Never quite understood how one decides whether or not hate was contributory to a crime. It seems to me that the crime itself would indicate a certain hatred, if not disregard for the victim.

 

Regards, TAR

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

People are capable of change, so even those who display the negative characteristics aforementioned, may transform into tolerant, considerate, thinking individuals. However, the fact that a person displaying those negative characteristics, deems me to be negative in some way, e.g. if they say 'you're not a nice person', then I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt and interpret it in the context of the source origin (a closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited bully). Their comment is then contrary to reason because, if my espoused values are opposite to theirs, I can be assured that I am infact a nice person.

 

In some cases, I go by the general "feel" I get from the people around me, who bolster or disuade various considerations I might have. And as we as doing on this thread, I think people are influenced by the attitudes of those around. Sometimes this is assisted by laws and rules with punishment and such to influence behavior.

 

 

This attitude can be dangerous though: if you do not accept that morality consists of not harming others or oneself, then the pack may lead you (well, not you personally, because you are better than all of this) but may lead a person astray to commit atrocities. This is why independent thinking and freedom of conscience is essential. I believe that people are fundamentally good and that it is circumstances that lead them to commit immoral acts - if a person were left on their own, to listen to their inner voice or conscience, without influence from circumstances or events (e.g. poverty and lack of social mobility; withholding of love by parents and others; physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse by others) then they would immediately recognise the correctness of harming neither oneself or others.

 

Tri

Edited December 10, 2013 by Tridimity

[tar]

Tri,

 

So you are hypothosizing an inherent goodness, or conscience that can be, or is already the case in a person, that one can fall away from, or be guided away from, or be forced away from, or can find themselves lacking, when measured against?

 

This may well be the case, and through recent insights I think it as well, but it's complicated. This moral guide, I think, is somewhat learned and not automatic.

 

There is a certain underlying understanding that I possess, that I used to critique the Koran, as I read it. A connection I already possessed with God, or the universe, or MN, which I could use to measure the words of Mohammed against, and tell when he spoke for himself, and when he spoke for me, in reference to it. But how did I come to this understanding? I went to church and Sunday school, and listened to my teachers at regular school, and listened to my parents and friends, and followed the rules my society and those around me followed. I took philosophy courses as a young man, I discussed the world of science and the world of ideas and logic with others. I saw what I was in and of, and what other people's take on the situation was. I loved and lost, I loved and held on to, I raised two daughters, and taught them what I had learned, and how, in my estimation one should be toward the world, how one should and should not behave toward others, and when I was proud of them, and when I was embarrassed.

 

Whether or not my children do exactly as I would do, or whether they do something because of me, or inspite of me, or on their own accord, or whether they choose according to their own conscience, or are guided by or influenced by other humans, other than me, there is still a component of one's conscience that is built by and for other people. Whether dead or alive, real or imagined, there is a component of conscience that is built from the world around us, that we feel responsible to. The parts of the world we want to please and have proud of us. Person place or thing, it, the conscience, I think is made from the world, and we wish to please it. And hope for, or expect reciprication.

 

So, as human judgement is a central point in my consideration of the world, and my existence in it, I can not go my mine alone, but must consider other people's judgement as well.

 

My conscience did not pop up fully formed at my birth. I had to have learned about the world, how to please it, and how to piss it off. How to fit with the world, and how to go against it.

 

It might be the case that we each already know how to be good, but a large component of it, has to do with how other people think we are doing in this regard. You are guided a lot by Socrates and feel a certain rightness in doing as he would do, in terms of searching for truth and doing the right thing. He was put to death by those around him. Makes one wonder who exactly, what part of the world it was that guided Socrates. What was the basis upon which his conscience was built? Who was it, he sought to please, and who was it he sought to embarrass?

 

Regards, TAR2

Not unrelated, is the consideration that Muslims seek to live as Muhammed would have.

and Christians as Jesus would have, and Jews as Moses would have, and Buddists as Siddahtha would have.

Tridimity as Socrates would have. And others as Dawkins or Einstein or Newton, or Plato would have.

Perhaps our personalities are constructed somewhat like a meal at a chinese restaraunt. One component from Moses, one from Newton, one from Grandpa, one from Bruce Willis...and so on. And our conscience is composed of our internal conversations with the unseen others with which we converse. Whether God or man, it is our conversation with the world that we are of and in.

[Tridimity]

TAR,

 

While I agree with most of your points above, I would add that, even if every other single human being on the planet with whom one could make a reference to morality, were to deem it morally acceptable to harm oneself or others - this does not mean to say that to do so is justified. The world and its inhabitants may go a long way in shaping our conception of right and wrong, but ultimately as free-thinking individuals we must choose where to draw the line and make our moral distinction from the crowd. This, perhaps, is why I venerate Socrates and his courage in questioning received wisdom.

 

Tri

[tar]

Tri,

 

But where to draw the line? People often stick by their own guns, much to the chagrin of the people around them. Look at the speculation thread, where someone or another, and sometimes me, has latched on to an "answer" that they think has alluded everyone else. Look at "the secret of the Vedas" and Jesus' (and I paraphase because I can't remember the verse) "No one will get to heaven, but by me".

 

These secret, private keys to existence, are in my estimation quite errant. The world is rather obvious and in plain sight, to all who are sighted. The Sun and the Moon and the stars and the clouds and the rain, the sand and seas, and the birds and beasts and plants and fungi and bacteria and other humans and their works and wills, are already known to everyone. (well maybe not bacteria, without the aid of a lens). But even the bacteria already knew how to be bacteria, before we noticed them. The world alread exists, and does quite well for itself, without our formulae and insights, and recognition of patterns and laws concerning its behavior. We each do a bit better with knowledge, than we would do without it, but knowledge is something you gain, something you learn, something you are told about, or experience or "figure out" for yourself. I do not think knowledge is an automatic thing, or an inherent thing, that one can start out with...I think you have to experience the world and remember what you experienced, inorder to gain knowledge of it. Same with morality. It is a thing that changes from birth to death, changes from one society to another, changes from one person to another, and changes as a culture or civilization progresses, ages and declines and is renewed from the ashes, like a Pheonix.

 

My "morals", along with my society have changed since the 1950s. (I turned 60 yesterday) Changed in regards to blacks, and women, and homosexuals. Changed in regards to respect for the enviroment. Changed in regards to tolerance of foreigners, and handicapped persons and mental illness and probably in regards to a whole bunch of other considerations. Things that were proper then are improper now. Things that were improper then are proper now. Something as fluid as morals and morays, can not therefore be inherent. "Do no harm" means little if you have not defined first what is harmful, and who it is that should be protected from being thusly harmed.

 

I smoke. Its harmful to my health. I should stop...'cept I don't want to. I like it. Am I immoral because of this habit? It was quite cool to smoke, a measure of one's worldliness and even one's manhood back in the day of the Marlboro Man. Things change. Morality is not something you are born with, its something you are born into.

 

Regards, TAR

It was, by the way, quite improper for a young lady to smoke, and quite expected of a young man...back in my youth. And women and children were NEVER sent to war. They were the folk the men were doing the fighting and dying for. Protecting THEM from harm.

And in my youth it was a forgone conclusion that everyone believed in God...we knew what that meant, back then. It was people that did NOT believe in God, whose morals were suspect. Even today people are taken aback, that I would call myself an atheist, as if I disapproved of their belief, in such an obvious reality...however on this board religious people are suspected of being ignorant and illogical, and somehow misguided...things change...along the morality front.