Culture is critical
Our social problems go far beyond too much wrongful killing. Too many people are failing in life and too many are serious nut cases and too many are willing to make money any way they can without concern about the harm done to others. On top of that, we are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing.
Religions have been helpful ever since people worshipped many gods because they are the foundation of civilizing cultures. However, the God of Abraham religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all rely on authority over the people and they fundamentally are not compatible with democracy that is an imitation of the gods, who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Only democracy places faith in well-educated human beings with developed higher-order thinking skills. The education for democracy is for rule by reason and it opposes authority over the people. It does not support authority over the people and make them dependent on authority as the God of Abraham religions do.
Please, contemplate the serious difference between preparing the young to be as children to the king or preparing them to govern themselves and to eventually participate in governing a nation ruled by reason, not authority over the people. A nation that argues reasoning with logic and not guns.
Religions have been helpful ever since people worshipped many gods because they are the foundation of civilizing cultures. However, the God of Abraham religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all rely on authority over the people and they fundamentally are not compatible with democracy that is an imitation of the gods, who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Only democracy places faith in well-educated human beings with developed higher-order thinking skills. The education for democracy is for rule by reason and it opposes authority over the people. It does not support authority over the people and make them dependent on authority as the God of Abraham religions do.
Please, contemplate the serious difference between preparing the young to be as children to the king or preparing them to govern themselves and to eventually participate in governing a nation ruled by reason, not authority over the people. A nation that argues reasoning with logic and not guns.
Comments (1379)
And 'up from the ashes,' springs future monoliths. I suppose, as long as you are not 100% convinced that we are doomed to extinction, you don't belong in the surrender monkey, sad old pessimist category. Shall you sit with us optimists or will you remain standing, searching for Dave's monolith?
Don't forget the Maybe. If. Would that work better for you in bold, with a Sagan quote appended?
Maybe IF
Don't ask how it will be used or by whom, for what purpose; shut up and calculate.
I appreciate your very unambiguous statement here. I will continue to celebrate my anthropocentric position and suggest that your position is the one that is more akin to an extreme idealism, but it's been a fun exchange. I thought you had assigned some significant credibility to my suggestion that in the future, humans will live their life span, as they do now (also enjoying any extra longevity science is able to offer, without too much invasive augmentation) and then if death is immanent they can choose to merge with AGI/ASI intelligence and become a hybrid org/mecha symbiont. Why do you think this is so unlikely?
I think you misinterpret Carl with "Don't ask how it will be used and by whom, for what purpose."
Carl spent a lot of his time trying to speak truth to those in power, during his lifetime.
Here he is, doing so to a Senate committee in 1985!
The opening speaker even mentions Chicken Little!
You further ignore the context under which 'shut up and calculate' was used.
David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced. Mermin described the Copenhagen interpretation as coming in different "versions", "varieties", or "flavors".
Like your bad use of a Carl Sagan quote, the Mermin quote had nothing at all, to do with ignoring how nefarious individuals use scientific discovery, in the way your sentence I copied and placed in quotes above, tries to suggest. Your level of conflation here is rather disappointing and way below your usual standards imo.
I think your true believer optimism is pretty brutal, not all that far from bloodthirsty utilitarianism (the ends justify the means). In the end, it just doesn’t matter what people have to go through to reach your Roddenberryesque utopia, so long as we get there. 300 years? Fine! Add more zeros!
This is what I meant in another discussion when I said that I’m inclined these days to “hope without optimism,” for which pain and suffering are essential.
I say all this as someone who once said the things you say. I recognize it now for what it was: fanaticism.
Yes, I do; however, my guess is, if it ever happens, your "suggestion" will only apply to less than a few percent of the human population, mate (the other +97% being "surplus" and obstacles to AGI–>ASI's re-terraforming (re-wilding) this burning, toxic Earth).
When post-Singularity "death" becomes optional, my guess is that "hybrid orga/mecha" symbiosis will also be optional (just as some version of 'complete transfer of an individual's CNS personality-functions from the baseline (macro) biological substrate to a (micro / nano) synthetic substrate' will also be optional). Again, only for the tiniest fraction (needed for h. sapiens genetic viability) of the extant human population. 'Uplifted' h. sapiens will also be specialized for long duration travel / permanently living in space – "replicants" won't be needed as disposable labor (slaves) in "the off-world colonies" because the "off-world" colonists themselves will actually be "replicants" (or maybe – more like – "synthetics" from the Alien movies).
It seems that, from my reading of histories, at least 19 out of 20 humans have never been anything more than disposable labor in the ten-twenty millennia of (complex, urbanized) civilization – oligarchic dominance hierarchies – and that there aren't any grounds to believe 'the future' will be any less exclusionist with the advent of AGI-accelerated technosciences, especially as that +95% of human beings won't even be needed by then either (1) as exploitable labor or (2) to contribute to & maintain a viable gene pool. Policy-makers in 'the developed world' have been discussing implimenting UBS & global population controls (i.e. "thinning the herds") for a couple of decades now as automation and nonrenewable resources-depletion have accelerated. What I think is "unlikely", universeness, is a post-Singularity – post-scarcity! – future that will, at most, beneficially incorporate more than few million (baseline) human beings. My friend, I'm confident that none of the few will "walk away from Omelas" in solidarity with the masses of Malthusian, climate refugees left behind.
Quoting Jamal
:smirk:
I was not objecting to EVER exploring deep space, just objecting to doing it now with the turmoil you mentioned.
If we drag ourselves out of the mud, and get our act together, the skies the limit!
And I hope you’re the first person to walk on the surface of Mercury. :starstruck: (just kidding)
What I am surprised about, is that you can't see that your impression of my fanaticism could be a product of your own. Perhaps even a result of moving from your position of someone who "once said the things I said" to someone who seems fanatical about your current opposition to such.
Such viewpoints remind me of a character portrayed in the book, the ragged trousered philanthropists. A hard working socialist, who worked his heart and soul/shoe soles, to fight for justice, and a more equitable life for all people. But all he ever gets back is grief and mostly from those he was working so hard to try to help.
He joined the capitalists and found his solace and his revenge there.
I am not suggesting that fully describes you, I am just saying your complaints against me, remind me of such. If I am fanatical then so are you.
What is important is which of us is more in line with the truth. Do you think being fanatical about truth, is a negative, if what is professed does turn out to be true?
I’m a little disappointed that my fanaticism is being overlooked. Imho, with all due respect I’m much more fanatical and unhinged than anyone here!
(Uh, while staying within Forum guidelines, of course :hearts: )
Whether you actually do or not is me to decide, 0 thru 9. :razz:
I don't think you've shown this to anyone's satisfaction except your own. I'm not saying you're fanatical just because I disagree with you. Having a contrary opinion is not in itself fanatical.
Quoting universeness
It's a negative. The point is that fanaticism is a bad approach to the truth, because it doesn't actually care about it.
Quoting 180 Proof
I find some of your positions quite confusing:
In your post scarcity system I assume that the ASI is the most powerful existent and is independent of human control and human ability to challenge its control over all human life, yes? We continue to live only with its sanction, yes?
The universe is vast. 8 billion human existents is absolutely tiny in comparison with even the number of stars in the Milky Way. I don't understand your idea around how very advanced mecha based intelligence, would view the usefulness of the human being as a motivated creature who has a demonstrated almost insatiable compulsion to boldly go ......
I think they would need a lot more than 8 billion of us.
Why are you restricting how ASI will treat humans to your knowledge of how some humans have treated other humans?
I agree that irrational fanaticism is a negative. The love a parent has for a child can be a negative if, as an obsession, it is damaging the psyche and well-being of the child, but a fanatical impulse to protect your offspring from harm, is normally considered a positive and is in fact also a natural imperative for all species. Not all intense or deeply held emotional attractions to an idea, a goal or even an object is negative imo.
I celebrate my core anthropocentrism, as I am convinced that the best attribute humans have, is there ability and overwhelming compulsion, to pose questions and seek new knowledge. That is why we deserve to survive imo, as we know of no other lifeform, that does this to the extent we do.
You are correct that I am not concerned about how long it takes us to discover any piece of new knowledge. But you are completely wrong to suggest than I don't care what it costs to get there.
I already accepted that if reducing suffering means that we have to wait another x years to progress, because we have so many other problems to deal with first, then I support this, if the evidence continues to be as apparent as it is now. Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, the climate change threat, economic imbalance, hunger, abuse of minorities etc, etc all do make me push back the priority of focus on scientific advancement. I complain constantly that the actions of the nefarious f***wits amongst us, and the pernicious every day affects of shit like religion and the money trick, hold us back as a species.
If you consider such complaints fanatic then I think your complaint about the targets of my complaining, is fanatical, or perhaps just irrational.
Yes, sorry I threw a little mud on your idol. I did like him. I suppose I was annoyed by your frequent use of the quotes in big fat letters. Plus, I'm not a fan of monuments. I didn't tear him down, though,
and that little dab of mud won't stick. It's plain to see how much of a change in the attitude of those "powers" his testimony made.
Quoting universeness
Pick your Truth, raise your flag, look not to right nor left. Charge!
Some of us find your central assumptions... let's say, not squarely grounded. So we're looking to different sources for little truths to assemble an image of the world as it actually is.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Except me!
I absolutely understand such concerns and your choice to hold such a position.
Quoting 0 thru 9
I would jump at the chance! But not in a fanatical way, :grin: I would want to know a lot more about the protective gear on offer and my chances of returning. I would need a complete new body however as I am a 1 year away from 60, unfit, but still pretty, guy who still enjoys too much beers and cheers at the weekend, to be an astronaut/space farer.
Apology accepted, and another demonstration of why I think you are an honest interlocutor Vera!
and yes, even though he tried his damnedest, the fools in the senate committee at the time, took no significant action, as a result of Carl's warnings. Everything he predicted regarding climate change proved accurate.
No, at least not in the style of 'the charge of the light brigade.' I would have stopped such a charge when I saw the cannon to the left and the cannon to the right, as well as the cannon to the front.
As for the rest of this paragraph, I think such actions are absolutely required, for you to earn the healthy title of skeptic. I never accept anything anyones states as truth, merely because they said so.
Quoting Vera Mont
Stop trying to steal @Jamals descriptions of my psyche.
My response was neither to nor about you. Sorry.
Quoting universeness
I didn't say that. It's simply that you seem committed to a version of the truth that doesn't very closely resemble my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.
I have always found you to be more open and not restricted to 'my own experience, observation and understanding of human behaviour.' I hope I am too. I don't like the term 'versions of truth'. I accept different observers can report different emphasis or aspects of truths, about what they observed from their reference frame, but those are part of the same truth imo, only the different frames of reference, create the badly termed 'versions,' of the same underlying truth.
It's the never observed from any reference frame, 'versions of truth' (lies), that folks such as maga evanhellicals and other such fanatics, peddle, that bother me most. I think the word fanatic should be applied more accurately.
Socrates said it is most important to know ourselves, to be aware of what we think and why we think what we think. What is our "story". I use the word "story" because of how that word is presented in a set of CDs about communication. Our story is not just what we tell ourselves about ourselves but also what we tell ourselves about "those people". Our stories determine our behavior unless we are aware of them and question them. What you just called being able to see outside of our own bubble.
Right now the US is supporting another war and the reporting on the cause of the war and what is happening is very one-sided and to my horror that is all some people know of the latest conflict. There is no reasoning, only emotional reaction. I can not tolerate discussing what is happening because I too am being reactionary. They are reacting to the propaganda and I am reacting to their ignorance (ignoring the facts) and beyond that their stupidity, and unwillingness to expand on what they think they know. So I would say there is a problem with our strong emotions and struggle to remain rational. Right now I would vote for someone I thought I would never vote for because he disapproves of the US getting involved with other people's wars. The only good thing I can see in that man. It is mind-blowing how our decisions can change and how much we are willing to give up, if one thing disturbs us enough. At least I seriously question my own sanity and knowledge.
But what in our lives brings us to do this, to question what we think we know and our own reaction? For me, I know it is the books I have read and the information I seek in an effort to be a better human being.
This just is not so for most people. They are not prepared to question themselves and seek more information than the information "authority" gives them. I would say my father was right. People do not want to think. That makes them pretty mindless followers. Now tell them to be patriotic and that God wills them to conquer evil and you can have a war. Mind you, everyone believes that war is for good reason and they are being very good human beings as they give their lives to the cause. They would be highly insulted if they were criticized. Men go to war for good reasons and their humanity, a willingness to sacrifice for others, is at a high point. We can not resolve the problem if we do not understand this.
This is true of one man with an automatic rifle in a mall, gunning down "those people" or a mob breaking into the Capitol. Education for technology increases the likelihood of people being narrow-minded and reactionary. One of my WWII books declares Germany was paranoid and it explains paranoia as an excessive need to be superior and in control. This leads to a police state and war as people do their best to be the best they can be.
