Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

Regardless though, that is one of the most important writings on Enlightenment (since, of course, no one really does agree on what it is) so it's an imperative read.

Kant is such a strong moralist that he conceives of a potentially universal Good (although even he doesn't know what this might be) at the cost of individuals acting freely. In his opinion, that's a fair price to pay. However, this should be specified further, since obviously Kant isn't proposing a political regime to police individual behavior. In Kant's ideal conception of society, individuals would all have access to the pure functioning of the categorical imperative, and using it thus would act in accord with the fundamental good. So when he says that people would "obey," he doesn't mean they would sacrifice their liberty; he means they would choose to obey.

Kant's idea is actually pretty simplistic when you take it that way, but it's also a very early refinement of something similar to the social contract. In the entire development of Western social thought, it's an important little document to consider. And so short; it's nice to read something by Kant that isn't 600 pages long.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, I read something that referenced "Kant's self-nonage" and that's what came up when I googled it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Aeon Magazine is going through its back catalog; I guess they don't have a new article because it's Good Friday. And, fittingly, they posted an article on atheism by Adam Roberts (my apologies if I've posted this in the past, but atheists who missed it might enjoy it):

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/adam-roberts-atheist-christianity/

It might be tempting to think: when I have lived 10 million years of afterlife and I look back at my mayfly mortal existence, it will seem unimportant whether I lived on £6.19 an hour or earned £1 million a year. That kind of difference will seem to me, in the larger perspective, neither here nor there. Surely from the perspective of eternity — if, for instance, we talk in terms of ‘the immortal soul’ and try to see things from its point of view — human existence lived in poverty looks very like a human existence lived in wealth.

But this, very forcefully, is not what the Gospels say. They say that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than get into heaven. They say the rich man should give up all his wealth and donate it to the poor. They bless the materially deprived, value the widow’s mite over the large, public donation of the millionaire. They see grace and beauty in the sufferings of the poor, and see wealth as an active impediment to salvation.

And of course (and this can’t be stressed enough) from the point of view of actual lived experience, a life lived in poverty feels massively different to a life lived with comfortable wealth. It is more than simply a question of material privation; it engages questions of justice and injustice, of physical and mental health, of society as a whole. It is precisely the power of lived experience to erase the perspective of immortality. In the deepest sense, this is what the incarnation means. At a hundred points, the Gospels reinforce this idea.

 

[Dak]

Good article. It's weakest points are where he takes for granted the Christian interpretations of the NT being some sort of acceptable radical change from the OT. This is completely contradictory to other tenets and generally requires some massive leaps of logic and fabricated hoops to explain (Usually "Dispensationalism").

I think possibly one of the best points made in the article are about the nature of the origin of the writings, in regards to from a group of people in a position of power vs a group of people on the oppressed fringes. This is consistent for the writers of the various canonized books regardless of their placement in time, as far as being on the fringes go. Possibly with the exception of anything maybe penned by Solomon, or by David during time as king, it was written primarily by people either on the fringe as the nation of Israel was fringe, or as fringe people within that nation (IE the prophets).

I had/have been going some to my grandparents weekly bible study to get some time seeing my grandparents in their "element". I'm glad I did so before since not to long after my granddad died. Fast forward several months and now it's starting up again, and it again pains me to see the self nonage apparent around the room from people almost exclusively old enough to be my grandparents.

I get things out of (parts of) the bible when I bother to read it, but it's not even remotely what they get out of it. Of course, they only get out of it what they are told to get out of it by the margin notes, or their study companions, or their little devotionals, etc.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Gay marriage? red equal sign, yay!, Barack Obama signs the Monsanto Protection Act into law, huh, what?

 

[Dak]

Pretty much.

Gays groveling for permission from the government to get permission from the government. Meanwhile, corporatism continues to run rampant.

 

[Matt]

Gay rights are important though. Also, that Monsanto provision only lasts for like 6 months or something. Not that it makes any better, but it's not a lifetime thing.

 

[Dak]

Its not a right if you need permission.

 

[Einherjar86]

Actually, according to your definition, it would still be a right; it's just not being realized.

Or, we could say it isn't a right at all; but they're able to marry, and that's better than bigotry denying them that.

 

[Dak]

Actually, according to your definition, it would still be a right; it's just not being realized.