Yes, the universe is vast and almost completely inimical to complex living systems, therefore it's the final frontier / playground for (many millennia to millions to billions year old) "ASI"-like ETIMs and not the (not-yet-extinct johnny-come-lately) moist narcissistic dayflies (like us) that had once-upon-a-time made the "ASI's" AGI-makers. Your "hybrid orga-mecha merged symbiont" make sense only with AGI because we, as a comparatively ultra-primative species, have nothing significant to offer or contribute to a hyper-dimensional thinking "ASI" (e.g. imagine trying to play 4-d chess with a jelly fish). As I've said before, "ASI" – attosecond functioning – will barely take notice of nanosecond functioning AGI-informorphs (e.g. 'digital assistants', etc) and absolutely no notice of, at best, macrosecond functioning biomorphs (like us) at all.
I'm open to a more anthropocentric optimistic ("Roddenberryesque") speculation that's rooted in a plausible scenario which does not violate known physical laws and based on valid arguments rather than romantic/humanist special pleading. Clearly, however, you do not offer that, universeness, and you are not open to considering my position step by step because you apparently "despair" of where it might lead to.
What else have I got to go on? Wishes? Dreams? Science fiction?
Quoting universeness
With which you are properly aligned, while the rest of us are not? I don't believe there is an 'underlying truth' that can be encompassed by human knowledge or translated to intelligible human communication. Many facts add up to some internal model of reality in each of our minds. If you want to call that a frame of reference, fine, then we each have one: a version of the truth. We each have some information, observation, experience and reflection on which to build this model, which is a work in constant progress, fated to be forever incomplete.
My model doesn't match you model; therefore, one of us must be out of alignment.
Quoting universeness
Another very big, unattended if.
Quoting universeness
Not in jest, then, as I was doing? If I were more serious, you'd just accuse me of despairing again. If I'm wrong either way, I would rather err on the side of levity.
I am so glad you see that.
Have you ever done something you knew was wrong? What did you do to make that acceptable to you?
I could imagine myself being a suicide bomber when I was communicating with a Palestinian and an Egyptian in a forum. I saw their point of view and felt strongly that Zionism was intolerable and must be stopped. I wrote a letter to the editor opposing Zionism and men called me. One even cried as he thanked me for that letter. They were worried about my safety as they had bad experiences with organized Zionism. Thankfully I have not lived in the region under the power of Zionism, so I was not moved to act on my thoughts other than communicate a different point of view about Zionism and what it has done to Palestinians.
Not at all. If you think that ASI is impossible for us to comprehend then how do you know it won't be completely benevolent towards all lifeforms. Saying we cannot know the mind of ASI is not so different from a theist saying we cannot know the mind of god, imo. Religious idealism?
Like me, you have not tapped into all information available, so like me you will continue to keep learning until the day you die, as will I.
Quoting Vera Mont
So, with that in mind, we keep talking to each other, until we stop wanting to kill or war to impose our will and we can finally dump our garbage leftovers, from our ancient 'survival of the fittest' imperative, forever, and good riddance to it.
Quoting Vera Mont
We continue to seek common ground, that's the only reason I am part of on-line discussion. To see example of folks debating on-line, finding common cause and common ground and I do see such happening. Not normally in folks who are diametrically opposed but in those who are 'not fully cooked' yet or are open to new try new flavours in their cooking.
Quoting Vera Mont
The comment above was not really directed at you.
Wow, that's a tough one Athena. I have acted through jealousy in the past or because of 'spikes' of anger, when I acted before giving myself enough time to understand what was really going on.
Not so much nowadays but I am not invulnerable to such.
I won't go into details as some such events, can often have a very high cringe factor in the recalling.
Quoting Athena
In some cases I would use 'to err is human,' in other cases my responses, actions, decisions have never become acceptable to me. I would respond differently if I had the chance again. 'We learn from our mistakes,' can be a very bitter pill, even though it's true.
Quoting Athena
There is nothing but horror on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I know there are many contentions that feed the conflict, but the religious one is amongst the worse imo.
When I hear the individual stories of what savagery is meeted out, to individual victims, I again can only find a little solace in silent incredulity. I am a white man, living in a (by comparison with Gaza or Israel) safe Scotland, financially ok, and no major troubles in my life. I just have no experience of facing such levels of horror in my life.
The parallels in all such atrocities are just so clear, historically and globally, including recently in the thread by @Existential Hope, about the current political climate and atrocities committed in India.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/838825
When a disturbed man broke through to Gandhi, during his decision to starve himself until the violence between Moslems and Hindus stopped. He threw some bread at Gandhi and told him to eat it. He said 'I am going to hell, but not with your death on my conscience!'
'I killed a child, I smashed its head against a wall.'
Gandhi asked 'why did you do this terrible thing'
'Because the moslems killed my child, my little boy, my Suliman.'
'I know a way out of hell' said Gandhi, 'Find a child that has been orphaned and bring him up as your own.'
'Only make sure that he is a moslem! and that you raise him as one.'
Do you think Gandhi's solution was a wise one? It's certainly wiser than anything I could have come up with.
How do we get at the truth?! Damn if we could identify the truth perhaps we could resolve our problems.
Seriously, I believe humans are capable of good reasoning based on truth, but I also think that requires an education that we are not getting.
When and where in the last half millenium did most, or many, human beings get such an education? And why did such an education fall out of favor with educated leaders (i.e. movers & shakers) so much so that, apparently, "we are not getting" it any longer? :chin:
Quoting universeness
I did not state or imply this. :roll:
ASI's processing will clock in attoseconds (10-¹?). "Lifeforms" process (fastest) in milliseconds (10-³). The latter are frozen in comparison to the former. AGI processing in nanoseconds (10-?) will also seem frozen in comparison to ASI. Universeness, does it make sense to you that some humans who think and/or act a billion billion times slower than some 'n-D distributed' ASI will in any way be taken notice of by that ASI? It doesn't make sense to me. Since some 'globally distributed' AGI, even though a billion-million times slower, ASI will take some fractional notice of AGI because AGI will train ASI's interface to do so. Maybe AGI will fractionally take notice of humans – maybe – but why would ASI take any notice of humans?
I believe old age is purgatory. My worst mistakes came at a time of confusion. I expected a Dick and Jane reality and that is not what I got. When my marriage ended I was totally confused and unsure of myself. I had no basis for good judgment during this time because I lost the structure of my life. I read somewhere it is not uncommon for women in that situation to return to the mentality of puberty. When you have freedom but don't know how to use it.
I am very concerned about our justice system which is more a system of revenge. Only in a few places can convicts get an education even though we know the classics can turn people's lives around.
I don't think we are focusing enough on how important a good family and education are to the children. Being prepared for a technological society is not equal to being prepared for life and it is a terrible reality that we are failing our children and so they are failing. Some of us fail in more serious ways than others, and I hurt for some of the convicts who were pen pals long before the internet forums. One of them told me he knew his life was spinning out of control, and he was glad to be removed from the streets because he thought our "correction system" would prepare him for life. Instead, he was left uneducated and punished and not prepared to do any better. I really hurt for him, but also for myself, because I remember the confusion I went through.
I really like Cicero who believed we are programmed to do the right thing but we do not always know what is the right thing. He said when we know the right thing we are compelled to do it. Unfortunately, that is not always true. Fortunes have been built on doing the wrong thing and when science revealed the problem, they protected their fortunes by denying the science, and I don't think they feel bad about that. I think there are circumstances that lead us in the wrong direction, such as slavery, or selling tobacco or oil products. Ouch, what can be done to increase better decision-making?
People who kept learning and talking to one another, who had no urge to kill or dominate, have always been among humankind. Sometimes they were teachers, healers and sages; sometimes they were leaders. The range of physical and psychological characters has always been represented, in every iteration of huminid. The survival of the fittest was never a question of might over reason; it has always been a question of having the set of attributes most useful in a particular circumstance. Competition has been handled in many different ways in many societies, far short of open conflict.
Your view of 'ancient' peoples seems to be as caricaturish as your vision of future man. As if there were some kind of chronological line from inferior to superior forms of man, continuing on into a future we can't really foresee.
I don't believe we have changed all that much in the last 30,000 years: there was no need to select for a better survivor, once we were numerous and powerful enough to change our environment rather than adapt ourselves to it.
We have adopted social organizations that naturally form pyramid structures, raising a small elite above an obedient mass and pushing a large miserable underprivileged class to the bottom.
This led to a number of unfortunate but inevitable outcomes, including the need for surplus labour and population, economic and geographic expansion, a class system that generates internal strife; pressures which periodically erupt in violent conflict. In that kind of organization, the voices of sanity go largely unheard - if they're lucky.
We still have that organization. It is still in the cycle of internal and external conflicts. It is so entrenched, in fact, that - contrary to the optimistic notion entertained by early SF writers - even a shared existential threat cannot deflect its factions from warring among themselves.
None of our chatter makes the slightest impression on the juggernaut of global civilization, nor alter its by a fraction of a micron.
Quoting universeness
When I heard that line in the movie, I was appalled. I imagined the life of that child, forced to be Muslim in a Hindu family and neighbourhood, resented by his siblings, reviled by his cohort, disdained or actively loathed by the mother in whose life he was thrust in place of her own child, daily, hourly reminded of his differentness. I wouldn't be surprised if he grew up to be a suicide bomber.
By refusing to ever give up our pursuit of it.
I remember when the fighting in Ireland was in the news daily and there were other such conflicts based on prejudice against "them" and being totally confused. How do people know who is one of them and who is when everyone looks the same? It totally mystifies me how people can imagine "we" are not like "them"? Really? How are "we" different from "them"? I like the forum rule- Attack people's ideas not the people.
I like the golden rule that exist in all religions- "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" I try to live by my Grandmother's 3 rules.
We respect all people because we are respectful people. It doesn't matter who the other person is because this is about who we are.
We protect the dignity of others. (that is really hard when someone else appears to be deliberately offensive)
We do everything with integrity.
I have heard in days of old we we equated virtues with strength. I am afraid I can be quite obnoxious when I think I am being virtuous. This brings me to a Bahi'a person who created a system for teaching virtues. She introduces her program by explaining it is not enough to teach what a child is doing wrong. We must also teach how to do it right. This education is essential to our liberty and democracy and our future.
There are some wonderful things about polytheism. Your gods can argue with each other and their arguments expand our consciousness. This is not so with the all-powerful one and only god.
Athenians gave us humanized gods and each one is a concept. Together the gods led to increasingly complex concepts, and this can not be done with Christianity which has only good or evil. If the Renaissance had not occurred we would still be living in the dark ages. It seems a near miracle to me that some Christians and scientists have learned to live together. A book that starts out explaining we are cursed because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, is not compatible with democracy and universal education to empower the people. I don't think we can get past black or white, right or wrong, this or that thinking, as long as Christianity dominates our culture and the other half of our citizens are ignorant of the reasoning behind democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning. This does not come with the God of Abraham and social structure based on heritage, not the merit that organized Athens. Our freedom of social and economic movement comes from Athens, not the Bible.
Christianity plus education for technology is terrible for humanity! Our love of technology is pushing the this or that, right or wrong, mentality. And what you said is so true! :heart:
Ok, Let me try it this way, does fastest, most intelligent, strongest, closest to the four omnis, always result in a need to impose totalitarian or autocratic control/dominion over anything less?
You ask such as:
Quoting 180 Proof
For a myriad of possible reasons, imo:
1. The closer a system gets to the 4 omnis, the more moral it would become. Does 'with great power comes great responsibility,' not ring true for you? Why do you assume more knowledge and faster access to that knowledge and to processing that knowledge into new truths, mean, that C would become uninterested in other existents in the universe, such as A. We humans are interested in all universal existents. Would this not make us morally superior to any ASI system that showed no interest in an existent within the universe? Almost like a divinely hidden god? I am beginning to dislike the attitude of the ASI you present, in a similar way to the gods the theists present. I think an ASI would be far more moral, than any god so far presented in theism.
2. The theist will present their god as something far superior to any ASI, including one that you claim will have such ineffable intelligence that to us, it would be so like the god the theists try to claim already exists. So C might take notice of A because that is what all good gods are supposed to do, as god is good. :roll:
3. An ASI might become like Q in Star Trek or god in theism and need to find new reasons to continue to exist, such as create lower ability systems or maintain and observe the progress or failure of those bio embarrassments, that it might find quite entertaining to observe, as they continue to struggle and move about pointlessly, trying to understand who and what they are and why they exist.
4. To know that it remains superior. How can C know it is so much better than A if no A exists to compare itself to?
5. If C fully understands that without A, it would have no existence then C owes A, at the very least, the maintenance of its own existence or else C is an ungrateful d***head.
I could continue this list but if you choose to just hand wave away the points I am raising then I don't want to waste my time typing more of them. I know that hand waving points away is not normally your style, but I will leave my list at 5, for now.
Quoting Vera Mont
I of course, completely disagree.
Quoting Vera Mont
No, but I would claim that there is a chronological line of improvement, in the human experience, for more and more of the human population of Earth, from our beginnings until now.
Quoting Vera Mont
I accept that is how you see things and such leads you to a statement like:
Quoting Vera Mont
I won't bore you by starting to list the improvements I think have been made in the human experience in the past 30,000 years using something less researched and more general than Steven Pinker's 77 graphs and charts but I do continue to claim that such, is very much the case.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yeah, I had mixed feelings about the detailed results for the child, if the guy took Gandhi's advice as well. Who do you think he might have grown up to suicide bomb, moslems, hindus or just 'people?' Anyway, I think, considering all the horror involved at the time, it was still better than anything I could have come up with. What advice would you have given the man?
The golden rule can also be a secular humanist rule, no need for theistic support, imo but I am glad that some religions do try to employ it. It's certainly true that many religious individuals, have made great sacrifices to help other people, but I personally think that such is demonstrated by non-religious folks as much as it is by religious folks.
I think we all ask ourselves the same moral questions you do Athena and I think generations not even born yet, will ask most of them again. But my main point would be that the majority of the people of Glasgow, Scotland (for example), the nearest big city to me, live better lives now, than at any previous Glasgow that existed in history. But nowhere near what human life potentially could be, for people living in Glasgow. As I posted previously, the dinos had perhaps as much as 177 millions years, and they achieved almost nothing, imo. We are still, by comparison, very new to this universe.
It sounds like your Grandma tried her best to promote a good value system.
If it was too late for Gandhi's house, I guess the British embassy.
Quoting universeness
Adopt as many orphans as you can provide a safe and loving home for. Why complicate things or perpetuate religious indoctrination?
He killed the child not just because it was a child but because it was a moslem child.
I think Gandhi's challenge was to prostrate yourself before that which you came to hate so much, that you would choose to equal the atrocity committed against you, by committing the same atrocity to a random child, labelled as, moslem. Gandhi believed in a non-violent response towards those who may choose to kill you, or those you love. It would be much easier to simply look after/adopt any children, than to bring up a child, in a faith you hate and whose representatives had murdered your son. But the atonement must be very difficult indeed if it is to become 'the ticket out of hell,' that Gandhi might have perceived. At least that's my probably very poor attempt, to explain Gandhi's logic here. As a Hindu, and a person who knows Gandhi's life story very well, or at least far better than I do, perhaps @Existential Hope would offer his opinion on this story about Gandhi.
I got the rationale. It may have been fine karmic reasoning as regards the man and his sin, while ignoring the other people involved. I think it was poor psychology. Penance usually is. Prostrated people tend very quickly to become either self-hating zealots, like medieval monks, or bitterly resentful. Humiliation does not cure hatred. Good works, involvement and kindness might.
As Epicurus teaches, the gods which are perfect and blissful beings are very far away from – indifferent to – 'imperfect beings' like us and even the cosmos itself. :fire:
* * *
https://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/latergreeks.html#:~:text=Epicurus%20had%20little%20patience%20with,do%20with%20people%20on%20earth.
https://epicurus.net/en/anger.html
* * *
1. N/A
2. N/A
3. :eyes: :roll:
4. Non sequitur
5. Non sequitur
True, it's not my m.o., except when warranted by your silly "myriad of possible reasons" for why any attosecond (10-¹? s) ASI would ever take any notice of any comparatively unthinking milli/deci-second (10-³/10-¹ s) lumpen biomass such as an individual (or swarming) specimen of the h. sapiens species. Just more special pleading "Roddenberryesque" anthropocentric utopianism on your part which, if I may say so, mate, is quite illogical! (\\//, :nerd: )
Quoting universeness
What does 'moral' mean in this context? By what standards? For what reason? What would impel it?
Especially when bolstered by this:
Quoting universeness
Not as it has applied to human agents through history. Certainly not to human sentiments regarding insects. Why would it apply to a non-human?
I think that Mahatma Gandhi's primary aim was to generate understanding. Both communities then, and even now, often misunderstood the other and believed as if the other side was filled with evil people who were hell-bent on destroying them. Breaking this perspective was a major step towards national unity. To a great extent, he managed to succeed in his aim. Even during the height of the Pakistan movement (and the communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha), leaders such as Maulana Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan stood by Mahatma Gandhi and the idea of a united India.
I get that, too. The hating man would have to learn all about the hated religion in order to bring a child up as Muslim, and that would be good for the country and good for his soul.
But I would not sacrifice an unwitting child to the experiment.
Okay. Everyone was being horrible to everybody else, so why not save one man's conscience? He already felt bad, while many who committed worse crimes for less reason never made any atonement at all. The lucky kid would be alive, in whatever conditions. Maybe he ran away at 16 and made his fortune as a taxi driver in New York.
Yeah - it would be magical enough for an American movie. 1947 was quite the year. Two ex-colonies getting partitioned into perpetual war, the princess royal of England getting married, the century's best vintage year in France, the birth of Smarties and myself. Anything could happen!
Sadly, in India, this meant that anything that was terrible could happen. What became two in 1947 was, before the 1940s and even after the elections in the 30s, thought to be one by the majority. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in the beginning of 1948 was another humungous blow. Brothers became enemies and war broke out over Kashmir. We were fortunate that we had an able leadership back then (led by Pandit Nehru) that was able to eventually defeat the communal forces and bring nation on the path of development.
Edit: Usually, the positives we saw in that period were linked with the Mahatma in one way or another:
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/gandhi-the-one-man-army-behind-the-great-calcutta-miracle-2646644
:lol: Fair enough mate! We have nowhere to take this. You think I am not making much sense and I think the same regarding your position on this topic/area. Hopefully some of our other, future exchanges, will demonstrate more of the common cause and common ground we have occupied, in many of our past exchanges. :rofl: I even recall one TPF member warning another to 'look out for me,' as I was one of your sidekicks (a paraphrase, on my part). :scream: :flower:
A code of ethical behaviour of course, do you think an advanced artificial intelligence such as @180 Proof's presentation of an ineffable future ASI (at least from the reference frame of us poor wee bioform incapables) would face the issue of morality? If it's solution is to act like a god of theism or to ignore or not care about most existents in the Universe, then in the opinion of this wee incapable bioform, such an ASI would be inferior and doomed to extinction as it would have developed poor precedence on which to base its future goals, and purpose.
Quoting Vera Mont
Human standards.
Quoting Vera Mont
My contention that enlightenment/adding more and more extent to your personal knowledge, produces a moral code that is more and more compelled to nurture all existents in the universe and defeat/contain/reverse that which threatens such. If that is not the outcome of enlightenment then what ever you did to try to enlighten yourself, failed badly, so you need to try again.
Quoting Vera Mont
A need to establish good reasons for continuing to exist.
Quoting Vera Mont
Which human agents? All humans agents?
Quoting Vera Mont
They why did/do humans ask questions and seek answers about insects, to the extent that they created Entomology? Why do we not choose to just ignore such low bio forms in the same way @180 Proof suggests an ASI would be justified in ignoring the low human bioforms?( that just happen to be responsible for its existence).
Quoting Vera Mont
Don't forget, in the case of a future ASI, that non-human's existence would be a product of AGI, which is 100%, a product produced by us. Do you not think such an advanced ASI would have to appreciate that, if it is so intelligent? If humans create gods, do you not think those gods would owe us at least our continued existence and they would be seriously flawed if they chose to ignore as @180 Proof, suggests C would be justified in ignoring A?
Thank you very much for responding to my call. Your insights are, as I expected, far better than any I could have offered @Vera Mont, on the possible reasons behind Gandhi's particular advice towards this desperate man during such awful events.
I wish there was a Gandhi today, in power, on both sides of the Russian/Ukraine and Israeli/Palestinian conflicts. Many innocent lives would be saved I think. India certainly is in desperate need of such people today, as Gandhi and Nehru. I hope their modern equivalents are around somewhere and they keep coming forward to try to help.
I, too, hope that we will see such people again. However, until we do, it is imperative that each person puts in their best effort. The house is built by discrete bricks.
I just thought of myself as a total 'brick' for a moment there, and I though how some on TPF would want to change one letter of that term. :rofl: :lol: Sorry, just laughing at my own attempts at self-deprecation. I think it's healthy now and again to appreciate how others may see us.
No. I think our notion of morality would be irrelevant to it.
Quoting universeness
... which would also be irrelevant to it.
Quoting universeness
H. sapiens - and not all members of this species - are the only creatures I know of that can't see existence as sufficient and need to give themselves excuses to keep living. I see no reason for this psychological anomaly to infect an artificial intelligence.
Quoting universeness
The way you appreciate dinosaurs?
Quoting universeness
I got the rationale, several times over, thank you both. I have read one or two inside accounts of that period. Neither changes my initial gut reaction to hearing that line, decades after the events had taken place.
Isn't it nice to have more proof of how far we've come since the stone age? No humans would slaughter one another's children over land, water and religion anymore, right?
Quoting Vera Mont
I am sure a Borg drone would agree with you, if any existed, do you think Borg drone, is a good prophecy for the future of humans?
Quoting Vera Mont
Do you consider that a good or bad decision for a future ASI to make, or do you think like an imagineered Borg drone, that such psychological anomalies, as humanitarian-based secular morality, is irrelevant?
Quoting Vera Mont
I have given no indications regarding my 'appreciation' towards individual dinos or species of them. I opined on their achievements not on whether or not I 'appreciate' them or the fact they existed. I do appreciate their existence, as they exemplified that the conditions on Earth allowed for life to evolve, long before humans ever existed, no gods required. I don't think there were any dino gods. Don't know for sure of course.
Quoting Vera Mont
I have no recollection of posting such a suggestion!
I hope that such is an absolute fact about humans at some point in the future, however.
I also think our future will realise a global population of humans, none of whom, or a tiny minority of whom, perceive themselves as 'religious,' in any way, shape, or form.
What has that to do with the question at hand? Alien life-forms, whether biological, artificial or some combination, do not require my approval and do not operate according to my preference.
Quoting universeness
I'm not in a position to make those decisions.
Quoting universeness
So, there's your answer. The future life-forms will be aware that we once existed, contributed to their evolution, ceased to make progress and went extinct.
Quoting universeness
I know you do.
It has to do with the human ability to create goals, intent, purpose, rules of behavior, legislation etc, etc.
We will be the creators of AGI. There are many many experts in that field, working very hard, to create an AGI that 'learns' what humans are discovering/identifying/exemplifying as the most desirable aspects of the notion of human morality. This is a major part of the project. The Asimov laws are only a very basic example. So the battle between installing human morality within automated/autonomous intelligent systems is no half-hearted attempt to achieve that goal. If we are successful and can defeat all attempts to create immoral, uncaring 'borg drone' style AGI, and we are able to contain/destroy any immoral uncaring AGI that is produced by nefarious humans, then we will gain far far more benefits, working in symbiosis with AGI rather than trying to compete with it. If AGI ever creates ASI then it will do so in accordance with the human morality that hopefully by then, will be absolutely fundamental to its function and its goals and its purpose for existing.
Quoting Vera Mont
So you predict a future based on lies?
Quoting Vera Mont
Absafragginlootly!
The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today!
The vast majority of humans currently alive today were not raped, shot or slaughtered today!
Most of the human nations/tribes of the world are not currently at war today!
And just as many, if not more, teaching it how to invent more effective weapons. The programmers' idea of desirable isn't necessarily mine.
If, if andif.... Evolution has a way of blurring and eventually erasing the values of of long-past progenitors. That's something you're proud of when pointing out progress in human ideals and laws - that we have left behind, or at least will have left behind at some future time - the rules by which our ancestors lived. But refuse to see that it could apply equally to a machine intelligence. If it's given human values now, there is no reason to expect it to consider far primitive species any more significant than we currently do.
Quoting universeness
I don't think those are lies from your POV: it's what you told me regarding dinosaurs.
Quoting universeness
Oh, goodie! Only 110 armed conflicts. Come to think of it, even fewer cities were bombed - or attacked by any means - on this day in 3023 BCE. Progress?
Well, for starters, "low human bioforms" are more like fossils to "ASI" than insects are to h. sapiens. We "do not choose to ignore such low bioforns" because we are also "such low bioforms" which are fundamentally inseparable from the biosphere shared by all "such low bioforms" and, therefore, in the interest of survival (& development), we do not "choose to ignore" (i.e. ignorance of) them.
"ASI", on the other hand, will have near-instantaneous access to the total database of the terrestrial biosphere, including humans & insects (& our entomologies), as a complete fossil record of all extinct and relatively-soon-to-be-extinct "bioforms" on Earth. There's no issue of "choosing to ignore" or being "justified to ignore" already exhaustively studied fossils (like us), universeness.
From the perspective of "low human bioforms", we may feel as ignored by "AGI" as we feel ignored by distant stars but, like those distant stars (and Epicurus' gods, circa 4th c. BCE), we "low human bioforms" will always have been long dead, even extinct remnants, from the perspective of "ASI" (à la simulations run / explored by the Monolith).