Yeah. Technically I would say this just falls under the right of Freedom of Association, which includes contracts. "Marriage" is a contract.

Or, we could say it isn't a right at all; but they're able to marry, and that's better than bigotry denying them that.

If there are no rights, what has been denied?

Edit: On a different note:

The Knowledge Economy's two classes of worker

 

[Einherjar86]

If there are no rights, what has been denied?

An action.

Not a bad article that you posted either, although I need to re-read it. That type of stuff isn't my strong suit, and it honestly takes me time to work through it because I'm not familiar with the material. I like the invocation of "post-capitalism" though.

 

[Dak]

An action.

Denying an action isn't in itself objectionable though.

Not a bad article that you posted either, although I need to re-read it. That type of stuff isn't my strong suit, and it honestly takes me time to work through it because I'm not familiar with the material. I like the invocation of "post-capitalism" though.

I figured you would like that lol. I think it's relatively accurate based on Marx's conceptualization of the relationships between the workers and management.

 

[Dak]

One interesting thing that kind of dovetails into the position that "management is only necessary to fix it's own screwups" is a recent TED talk/article on an Indian professor who is studying and promoting un-structured/individual/group learning as the optimal approach to education.

TED: What if students learn faster without teachers?

Edit: it also dovetails with my position that like 95% of government exists to fix it's own screwups.

 

[Einherjar86]

Denying an action isn't in itself objectionable though.

Of course it can be. I don't think we need to invoke rights in order to identify whether or not an action can be objectionable to someone. Even if no one has a right to exist, they can still want to exist. And if we acknowledge a certain unanimous, or at least mostly ubiquitous, sense that individuals want to exist/survive, then we can move toward an ethical respect of that desire. Rights never need to enter the picture, and in fact only muddy the waters.

I figured you would like that lol. I think it's relatively accurate based on Marx's conceptualization of the relationships between the workers and management.

It seems to be; but like I said, I'll probably have to read it again.

 

[Dak]

Of course it can be. I don't think we need to invoke rights in order to identify whether or not an action can be objectionable to someone. Even if no one has a right to exist, they can still want to exist. And if we acknowledge a certain unanimous, or at least mostly ubiquitous, sense that individuals want to exist/survive, then we can move toward an ethical respect of that desire. Rights never need to enter the picture, and in fact only muddy the waters.

That sounds like you're going down the road of Universally Preferable Behavior, which I thought you have taken issue with before.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't believe in universally preferable behavior. I'm making an assumption for the sake of making a point; such a decision is something that a collective, participatory group would have to arrive at voluntarily. Abstract theorizing (which would be what I did in my above post, if I was serious) will always be exclusionary.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Gays groveling for permission from the government to get permission from the government. Meanwhile, corporatism continues to run rampant.

Now let me play devils advocate here. Because I do tend to double-think and I'm curious to see how you'd respond...

I think the basic issue here has more to do with equality. I may take issue with marriage itself and whether or not it should be regulated by the government, but if one group of people can enjoy certain benefits that are denied to another group of people, that seems like a civil rights issue to me.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Oh and Ein, Are we the math or is math just how we interpret reality?

Not sure if I posted this before.

 

[Dak]

I think the basic issue here has more to do with equality. I may take issue with marriage itself and whether or not it should be regulated by the government, but if one group of people can enjoy certain benefits that are denied to another group of people, that seems like a civil rights issue to me.

Technically no one is forbidden from marrying, as marriage is currently defined. Therefore there is no inequality. That is the normal response from "Traditional Marriage Supporters".

Fighting to expand the scope of government, regardless of the nature of the scope, is problematic to me. Gays could be using this as an example of why government needs to "stay out of the bedroom". Yet they are inviting it in. Just like supposed, self proclaimed "small government conservatives" are the ones screaming the loudest for government intervention in everything they don't like.

"Forging their own chains" is applicable here.

Edit: To be clear, this simply isn't a "Gay" issue. It's about freedom for all.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh and Ein, Are we the math or is math just how we interpret reality?

Not sure if I posted this before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMYtnv_OnI

Cool.

I don't think we're "the math," but I do think that emergence theory has provided ample evidence that very similar patterns emerge at various levels, be they global (e.g. demographics, technologies, language, etc.) or local (e.g. consciousness). Studies have shown pretty remarkable similarities between the functioning of human consciousness and ant colonies.