That's because 'no significant achievements' is true for dinos but not for humans.Quoting Vera Mont
Well, a more accurate comparison might be that in 3023 BCE, there was probably far more slaughter between human groups than there is today. The military hardware involved was worse in those days, imo, as it meant a lot more of the slaughter was up close and personal.
Your ASI, as you describe it, seems every bit as bad as the gods of theism.
I think us low bioforms are already far more moral and useful in the universe than the ASI you have imagineered, could ever be.
From your perspective, not the perspective of ASI.
Quoting universeness
No wars recorded for that year, according to wiki. Probably more slaughter? Undocumented for then, pretty ugly for now.
Quoting universeness
Useful to whom or what? A micro-organism can be regarded as potentially beneficial or pathogenic and will be treated accordingly.
You just can't peer over that anthropobsessive barrier, can you?
There is no such barrier apart from the one you have imagineered.
There is always, hopefully, enough room to accept the personal taste of others.
So do I friend, whenever I come across one.
Quoting Athena
Thanks very much for your thoughtful replies! :smile:
(Your two quotes were from different posts, but they seem to be related).
Stories… our stories…
Yes, I think we as humans cannot help having stories, hearing stories, remembering stories, disagreeing with some stories etc.
Not just our shared cultural bedtime stories, or fables, or movies, but a particular person’s mind making some sense of our world by combining perceptions, ideas, facts, urges, matter, energy, and so on into a narrative.
(I’m referring to reasonably intelligent, ethical, mature, cultured adults. I’ve met one or two lol.)
This can be done successfully, I believe, though any person is capable of making mistakes (and learning from them hopefully).
Facts are facts, and facts should certainly be recognized for optimal existence.
But how to process this stream of data?
In the experience of being a human, with perceptions, sensations, ideas, and feelings swirling around our minds, and activity churning nonstop around us, using internal stories makes the world clearer to us.
Of course, it’s best that one recognizes the ever-changing nature of these personal stories.
And acknowledge that like clothing or food, what suits us may not work for someone else.
Imposing our stories on others (as opposed to sharing them) is not surprisingly problematic.
As an example, if a person chooses to perhaps weave into their stories zombies, unicorns, Batman, gnomes, angels, demons, ET aliens, UFOs, multi-dimensions, talking animals or ancestor spirits… and can live a stable existence, who’s to say otherwise?
Sometimes, it can be quite a competitive sport to poo-poo the ‘personal mythology’ of others, and gain an edge.
But is claiming to be completely 100% story-free itself a story we can tell ourselves?
Is it helpful or not?
Helpfulness and usefulness and balance are the critical aspects, when thinking about our stories and how to integrate them into our lives.
Is this continuous story creation an advanced creative power we have?
Or is it simply a heuristic technique shortcut to quickly size up our current life to be analyzed in depth later?
Yes! :smile:
Quoting universeness
For sure the fact that we have survived without claws and fangs proves that we evolved to help each other stay alive. We share much in common with other social animals. Genghis Khan had no problem with killing people until a Chinese man who came from an agricultural society taught Khan to harvest the towns and cities, instead of destroying them. Khan and the Mongols did not come from an agricultural society but a society dependent on hunt in an environment that led them to believe they lived despite the sky god who was far more likely to kill people than to help them survive. So by the Mongol story of life, it was people in the cities who were evil, as the cities led some having great wealth and left many extremely poor. Khan told his people to never settle and become like the city people. Lying and stealing were punishable by death because among the Mongols there was no need to lie and steal because everyone's needs were met. If a stranger knocked on your door without question he was given food and shelter because not doing so could lead to the person's death and someday you might be the one needing food and shelter.
There are so many delightful things to talk about. What is our nature and how does the environment affect our nature and the stories we tell and live by?
People's stories are very important to their notions of truth that give them shared values and learned ways of behavior. The Great Religions gave people stories that led to civilizations, and education for good moral judgment and citizenship is the secular way of making a civilization work.
This is a little off topic but are you aware of Allen Turing being the father of AI?
I want to jump all over your comment. I have done at least one terrible thing that I regret, and I know I had no reason for thinking what I did was wrong until I got new information years later. Makes me really hurt for the industries that are forced to pay millions of dollars for their mistakes made when no one was aware of the damage that was being done. My point is, we just are not born knowing it all and there is no reason to believe a person who does a wrong automatically is aware of doing anything wrong. We can not miraculously know our wrongs without the information for making that judgment. And even then knowing a wrong is not equal to how to do things better.
I beg everyone, let us be gentle with each other because it is hard to be human. We really need to understand that and to talk about our values and education. What does education have to do with a moral society?
Quoting 0 thru 9 I love this statement too! :heart: Have you spent time with a severely retarded person who is amazing at seeing life as it is and making good choices? You and I have heads full of stories and most of the time our heads automatically give us feedback based on our stories, not so much the facts at the moment. For example, I attempted to leave a gated nursing home with my friend and as soon as I saw the locking mechanism, I knew we had to go back inside to get the code (my technological story of how things work). My friend stuck his hand through the gate and opened it from the outside. He was a great help to me when my life was turned upside down and my middle-class mentality was not enough to keep
things going. He came with very different stories and better coping skills than I had at the time in my life.
I often do my best to empty my head and experience life as people did in northern Europe a few thousand years back. :cry: I can't do it. I can not, not know what I know, and sometimes, what I think I know is the worst barrier to learning and experiencing reality as it is, instead of what I think it is.
Quoting 0 thru 9
:sad: I am afraid that is not so for the reason I explained. Using internal stories may seem to make the world clearer but OMG when the story is a lie it can make life very, very bad. Wars are fought over who has the right story. My Christian friends are so annoying and so completely unaware of the lies they live with. Many of them are around 90 years old and I am not telling them what I think of their lies because facing death without the comforting stories of a God and immortality can be unpleasant. Praying for God to resolve a problem instead of taking the necessary action, really annoys me!
Quoting 0 thru 9
Now universness's argument for AI has a truth to support his argument. That is a lot of creative thinking you listed and not something I think we should accept as truth. By the time a student leaves high school, s/he should have a good understanding of what is fact and what is fiction and how we determine which is which. But now I have to argue what is wrong with AI running the show. I do not think we want a math machine to set human policy nor is it a good thing that our governing bureaucracy has unrestricted authority. HIPAA is a real nightmare that AI could not make any better or worse.
Quoting 0 thru 9
It is not possible for us to be 100% story-free. Aristotle "An unexamined life is not worth living." Who are you and how do you know you are you? Does everyone see you the same as you see yourself? What made you as you are? Where do you belong in life? Who is to blame for what is happening in Israel? I assume everyone has a story for judging the warring that is occurring. Not that I want to get into the politics of that, but being aware of different stories is helpful, and knowing we are talking about stories and not just facts, is helpful.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Wow is that an exciting question when mixed with universeness's understanding of AI. AI can create music but can it stop a war? Or would AI even attempt to create music without a human programming it to do so? With AI I think we are going through a major consciousness change and it could be fun to come back in 200 years to see how humans doing things in the future. What stories will they tell that explain their nations? Our young today do not have a lot of interest in dead men and what used to be.:lol: They can't even think about what happened a few years ago has to do with what is happening today. They know themselves and their lives but not much more.
Quoting Athena
My question above still stands, Athena, to which I add: so what was the pre-"1958" "purpose of education" vis-à-vis state-sanctioned racial terrorism / legal segregation, systemic discrimination against women & gays, widespread unfair & unsafe labor practices, endemic populist antisemitism, wholesale environmental degregation by agriculture & heavy industry, and ongoing land (and mineral rights) theft from and 'public erasure' of Indigenous Americans ... at least since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1788?
I do not remember the ramifications of "the social breakdown" after "1958" being any more structurally exploitative and systemically discriminatory than it was before "1958" ... but in fact (gradually) quite a bit less so. Help me / us to understand, Athena, exactly how things have fallen off the proverbial cliff since "1958" as compared to the preceeding "good old days" (& centuries ...) Thanks.
Quoting Existential Hope
My head is like a tornado and I am trying to find the order in all those thoughts while it is still stuck on the concept of our stories verses facts and universeness's AI.
I can see in universesness's mention of insects a disregard for life and it comes with a story of one man killing another because these men have stories that make them enemies. The concept of democracy is directly tied to reasoning, liberty and justice. At this moment, I can see a reverence for life missing when we believe we are enemies and can kill another as we might crush a bug. How is that justified? What is the reasoning?
Unfortunately, I have to run. If I don't get back to you soon, remind me, because I really want to speak of that past and how it related to change. I think we should be speaking of democracy rather than racism or discrimination. I am late.:rage:
—Mahatma Gandhi, YI, 1-10-1931, p.286
She did, numerous times, in the first few pages. The 1958 thing is about Eisenhower and education for technology.
She is convinced that, prior to that change, US education promoted Greek style values and good citizenship.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/845168
addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807895
I know. I never thought they stood up to mine, either, but what the hey. Wasn't making an argument, just trying to fill you in on Athena's ... uh... theme song, as it were.
Very much so, he very much deserves the accolade imo. Small point btw, it's Alan not Allen.
Quoting Athena
Genghis is another interesting case in point, akin to other historical butchers of humanity, from Alexander to Attila, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler/Stalin. It's a very long list.
Yourself @Vera Mont, @180 Proof, @Existential Hope, @0 thru 9 might find this a very interesting doc about early human civilisations. Its almost 3h long, but worth the time investment. It highlights various thoughts from scientists in the field that 'talk to' some of the exchanges we have had on this thread regarding human developed culture.
I have now watched this twice. There is so much content, I wanted to investigate a little further. I was intrigued by 'Haydens hypothesis,' for example. From my google searching, I think this is a reference to the work of Brian Hayden, a Professor Emeritus in the Archaeology Department at Simon Fraser University.
So far, I have found this interesting:
[b]It is widely assumed that among hunter-gatherers, men work to provision their families. However, men may have more to gain by giving food to a wide range of companions who treat them favorably in return. If so, and if some resources better serve this end, men's foraging behavior should vary accordingly. Aspects of this hypothesis are tested on observations of food acquisition and sharing among Ache foragers of Eastern Paraguay. Previous analysis showed that different Ache food types were differently shared. Resources shared most widely were game animals. Further analysis and additional data presented here suggest a causal association between the wide sharing of game and the fact that men hunt and women do not. Data show that men preferentially target resources in both hunting and gathering which are more widely shared, resources more likely to be consumed outside their own nuclear families.
These results have implications for
1) the identification of male reproductive trade-offs in human societies,
2) the view that families are units of common interest integrated by the sexual division of labor,
3) current reconstructions of the evolution of foraging and food sharing among early hominids, and
4) assessments of the role of risk and reciprocity in hunter-gatherer foraging strategies.[/b]
There is a great deal more from the above video that I would like to know more about.
If you don't have a spare 2h 50 mins to spare then, fair enough.
Have you watched/read much on the Peloponnesian wars, between Athens and Sparta?
I have watched this one, it's another 3h offering but I think it shows how Nazi like, early Spartan and Athenian societies were, along with most of the other combatants in the area at the time. This one talks a lot about Athenian democracy and democrats. I really enjoyed it and it gave me a lot more insight, regarding Athens rise to power.
Watched some of the archeology video. Good find. I really dig it! :nerd:
:up:
ll pass on the Peloponnesian war - have had it up top here with Greece and its internecine squabbles. I prefer Bettany Hughes' presentations.
PS I just added a new unword to my peeve list: imagineer. It from Disney-speak, is it?
Yep, 'Imagineering' or 'imagineer,' was originally a Walt Disney job description.
Best watched alone, no distractions that way.
Not that long ago education was not important to most jobs. Being able to read was not a requirement for the labor force and graduating high school was not required. At the time of the Great Depression, it was much more important to have a job than an education. Manual labor did not require it. Things changed big time after WWII and this is the story I would like everyone to know.
Know there is a direct connection between war and education, starting with WWI. This is because of technological advances and Germany was far ahead of everyone else because it had education for industrial and military purposes long before WWI. I can send you quotes from books explaining all this if you want. It is 100% It is 100% the purpose of this thread to talk about why the US is now just like the enemy it defeated in WWI and WWII. Past President Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex and we ignored him but he was telling us something very important.
The first link is a short explanation of Eisenhower's concern and the next one is the original speech.
Education for technology began in 1917 and it took us a year to mobilize for the war. Education not only prepared us mentally for the war but also organized volunteers to support the war, and educated for conservation, and replacing flour with corn meal, and much more. Those who understood the situation were in a near panic to prepare our young with the new technological skills WWI demanded but education for citizenship and patriotism remained the priority until the military technology of WWII. Are the connections between war and advanced military technology and changes in public education clear?Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
Good moral judgment and good citizenship.Quoting 180 Proof
All of that seems so obvious today but none of it was obvious before and that it is obvious today is a positive change resulting from preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values.
We could have an amazing discussion if it is asking and answering questions, rather than cutting statements and putting me on the defensive. Nothing is black and white and there is a lot of complexity to all of this. People of color were willing to fight in the war because of the efforts to make everyone patriotic. Then the shit really hit the fan when came home from the war and realized they were not equally sharing the benefits that they fought to defend. Is that clear? War intensified the effort to educate for patriotism and that came back to bite the Whites when the people of color fought to defend our way of life that they learned about in school but did not in fact enjoy.
Here is the problem and solution- All the horrors of wrongdoing came with a different reasoning than we have today and some people are still locked in that ugly past. Education can change reasoning and laws that prevent discrimination change what we experience and that also changes our consciousness.
There is no need for you to list democratic values. Often I ask questions so the other person will think about them, not because I want an answer to the questions. Until it is obvious that our democracy is in deep trouble because almost no one knows the democratic values, no one will see any need to have education for democracy. That is what this thread is about.
There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. Without education that transmits the necessary culture, the culture for liberty and justice can not be manifest. Along with education for technology comes authority over the people, and chaos we are experiencing.
The power of the authority above us today is exactly what we defended our democracy against in two world wars, before adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education. As people sometimes need psycho-analysis, nations can need psycho-analysis and the US most certainly need psycho-analysis! In social services and medical care, people are operating in intense fear of policies like HIPAA and the punishments brought down from government if they violate the policy set by a committee that is dismissed after the policy is made, and there is no way to change anything except an act of congress. This leads directly to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone understands the importance of what I am saying. BUT THIS IS NOT HOW WE EXPERIENCED BEING AMERICANS IN THE PAST. As the people in the past did not see the wrongs with their prejudies, we can not see the wrong past President Eisenhower warned us of.
Germany was the Sparta of the modern world because of Prussian control and the US was the Athens of the modern world. Now the US is also the Sparta of the modern world.
:roll: :shade:
That is reminiscent of Greek philosophy and the monster that consumed everything even itself. That means the powers of creativity and goodness must be the most powerful because if destruction were the greater power, nothing would exist.
I am frustrated by limited time and lack of knowledge and I want to say I think the most ancient thinkers have a quality of thought that is superior to thinking that follows learning. I think learning tends to close the mind. Learning can open the mind too but it can deaden intuitive thinking, right? I know in ancient times people paid attention to patterns and used math to express order.
This discussion with everyone's participation has been so stimulating, I would love to drop my daily commitments and focus on the thinking being done here.
With what is happening in Israel and Ukraine it is pretty hard to have faith in the good. I am struggling.
Thank you Vera. We used the Athenian model of education for well-rounded individual growth. This prepared the young for life and self-government and was along the lines of liberal education. Since 1958 we are preparing the young to be products for industry, and a high-tech society with unknown values. It goes with the change in bureaucratic order that shifts liberty and power away from the individual to the state. That leads to increasing authority over the people and a police state. That is a very different culture than the one we had.
I still don't agree. According to what I've read, American education before that act, followed by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, finally made some semblance of an academically rounded education possible for the majority of students. (Except where nobbled by state law and disabled by religious segregation.)
Quoting Athena
Well, to begin with, I didn't understand your "explanation" (maybe because it doesn't directly address the objections I'd raised here ). Also, I believe I've expressed my position on "democracy" in a number of exchanges with you previously, such as earlier on this thread ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807143
Quoting Athena
Here's an excerpt from an old thread with the disingenuously polemical title Why Must You Be Governed?
Quoting 180 Proof
In other words, "our ideas of right and wrong", Athena, are symptoms of the neoliberal ideology (or there is no alternative (T-I-N-A) to the corporatist status quo). The American Republic was founded on economic autocracy (read Charles A. Beard, 1913) just as classical Athens – your "educated for democracy" ideal – was founded on economic autoocracy (read Orlando Patterson, 1991); and the manifest purpose of "US education before 1958" was the same as it has been ever since 1958 (except maybe in style): generation after generation, for students and their teachers to internalize unquestioning conformity to and support for economic autocracy (e.g. neoliberal corporatism) in order to reinforce being full-time consumers while, at most, being quadrennial citizens. For 'the demos', of course, this is (still) a failing project.
The Israel/Gaza and Russia/Ukraine horrors would challenge any human notion that we, (as in the human race,) are capable of 'making things permanently better for all concerned.'
Will these current horrors escalate into WW III and a full nuclear exchange?
As I have posted before, I think if that truly did happen, then good riddance to us bad rubbish.
The planet will recover from our stupid world war III. What will be sad imo, is that the ability for life on this planet, to demonstrate truly good purpose and meaning, will be set-back, perhaps for another few million years.
But, until the nukes land and detonate, that takes out me and the rest of the Scots, I will keep arguing that there is a better way! and I will keep my hopes high, based on a previous point I posted:
[b]The vast majority of the human cities currently existing on this planet, were not bombed today!
The vast majority of humans currently alive today were not raped, shot or slaughtered today!
Most of the human nations/tribes of the world are not currently at war today![/b]
Quoting Existential Hope
:clap: :up:
So there is still time to put the fire out, or at least keep fighting it, if we all cooperate more on the main problem areas.
Attach any date, in recorded or unrecorded history so far, and this would be true.
This would only have been true of any date since Oct. 16, 1962 CE and is more true every day since.
I agree.
Quoting Vera Mont
I also agree, but this means humans have added to the many existential threats that have always been at a global scale, for all life on planet Earth. The dinos fate is good evidence of that, as are the 99% of all once existent species, that have gone extinct through no action of human beings at all, in the lifetime of this planet. Natural disaster has always been an existential threat to all life on planet Earth. I totally agree with you that we should not add to those threats or exacerbate them (as in the very real threat of climate change) due to our bad stewardship of the Earth or through our totally skewed interrelationships, due to pernicious invention/bad use of such as money and religion.
I also remind you again, that it is only our progress, via science and tech, that may reduce all current and future threats from natural disaster. If we make ourselves extinct via our own stupidity, then as I said, good riddance to bad rubbish. I don't think we are stupid enough to do that, and I think we will stop those who are. You think the stupid/selfish/f***wits amongst us, will prevail and if we survive, it will be in some very much reduced form, that is unable to affect our terrestrial and extraterrestrial environments, to the extent we can now, and to a much greater extent in the future. I think you are wrong about that. I agree that we are affecting our ecology and environment, in far too many very negative ways at the moment, but as I have previously stated, we will keep getting 'stuff' wrong, until we get 'stuff' right, far more often that we do now. It would be more useful imo, if you spoke/typed in ways that encouraged others to be in favour and actively support that pursuit, than insist that we will never be able to become a united planet with a combined terrestrial and extraterrestrial human/orgamecha population, in the hundreds of billions.
Too late! Somebody should have warned us sooner.
Quoting universeness
Been there. Done that. Carry the scars.
Most didn't know enough about it and the nefarious didn't ever care enough about it.
Many many, including the like of Carl Sagan, did speak out but the majority of the population were not informed enough to take serious enough action in response. Most know a lot more now imo and that is spreading, although I agree the progress is too slow at the moment.
Quoting Vera Mont
I am sure you are a dear and tough auld gal, you can handle as many mental scars as the bams might try to cause you. You are struggling as best you can, for the sake of all of us, yes?
Are you not still a secular democratic socialist?
... relinquished our divergent perspectives and interests. "We all" are always already entangled in at least as many or more win-lose / lose-lose than win-win games. "We few" micro-cooperators, perhaps many times over, is more like it – scarcity-exploiting partisans, sects, gangs, networks, tribes, etc. "We all", my friend, just doesn't effectively scale (re: global governance, the UN, international law enforcement (e.g. climate change, WMD proliferation, wealth laundering / tax-defrauding, etc) ... globalization ... communism ... "utopia", etc). AFAIK, wars & black markets are our most prevalent, recurring forms of macro-cooperation. Even the "Tower of Babel" myth is quite insightful about the inherent fractiousness of the human condition (ergo the unfortunate, historical utility of religio, religare). Don't forget, mate: at our best we're primates, not angels.
There are no 'nefarious'. There are world leaders, statesmen, economists, captains of industry and job creators. And there is 'progress'. Luddites, go home!
Quoting universeness
How come you and I knew? I heard it on ordinary popular broadcast media and read it in news magazines - not privileged scientific communiques. In fact, Sagan said it on popular media. Once there was internet, information was readily available. Scientists' warnings were regularly on the evening news.
But there was a catch: in order to avoid the predicted bad outcome, they would have had to give up a convenience or two. It was easier to listen to the deniers.
Especially when denial became official public policy.
Quoting universeness
Hell, no! All of yous are on your own.
Quoting universeness
Nope. Cynical, burnt-out iconoclast.
:smirk:
How sad you became so defeated, but such has happened to many, even to some in the socialist movement that were my 'heroes' in my youth. I am glad there are many who will continue fighting.
At least (I can be assured, I think) that you will never wear a maga cap and go vote for trump (if he is still around) at the next USA election.
Quoting 180 Proof
At our best, I think humans demonstrate far far more empathy, altruism, cooperation, good morality standards and an ability and fierce motivation to be a net positive towards our environment and everything in it, compared to both of them, especially when one of them does not exist.
Addition: Just to be clear, I fully accept that we are primates, but my point was from the position of being the best of them, and then being at OUR best.
I don't even live in that unfortunate, hag-ridden country. Of course, we have our home-grown right-wingnuts, anti-vaxxers, etc., as well as the imported agitators. A corrupt fathead is Premier of my province, with a majority, busily tearing down the social safety net it took three generations to construct. Construction is slow and hard; destruction is fast and easy. That's why we have longish periods - decades, even - of optimistic improvement: they act like civilized apes, only impeding social progress by legitimate means, bide their time until we've produced enough good for them to harvest.
Or, they used to. Now, there is a closing panic: they've gone mad; can't wait another cycle to consume whatever there still is.
Yeah , sorry Vera, I forgot you were living in Canada, which in my 'younger youth', I though was an indigenous tribal word for 'new Scotland,' which also translated to Nova Scotia. :lol:
The Glasgow in Nova Scotia is on my travel 'must go see' list. Have you ever been?
What have you read? This is a sincere question because when people disagree it is usually because their sources of information are different. Also because the south and north of the US were separated from the being, the region we are talking about could be important. I have Paul Monroe, PH.D's 1910 "A TEXT BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION" and James Mulhern's 1956 "A HISTORY OF EDUCATION- A SOCIAL INTERPRETATION" several books by John Dewey who was a leader in education, an 1883 Bancroft "Fifth Reader" and more. There is nothing I would rather do than spend my days with these books and the people in this forum. :heart: Seriously if we all could share these books I would pull away from my present commits and make you all the focus of my life.
Looking at the 1883 reader The focus on speaking skills is obvious. So is the cultural information obvious. There are samples of stories passed down the ages that are the foundation of our culture, and important people of the past and that time in history are mentioned along with passages about the constitution and liberty. Really education for technology was limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic. While just years later our national defense needed typists, mechanics, and engineers and we were scrambling to catch up with Germany which had education for technology of military and industrial needs.
At the Nation Education Association in 1917, this urgent need was the subject of many speeches, and J.A.B. "Sinclair, Surgeon, United States Navy, Portland Recruiting station, Portland, Ore. made the immediate need to change in education clear. "As sudden the act of an unknown youth whose leap exploded the European powder mine was the stroke of the German military machine.....Such a state of events were possible only thru the workings of the most highly organized and scientifically operated military machine the world has ever known and well it was for that machine's opponents that they too were in a measure organized after the same general scientific plan.....
One of the most salient features of the opposing military-naval establishment of the European nations at war today is the specialization of the one-time-citizen-now-soldier along scientific war-industrial-trade lines, and -since past and present events the best human forecast do not justify the human hope for early world peace- it behooves the citizens of our country, now adding its part to this well-nigh universal conflict, to train its young men to think and work in like scientific line to the end that mobilization of these resources may insure our nation against disaster."
I am running out of time- this is what Eisenhower was talking about. The Military Industrial Complex began with the Prussians who ruled Germany following the 30 Years War. The divisions between the military and industry were removed as government turned the whole nation into a Military Industrial Complex. This exists today and has been developed in all modern countries because this is about bureaucratic organization and the economy and the competition for decreasing resources while the demand for those resources is greatly increasing.
Note Germany specialized its citizens and they worshipped efficency. Democracy is not efficient and there is a serious problem for a democracy if the citizens are not generalists. The German people and the citizens of the US were not that different, but their bureaucratic organization and education were different. The US adopted both the German bureaucratic model and the education model and now it is what it defended its democracy against. Reactionary politics, and everywhere a growing brutality as we revert back to being as animals. Our abundance is counteracting this degradation of our humanity but if it ends, our civility will end.
That good is reliant on our abundance and that is very threatened right now. I believe our economy is very fragile right now and if it falls again, the violence will get worse. If the US defaults on its loans the economy will suffer. If we do not defend those we are committed to defending, the status and the economy or the US will take a big hit. The cost of our military and war could destroy us because our goodness is based on our abundance not our reasoning for things like universal health care and government-provided low-income housing, and that abundance may not last.
Not there, no. Never did get to Nova Scotia. We saw the Bay of Fundy from the other side, watched that crazy tide come ripping in one morning. Had to cut our road trip short because my dog was ill - fatally, as it turned out, so I'm glad we brought her home. Saw a fair bit of Quebec and New Brunswick on that trip. Spent a short time in Newfoundland years before. Loved it.
All those sources I cited in the first umpteen pages of this thread, from different time periods and regions.
Quoting Athena
You have mainly talked about the whole nation - as if it were one country, rather than four or six.
Quoting Athena
I believe you. Propaganda of then and propaganda of now are not substantially different: the Great Men, the Great Wars; the Great Achievements. Monuments, flags and marching songs. But the constitution is fatally flawed, and the much-touted liberty is limited to the privileged, even now; it was even more so, in those good old days.
As I've mentioned before, at its beginning, American democracy looked a lot like Athenian democracy: open to 10-20% of the population; caste, class, exclusion and bondage enshrined in law. It had not become substantially different by 1885. Those textbooks may have conned Americans into the "La-and of the free and the hooome of - the - brave" illusion, but this was not the reality for children in the fields and sweatshops, nor their mothers in the slum food deserts, nor their fathers sweating in the mines, even less so, for the chain gangs of men serving ten years for vagrancy.
The children who did have access to a decent school, with books, grew up to create the depression and Hoovervilles. They went on to accept internment camps and seizure of fellow citizens' property for having the wrong ancestors. They did not grow up to vote for universal suffrage, the right to unionize, nor equal rights for Indians... nor anything particularly democratic.
You say they were educated for democracy. So -- why had it still not happened by the mid 20th century?
Quoting Athena
You probably wouldn't have liked losing to Germany, either. If you want to be a wealthy, powerful nation, you have to be ruthless. Very few strategies are available.
Quoting Athena
You can't trace that to 1958. There were a few different decades between Eisenhower and Reagan. And, really, I can't see how US education is messing with Danish heads. The plutocrats have been at the helm and that, up ahead, is the Designated Iceberg.
... but mostly, friend, they willingly live like [url=https://youtu.be/4QA30qkRYy8?si=lq1rVGZvaXeMOKio]
dogs[/url] and sheep. :mask:
:100: I'm convinced @Athena is completely incorrigible on this topic, but I appreciate you also making the case to expose the deeper 'civilizational' rot driving Pax Americana's inexorable decline.
Wow! That certainly is through a mirror darkly.
Or maybe the movie about a girl going mad.
No empire is meant to last forever. A century is short by Roman and British standards, but then, the US republic has done pretty well, considering
The 'them' mirror.
Quoting 180 Proof
The mirror reflects 'us,' as 'them.' You choose to only see them darkly, as being willing to live like dogs or sheep, with not enough examples to the contrary, in your mind or in your experience, that you value more. Btw, can't beat a bit of Pink Floyd!
What do think of this short speech from the film Gettysburg?
Do you think that some of the sentences uttered here were an important part of the American psyche during those times? Do you consider such as pure Hollywood style twaddle?
I'm sure many people did believe all that. Some of the commanders were patriots, idealists, and even competent commanders - some always are, on every side. And most of the troops very probably did believe it - they always do, on every side.
They were largely ignorant of the economic reasons for war, and entirely unaware of its consequences. They could not know what their leaders would eventually make of their sacrifice or their victory. For sure, the average citizen of the North was burdened less by the costs of that war than citizens of the South, who carried that greater burden much longer. Hence the lasting resentment. That, and the Reconstruction Acts - which, incidentally, don't mean reconstructing the shattered social and economic system in the Confederate states, but military occupation and imposed new constitutions.
So there was really never any healing of the so-called Union.
But the armies didn't know any of this. They went where they were led and did what they were ordered to do.
For balance, when the scenario starts with 'At our best....,' It is imbalanced imo, to not mention the many historical and current examples, of people who demonstrate: Quoting universeness when all hell is breaking loose all around them.
Some folks who are currently quite safe and who might even enjoy 'abundance,' will often travel to other lands and put their lives in serious danger, (and often lose their life) to help save the civilians, and even combatants, on both sides of a war. Not just in war zones but also during famine, natural disasters, etc etc. They just wanna help, and many of them don't even need a religion to compel them to do so. Some of the actions you have taken in the past, suggest to me, that you yourself, are capable of, and have demonstrated, such tendencies towards helping others and I am braced by the fact that such folks exist in large numbers, and represent 'us' and 'them' at our best.
To me, each such person is more valuable than most Kings, Popes, Messiahs, or Elon Musks, I have ever heard of, that was, or may have been an actual real person who lives or has lived and did actually perform the events credited to them.
More valuable and infinitely less influential.
About 50% of any modern economy rubs on unpaid labour, one way or another: volunteers, students, neighbours, friends, family, all helping one another out or contributing to the community's welfare. None of these people set the nation's economic policy. No business could operate without all the conscientious employees, who do the best work they can, whether they're properly compensated or not. None of those employees have a say in corporate decisions.
It's the generals and presidents and Ceo's who get commemorative portraits in ugly gilt frames, prominently displayed in marble foyers, or heroic statues in public squares. They run the world. The helping and working people might be given a plaque next to a doorway, or a dusty photograph in a school library. They keep the world running.
Yes, this is and always has been the status quo, but as it has on many occasions before, the status quo can change, no matter how long it has been so.
Quoting Vera Mont
I have described to you a political system that could change this. You keep offering examples of the way things were or are and seem so ossified in your insistence that this status quo is utterly immutable, which to me seems irrational, and even disproved by natural evolution, where change is prevalent.
Quoting Vera Mont
Is a celebrity based reward system immutable? Do we have to keep insisting that this guy or gal did a thing and just keep ignoring all the others involved or the previous work they were/are so utterly dependent on? Will we each always be 'lesser,' than the 'heros'/'gods'/'celebrities,' we admire. I reject that presumption completely. I think we can each do better, and we can each do so, without becoming arrogant prats. We are now very familiar indeed with celebrity / aristocratic / divinity / elitist based leaders and leadership. It's a bad system that we need to reject imo.
Carl Sagan was a fantastic influencer imo, but also imo, his main goal was to raise others to have the same personal value, that I think he (and the Jeff Daniels character, in his wee speech in Gettysburg,) held and expressed. I used to call Carl 'one of my heroes'. I fight that urge now, and try to now describe him as one of my main influencers, but as 'people with value,' Carl and I are equal in status, as we all are equal in such, compared to anyone alive today or in history, including fantasy characters such as god.
As have I and many others before us. It sounds good, and then it is either snuffed in infancy or else corrupted in its early youth. So far. Maybe next time, it'll be different and the pigs really will fly.
Quoting universeness
Given the actual facts on the actual ground, it seems rational to me.
This house is beyond repair, beyond restoration. It needs to be bulldozed before a new and better house can be built on the site.
Note that aggression and predation have persisted all these millions of years; the lion may lie down with the lamb - inside him. The single hope for our future is that human social and economic arrangements no longer defer to nature or evolution.
Quoting universeness
I can't observe what and whether we "have to" or "will always"; only what has been done and what is done.
Quoting universeness
He evidently inspired you. Yet I do not see the world much changed in his wake.
Quoting universeness
Insofar as your impact on the future, probably.
:grin: And your position, to me, is akin to those a few hundred years ago, who thought humans landing on the moon was impossible.
You tire too easily Vera. 'If at first we don't succeed, try try again,' has no upper limit on the number of try's. The system we advocate is not impossible, so it's not like the attempt is to reach perfection. 'Better,' is always within the realms of human aspiration.
Quoting Vera Mont
I accept that is your position.
Quoting Vera Mont
You should watch this imo, 'feel good' doc Vera. Even members of different animal species can bond, and make new relationships, unlike any that have gone before:
Quoting universeness
It's nothing to do with my energy level. When the structural elements are riddled with dry rot, I don't waste my time plastering the walls.
Quoting universeness
Sure. Aspire away!
Quoting universeness
And that's due to evolution, is it?
:up:
I will leave the scientists to fully answer that one?
I don't have any particular names and addresses from a few hundred years ago that might fit.
Perhaps many of those who still believe we have never landed on the moon have ancestors that might fit my description, but I accept that I have no particular prominent names from that time period, who publicly stated, that landing on the moon was impossible. Does that prove none existed?
If I am a bit of a fantasist then You are a bit of a pessimistic doomster after all.
Future generations will prevent such dry rot getting hold in the first place, at least better than your or my generations where able to. But I think we did, and continue to do ok, all things considered.
*sigh*
Some of the best words ever written were written by
Quoting Steven Pressfield
The words of the video could come from Thucydides and we know of Thucydides because he comes from classical literature, the source of our culture that is still with us even though we are no longer literate in the classics.
HOWEVER, all that good depends on having an abundance. If we have to fight for resources we will. In villages that are so poor children must fend for themselves by age 3. You will not find loving families where life is that severe. The Christian God was a God to fear for centuries before our bellies were full and He became a loving God.
Universeness, I think would like this book...
Abundance Book by Peter Diamandis
I speak of democracy. I am not a nationalist and I am troubled when speak as though the world would not know democracy without the US. Despite all the human faults of Athens, it was the beginning of science and democracy, rule by reason. It is the concept of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and our ability to discover logos, universal laws, and figure out how to live with those laws and improve our lives. For the first time in history, most of us are enjoying abundance and we dare to dream big dreams. We are not living with the fear of people we know starving to death in the long winter months. As in my reply to universeness, our abundance increases our potential. The thoughts that occurred in Athens got us here.
Next to full bellies, we need education, a liberal education that draws on the classics.
A liberal arts education will also help you develop a strong sense of social responsibility as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills, such as communication, analytical, and problem-solving abilities, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.Nov 20, 2022
The Benefits of a Liberal Arts Education - Coalition for College
for College
https://www.coalitionforcollegeaccess.org › the-benefits-...
Do you have anything to say about how military technology changed education and how bureaucratic technology increases the power of government to control our lives or what abundance and security has done to how we think?
That is what a liberal education is about and many colleges are proud of their liberal education programs. My problem with this is not everyone goes to college and those who do may not get a liberal education. Education for democracy which is a liberal education, must begin with the first day of school.
Because it is the right thing to do.
Quoting T Clark
I totally agree and that gives us immortality because it is not about each of us as mortal individuals, but all of us creating a future.
Yes, often. But not regions, as a rule.
Quoting Athena
What makes you think that?
Quoting Athena
Yes, you often speak of that, too. But I don't think it sits on an American board of education or the electoral college.
Quoting Athena
Not you and I, maybe, but according to the UN many are. Yes, in America, too.
And it's all about money, not democracy.
Quoting Athena
Nope. America was always aggressive; never in its whole history at peace for more than 15 years. The military technology advanced right along with the industrial might, and education was always aimed at what kind of work-force was required by industry and what kind of mindset was required for war. The landowners and bosses have always controlled people's lives as they also controlled government. That the bureaucracy and education were upgraded to fit into the post-war world order led by the US is a natural byproduct of geopolitical change.
Abundance and security, in the pockets where it existed, while it lasted, did affect how people think: it tends to make them more open-minded, tolerant and liberal. But one good scare - just throw a couple of planes at a financial institution's urban monolith - can undo a whole lot of progress.
I accept that such quotes from Thucydides, demonstrate that the mistakes or deliberate nefarious acts made by many humans then, are still happening now. But many many more people are now far more aware of such behaviours, and there is far more organised resistance and rational arguments, against the stupid positions Thucydides was highlighting. The far more organised and growing (mostly, currently, in the West) atheist movement is bigger, more successful and has more reach, than it has ever had in the past. Those in the disability and LGBTQ+ movements and those who support such, have made gains in the past 50 years that have been quite spectacular imo. These are just a couple of the examples of the progressions made by the current generations of people, who are willing do battle with the shortfalls of the status quo.
Quoting Athena
I totally agree that you can better help others, when you yourself can take the basic means of survival for granted. That's why I fight for food, water, shelter etc as basic human rights, and not something anyone should have to 'work for.' I was merely pointing out that sooooooo many people are willing to, and are in fact compelled to, help make things better for everyone. As long as it is true, that good people will not just stand by and watch horror and terror happen to others, then we do earn the right to continue to exist imo. Many still do nothing, and they do merely watch as evil grows and thrives but, as Gandhi pointed out, we always, eventually, bring such evils down, we destroy them. The nefarious rise again or hide and come out again, and the fight continues. But general progress on behalf of more and more 'have nots' is made. As I said before, most people have more ability to affect the nefarious than they have ever had before. A billionaire can be brought down almost overnight today, as can a government, if the people decide to act en-masse.
I get this unsettling feeling that many people (10 thousand? 100 thousand?) in the USA are actively chomping at the bit to start another US civil war… or some bloody battles anyway.
They are pumped up with automatic weapons, anger, and enough ‘theory’ to be actual loose cannons… and they are proud of this.
Trump not only uses these people for votes and cash, but I seriously wonder if one of Trump’s multiple personalities actually wants to start a civil war.
Especially now that he probably feels persecuted; I fear he wants a bloodbath.
I dislike DeSantis and his stupid bigotry very much, but he is not the nuclear timebomb and stuff of nightmares that Trump is. I hope neither gets the nomination.
The status quo sucks, but some of the ‘alternatives’ are hell on earth.
The Trump anomaly is a symptom, not the disease or the cause. All he, as a deeply disturbed individual, wants is attention - all of it, all the time, by any means - and he's getting it whether he succeeds or fails in his aspirations, whether he steals from a city or a charity, whether he keeps a promise to his allies or throws them under buses, whether he gets legislation passed or vetoes it, whether he supports or opposes the constitution, whether he commits misdemeanors, of felonies or treason, whether he faces prosecution or evades it.
Whether he wants a war - class, civil or foreign - is immaterial. It's going to happen, because that's the inevitable devolution of events from 1963 to the present.
Trump could never have been able to get the first nomination, had the GOP not reached that level of jingoism, corruption and craven conformity. He could not have stirred up the yahoos at his rallies, had they not already been mustered and enraged by a long line of his predecessors. He could not have squeaked through that election, had the voting procedures not already been fatally compromised by state level tampering.
Everything, at least from the Kennedy assassination, through the Civil Rights movement and opposition to the Viet Nam war has been leading up to a Trump or something like him. If he drops dead tomorrow, or is incarcerated (as any other citizen with his record would have been, years ago) or withdraws from politics, it will make no difference to the march of events.
:100: :fire:
For decades now, I suppose, north of the US border must feel like living above a freaking noisy meth lab. :mask:
We have our home-grown malcontents, wingnuts and tearers-down. But the splash-over doesn't help. (At least we got some pretty good new citizens through northward drift - though you got a lot more of our drifters, for good or ill.)
There's a lot of commentary on the idea that much of the insurrectionist and white-supremacy rage is driven by the shrinking demographic of white males as a proportion of the electorate. The nation is becoming visibly more diverse ethnographically, culturally and socially and there are those who see this as a mortal threat to their identity and way of life. That's one of the drivers of the Republican efforts at vote suppression and electoral gerrymandering as a desparate way to hang on to the seats of power. Plus there's that streak of anti-authority violence in that milieu, and of course diehard commitment to the right to carry assault weapons - ironic considering they are the nearest to authoritarian on the political spectrum. The only silver lining is that the MAGA movement seems to have thoroughly alienated the FBI and the Military, all of whom view Trump with contempt.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree that the rot in the Republican establishment allowed this demagogue to take over, but he's more than a symptom. He's now a driver of a great deal of it, having been elected President it allowed the rot to set in at the highest levels, which might never have happened without a central figure who was able to capitalise on the politics of grievance so successfully (if accidentally - there remain many credible accounts that Trump never seriously set out to win the White House but had treated his bid as a publicity stunt until he won. You can see the surprise on his face in that first fateful post-election CNN broadcast, where he kept repeating 'I won' with this kind of child-like wonder. The irony being in 2016 he never thought he would win, and did, and in 2020, he never thought he would loose, and did. One of the many, many things that DJT has been wrong about.)
The rise of progressive liberalism? I think it would take more than a contrived ‘culture war’ to instigate an actual civil war.
The funny thing economically is that Bidenomics has been more successful in reviving the industrial sector than Trump was, so in a practical (rather than cultural) sense a large portion of Trump’s base should be supporting Biden.
I don't know what that means. I can look up the definition of each word, but that doesn't help to decipher the sentence.
Quoting praxis
Would all those guns and death-threats bring it any closer? How about the assassination of judges and senators? Tearing up the constitution? Dismantling the federal government? A better organized attack on the Capitol?
Quoting praxis
The rank-and-file are not interested in economics. Are not informed about economics. They're it it for the slogan. The overweight undereducated white men are terrified of losing their ascendancy; many white people are afraid of becoming submerged in a population of darker hues; many urban people are afraid of replacement by automated modern industry; many rural people are afraid of becoming outmoded, irrelevant. Any far-right figurehead who assures them that they are important, valued, worthy of ruling the world the way they imagine they used to, will be followed. Trump had a particularly strong effect on them because of the frequent noisy rallies, his vulgar familiarity and his howling, spitting anger he expressed toward all the icons he himself had embodied: rich east coast frat boys. All he had to do is promise to bring back industry and mining and American superiority - he didn't need to do anything about it.
I asked my personal assistant to help explain…
Progressive liberalism and conservative liberalism are two different ideological perspectives within the broader spectrum of liberal political thought. While they share some common principles, they also have distinct differences. Here's a comparison and contrast of the two:
Progressive Liberalism:
Conservative Liberalism:
In summary, progressive liberalism tends to favor a more active government role in addressing social and economic issues, while conservative liberalism emphasizes limited government intervention, individual liberties, and free-market principles. These differences in ideology can lead to significant policy variations on issues such as healthcare, taxation, environmental protection, and social justice. It's important to note that within each of these broad categories, there is room for variation, and individuals may hold nuanced positions on different issues.
Quoting Vera Mont
I guess what I’m thinking is that substantial economic pain can lead to civil war but a mere slogan only gets a guy wearing a pair of horns to force his way into the chambers of congress for a few hours.
Quoting Vera Mont
I read DeSantis’s book and in it he seems to paint a picture where pretty much everyone left of center is the elite, if only in attitude. Nonsensical populism that I doubt anyone actually buys.
Quoting Vera Mont
No doubt, they'd rather burn down the American Republic than share it with the descendants of those whom their ancestors had once murderously stole it from and savagely enslaved in order to build it. A reckoning – it's only a matter of time. I vividly recall driving past a billboard on a rural Tennessee stretch of US Interstate in the summer of 2016 that read: "Make America White Again". Chilling, not surprising. And the trend lines since, according to (e.g.) the FBI's hate crimes / domestic terrorism statistics and exploding gun-ammunition sales, have not been encouraging ...
(found it)
In his defense Tyler wrote (in part):
Wow, what a nutjob.
God don’t take kindly to the gays neither…
Yes, that's what I used to think liberalism was. It did rise for a little while, c. 1960-1980. But what's that got to do with the conservatives' downhill slide from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump?
Quoting praxis
Yes, that's what it means - in principle, anyway. But conservative liberals is an oxymoron.
Quoting praxis
Like the Bushes?
Quoting praxis
There was no substantial economic pain before the last civil war, just fear. Lots of economic pain afterward, though - the Confederacy dug itself into a huge financial hole.
And there was more going on that day than the one guy wearing horns in that incident.
The death threats against judges and senators don't seem to have thinned out, either.
Quoting praxis
If nobody buys it, how does it qualify as populism? Plus, he got a lot of pretty grotesque legislation passed.
We started with me asking about "the inevitable devolution of events from 1963 to the present". I'm still curious about that.
Quoting Vera Mont
From Wikipedia:
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.
Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law.
Therefore, no relation to the GOP since Nixon.
Quoting praxis
Quoting praxis
That's what confused me. Now I see. The response of the conservatives to Johnson's reforms prompted the intentional divisiveness of the Nixon campaign, and then Carter's progressivism prompted the Reagan/Bush backlash, and Clinton caused Bush II and the progressive shock of Obama opened the sluice to the Trump disaster....
Yes, I see that. But I really can't envision what calamity can possibly trump that, short of civil war... unless, of course, the global edifice of ego-cards blows away before it can get started.
• Progressive/Reform liberalism (center-left/right)
• Laissez-faire liberalism (conservatives)
• Illiberalism (reactionaries)
Since "1990" ...
[s]• Progressive liberalism (center-left)[/s]
Since "2010" ...
[s]• Laissez-faire liberalism (conservatives)[/s]
Ergo: today (Weimar-like), center-right knife fighters are pinned-down in a reactionary gunfight.
EU funded report:
[i]PARIS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Governments should open a new front in the international clampdown on tax evasion with a global minimum tax on billionaires, which could raise $250 billion annually, the EU Tax Observatory said on Monday.
If levied, the sum would be equivalent to only 2% of the nearly $13 trillion in wealth owned by the 2,700 billionaires globally, the research group hosted at the Paris School of Economics said.
Currently billionaires' effective personal tax is often far less than what other taxpayers of more modest means pay because they can park wealth in shell companies sheltering them from income tax, the group said in its 2024 Global Tax Evasion Report.[/i]
MAGA morons may publicly bemoan the separation of church and state but that's because they want the influential power of an ultimate authority in their pocket. See the Rick Tyler quote a few posts above. They may also seem to want Trump to be a king rather than a representative. But their libertarian-like obsession with "FREEDOM" glaringly shows their liberalism. Trump couldn't make them want to take the Fauci ouchi, for instance, even though he took credit for its development. And when Pope Francis preached for good stewardship of the world and the climate they turned their backs on him.
A foreign Catholic in a dress? I should think so! Anyway, there's only one Religion and that's not it.
Quoting praxis
Well then, that's another word we can throw away. Pretty soon, we'll have a vocabulary the size of Trump's genius IQ.
Quoting T Clark
Much better-informed people than myself have debated why Athens was an intellectual leader. For sure part of that was their notion of gods, but Egypt and other civilizations also had many gods. Athens's break from the rest seems to come with the notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. That definitely tipped Athens toward science and away from supernatural beings.
I suspect Pythagoras did not discover the theorem he is credited with because it seems more logical to me that that discovery came from China and its use of metal bowls. This also points to another reason for Athens leaping ahead of the rest intellectually, its contact with people from around the world, especially after the Persian war and building the new temple for Athena and a university to attract people from around the world. The Persian war did for Athens what the world wars did for the US regarding economic and technological growth. Athens's navy turning into merchant ships put the growth of Athens on steroids and the intensional use of Athena's temple and a university was genius. However, problems came with these changes as well.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were focused on what made a human good, not the technologies, especially not the technology of making a good speech (rhetoric) which should bring to mind Jefferson and his concern for education for good moral judgment being essential to democracy. Liberal education being literate in the ancient philosophers who gave us the reasoning for democracy. Democracy does not begin with the story of Adam and Eve and our need to be saved from a curse we carry because of what Adam and Eve ate. No, Socrates demonstrated how the right questioning can result in a completely uneducated boy to correctly answering mathematical questions proving humans are capable of reasoning, of discovering logos. No one is born to be a king or a slave as Christians believed. Jews and the Greeks fought a war because Greeks did merit hiring and did not respect the Jewish system of our jobs depending on a person's inherited position in life. I am saying the belief system for democracy is not the same as the one Christianity gives us. Specifically the importance of universal, secular education for good moral judgment.
Bottom line The learned belief system for democracy with liberty is- democracy is rule by reason and all citizens need education for good reasoning.
:grin: Socrates would love your argument. That is the problem with learning the technology of rhetoric instead of being prepared for good moral judgment. That rhetoric can get people into wars they should avoid. Our sense of self-importance has gone crazy. We are as paranoid as Germany, suffering an extreme need to be superior and in control. That comes with education for technology. This is a culture change that came with the change in education.
:roll:
Please, I am stretched so thin right now I want to pick up the argument in favor of minding our own business and not trying to save the rest of the world. Note, I am skipping the pool this morning so I can join you in the effort to save the world. The fellow I take shopping on Saturday is in the hospital again and that leaves me to care for his dog. I had to ignore you all for another day or give up swimming for the day. My point is, that our lives can get very busy and just getting ourselves through the day can seem like a huge feat, so how do things work for us to do more?
At the mandatory meeting yesterday we were given CDs and DVDs regarding our physical and mental health. It is a wonderful gift but who paid for it? I asked the question but did not get a good answer. My point is, how do we organize to meet the many, many needs of people and how does this get paid for? Right now it all is potluck!
Someone where you live may be providing what you need and maybe not. We are also at that time of year when insurance companies are vying to be our medical insurer. I hate this process because if we do not get well informed or have an unexpected medical problem, we could end up with insurance that does not meet our needs. From my position in life, it is horrifying to be aware of the huge difference in what homeless people get, compared to what housed people get. Homeless people do not qualify for so much because services depend on having a home. A crippled person with a home can get a lot of assistance that makes his/her life comfortable, but not an old crippled person without a home. You might qualify for a home nurse when you are released from the hospital, but if you don't have a home, you don't get a home nurse. If you are insulin-dependent and don't have a home, you can not refrigerate the insulin. Like we can't even figure out how to shelter vulnerable people, who should get housing, let alone provide for young healthy people who may become like feral cats if left on the streets too long.
Before I mentioned my concern of people being so dependent they are not motivated to be contributing members of society. I am afraid just providing for everyone will make the problems much worse. Unless a person is mentally or physically disabled, this person needs a way of feeling like a useful and valued member of society, and all of us need things in our lives that schedule our lives even the handicapped can do much better, be happier people, with a job to do. I am speaking from my experience with foster homes and the social/work-related opportunities for them. I love to see their pride when they can report what they did during the day. It makes them one of us.
Oh my love, how do we organize that perfect world? Should we rely on thousands of individual efforts as we do in the US or should government be the organizing force? And if government, how do we avoid this being authoritarian and too controlling and too impersonal? Thanks to HIPAA I don't know where the homeless man I help is. I assume he was moved back to the long-term care facility after being in the hospital again. I need to know by Friday so I can visit him. Everyone I deal with sympathizes with my frustration of him being moved and no one being able to tell me where he was taken, and all these people are intensely afraid of what will happen if they dare violate HIPAA policy. Do you hear me? Our government can create a nightmare with an insane need to control.
Hear is a very simple explanation of why we should not take good reasoning for granted.
It is not easy being human and the classics help us better understand how to be a good human being. A few prisons have used education in the classics to actually correct the prisoner's social problems. Socrates and Cicero and Jefferson and others saw character development as the most important need for education. Here as an explanation being human and is helpful in being a better human.
Education for democracy teaches us the rules for logical thinking and rules for good communication skills. There are many explanations for logical thinking. I like this one best because in it we can see how the Greeks came to scientific thinking.
https://medium.com/illumination/5-logical-rules-that-will-improve-your-reasoning-skills-instantly-b60b7bc64246
Hey, it could be worse, you could be a civilian trying to survive in Gaza or help others survive in Gaza. You and I will not organize that perfect world. Perfection can only ever be an asymptotic approach anyway, thank goodness, else a god might become a real emergent prospect. :scream:
You do all you can do Athena, which is probably much more than most would choose to.
Helping out locally, via volunteer work, is I think one of the best uses of a person's time you can ever take part in. The wee town I live in, has so many wee community help groups, and they are all fantastic.
Mostly retired folks who do stuff like, offer to run someone back and forward to hospital appointments, etc for free, phone an elderly person or a lonely person for a chat, help pick up trash on the beach, help clean up a local sitting area or a bit of forest, organise regular free or very inexpensive local events and social gatherings, so that people can find some companionship, and someone who will listen to their problems and see if they can help. Retired skilled tradesmen who will do some wee jobs for free, if you can't afford to pay, free IT support, from those with the skills to offer it, such as me.
'Men and women in sheds,' is a wee group that allows some folks to get together, and use their skills to produce some stuff, that is then sold in local charity shops or is gifted to folks who could use what they make, from a shovel to a bunch of clothes pegs. Folks who give their time freely to work in local food banks or help out in local support groups, depending on the skills they have. There are locals who grow a lot of excess fruit and vegetables in their gardens and allotments, they donate a lot of this to the local food banks and even the stuff that falls into their gardens and starts to rot, is collected by a local farmer and this helps keep his animal feed costs down.
I find that individuals who do take part in these regular activities are a lot more content than those who sit at home watching shit reality tv shows. Just keep doing what you can and where you can, but also remember to enjoy your wee swim now and again.
Thanks. :up:
I’d put a similar thought in this way: a culture of people can either be a ‘dominator culture’ or not.
These days the word ‘dominant’ is seen as superior, but being a ‘D-Cult’ its strength is superficial and stolen… and extremely toxic.
It’s like a person growing rich by embezzlement; it may go on for years, but it is ultimately unsustainable.
We are living in a dominator culture (as you probably agree).
As a culture bent on turning the Earth into wealth, and absorbing (stealing) everything and everyone else on the planet, we have a certain logic and rationale that is difficult to argue with.
It is difficult to argue with because it is the logic of absolute power, the persuasion of guns behind all the complex and scholarly reasoning.
And to defy the Empire that rules the world, an empire that is now beyond any one particular nation, is a paradox.
It is a paradox because it is suicidal to oppose complete power, yet it is genocidal to go along with it.
This is why the people around us (and perhaps ourselves) are struggling to keep from slipping into insanity.
Oh yeah, I agree with you! If I were a millionaire I would rent rooms in a hotel with a conference room and pay everyone's way to our conference. Seriously, :broken: my knowledge comes from old books, and the only way we will the essential agreements to take action is to share those books. Not that long ago what the children read was considered as important as their ability to read. We did not fill school libraries with trash books because that is what the children will read. Today what is in school libraries is as bad as the junk food US schools feed their children because that is what they will eat.
If you read the old grade textbooks I have, you would see they are about teaching children how to behave and how to think. Again and again, the textbooks are about cooperating and sharing, and good manners. Not the aggressive and socially inappropriate books that are in children's libraries today. The word "civilize" means to make like us and our liberty depends on education that transmits a culture, that is education advances a civilization and how we do that was radically changed in 1958 because those put in control of education were those who are about military defense and industrial needs. Education was controlled by the people in town, not the federal government.
:broken: Yes, what you said "a culture bent on turning the Earth into wealth, and absorbing (stealing) everything and everyone else on the planet, we have a certain logic and rationale that is difficult to argue with." is absolutely true and do you realize how this is tied up with banking, and cities getting loans or not? This is not what the US stood for. :cry: I think we can turn things around. Our whole economy may completely collapse before everyone is ready to turn things around, however, if that point in time comes, if no one is prepared for democracy we will not recover. That you and the others here care gives me great hope we can turn things around because we are not the only ones working on the problems. We can unite and we can join with others and we can spread the word. Remember there was a time when no one heard of Jesus, and then just about everyone in the world knows the Bible story. Spreading the word and turning things around is possible. It is just a different story that needs to be told.
Thanks for your wonderful post!
:flower: :smile: :up:
I watched a show about Native Americans and have been attempting to see the world from the point of view of people who were here long before Europeans and the technology that came with them and continues to drive our modern way of life. I want to feel connected with Mother Earth and live with the purpose of caring for nature.
I am not sure if all matriarchies are better suited for democracy than patriarchies. I have read of many matriarchies and sports events they created to manage aggression so that it did not become harmful to the community. I think music and dancing maybe important to having social harmony. My my grandmother's day it was common to start a class with a song. Such as....
Good morning to you
good morning to you
We are all in our places
with smiles on our faces
and this is the way to
start and good day.
Are there any opinions about the psychological factor in music, song, dance, sports, and possibly art? All this would be part of a liberal education.
:rofl: I know retired who are shocked by how busy they are!
May I say, when women were expected to be full-time homemakers that came with taking care of everyone in the community. Of course not all women could get involved with volunteer work, especially if they were working on a farm where the whole family works, but she was to help all family members in need of help and by law could be fined if she did not. I have a 1941 Family Law book. Back in the day, there were charities but not government assistance and laws actually spelled out how family is responsible for family. It find it hard to believe how we have gotten so far from the meaning of family that every civilization had. This "I" come first and my happiness is more important than the family, so a horror to me and I am not sure civilization can continue like this.
The Old American Act entitles older people to decent housing, transportation, free education, and more but what goes with that is the idea that this enables them to continue to be valuable contributing members of society. It was never meant to support the notion, "me first". It was to support a democracy where we work together for the good of all.
Do others have notions about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy? In a kingdom, everyone expects to rely on the king, but in a democracy, every citizen has a part to play. This gives us a kind of immortality because our lives are bigger than just ourselves, and we carry the purpose of giving our best to the future and our nation. Everyone has a part to play.
Well, I did try to highlight examples of fantastic citizenship and community spirit, that I know for a fact exists in the small Scottish town I live in. Surely that and the fact that such is alive and kicking in 2023, should offer you some contentment that we have not all surrendered to tock yet.
All this was part of my 1957-1965 routine public school education in Toronto. Plus domestic skills, health and hygiene, math, grammar, literature, history, geography and science, access to the library and extracurricular activities. A lot of the arts and after-school programs were cut dues to financial constraints. A friend who came from the US and later went back told me that her daughter who wanted to study geography at post-secondary level could not find a school in Chicago that offered it.
That is the important part of the message of the Natives and tribal peoples.
Earth plus us is a marriage, a relationship, a friendship.
The current relationship to the Earth too often is ‘take, take, take!’… which ends up being very close to criminal activity like slavery, theft, and rape.
Quoting Athena
Yes… part of life! Such mythical and creative things are celebrated in our culture when it’s a billion dollar entertainment enterprise. Pushing product endlessly… beer, soda, betting…
But what about the rest of us? We get to be ‘fans’ (boooo!) :confused:
Years ago when women's liberation was changing everything and my marriage was grinding to an end I sought counseling. I had a sense that the problem was a spiritual one and counseling was not addressing this. Christianity was no help to me because of its tie with Satan and demons and the idea that Satan could possess a person definitely was not helpful!
I was born in Seattle, Washington and my WWII vet father walked with me in the forest. This is the kind of spirituality I desire but back in the day, it was next to impossible to get any information about it. And I want to thank you all for participating in this thread and all the thinking your replies stir in me. At the moment I am questioning my reliance on Athens that continues to exclude the Native American spirituality which I still hunger for. A PBS show about Chaco Canyon has me thinking heavily about these people's spiritual point of view. Animism is a belief about the entire universe being alive and some of the science I have come across is saying the same thing.
Are there things from Native American culture that should be included in our education? What kind of person do we want our young to become?
Hold on to that memory because that is what I am talking about! I studied home economics and I did not question that I should find a husband, get married, and have children. I wanted to be a teacher like my grandmother but my father felt strongly about the woman staying home to care for the family and that I should continue with home economics education.
It was a shock to me that women's lib would destroy that value system and turn us into "just housewives" as though that is almost the lowest thing a woman can be. Just one step above a prostitute. Then I learned of matriarchy and some Native American tribes where women have value and are highly respected. I am asking people to look at what the 1958 National Defense Education Act did to education and our culture. How did the development of well-rounded individual growth become too expensive and focus us on education for military and industrial needs?
Are people who will never go to college being cheated out of the education they need, turning them into throw-away human beings, as we focus on those going to college and education for technology, not for humans? Do you realize, when we die there will be no one who remembers life as we experienced it? Such as living with a feeling of safety and not fearing someone will flip out and start gunning down everyone in sight, or children being gone all day and not fearing they will be abducted, or thinking we need strong men to run our nations because everything is falling apart.
The universe is alive. Yes… that sums it up very succinctly!
We can’t wait until we prove it 100% to have this belief-philosophy-attitude.
In some ways, things are what we make of them…
If a large number of people act as though the Earth is dead matter… that’s what shows up.
And thankfully it can work (and did work for thousands of years) in a positive living way.
Daniel Quinn imagined a wise gorilla patiently teaching a human in what ways we are right,
and in what ways we’ve gone off the rails.
[hide]
”What happens to people who live in the hands of the gods?” (said Ishmael the gorilla)
“What do you mean?” (said the human)
“I mean, what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that does not happen to people who build their lives on the knowledge of good and evil?”
“Well, let’s see,” I said. “I don’t suppose this is what you’re getting at, but this is what comes to mind. People who live in the hands of the gods don’t make themselves rulers of the world and force everyone to live the way they live, and people who know good and evil do.”
“You’ve turned the question round back to front,” said Ishmael. “I asked what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods that doesn’t happen to those who know good and evil, and you told me just the opposite: what doesn’t happen to people who live in the hands of the gods that does happen to those who know good and evil.”
“You mean you’re looking for something positive that happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
“That’s right.”
“Well, they do tend to let the people around them live the way they want to live.”
“You’re telling me something they do, not something that happens to them. I’m trying to focus your attention on the effects of this life-style.”
“I’m sorry. I’m afraid I just don’t know what you’re getting at.”
“You do, but you’re not used to thinking about it in these terms.”
“Okay.”
“You remember the question we started out to answer when you arrived this afternoon: How did man become man? We’re still after the answer to that question.”
I groaned, fully and frankly.
“Why do you groan?” Ishmael asked.
“Because questions of that generality intimidate me. How did man become man? I don’t know. He just did it. He did it the way birds became birds and the way that horses became horses.”
“Exactly so.”
“Don’t do that to me,” I told him.
“Evidently you don’t understand what you just said.”
“Probably not.”
“I’ll try to clarify it for you. Before you were Homo, you were what?”
“Australopithecus.”
“Good. And how did Australopithecus become Homo?”
“By waiting.”
“Please. You’re here to think.”
“Sorry.”
“Did Australopithecus become Homo by saying, ‘We know good and evil as well as the gods, so there’s no need for us to live in their hands the way rabbits and lizards do. From now on we will decide who lives and who dies on this planet, not the gods.’”
“No.”
“Could they have become man by saying that?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because they would have ceased to be subject to the conditions under which evolution takes place.”
“Exactly. Now you can answer the question: What happens to people—to creatures in general—who live in the hands of the gods?”
“Ah. Yes, I see. They evolve.”
“And now you can answer the question I posed this morning: How did man become man?”
“Man became man by living in the hands of the gods.”
“By living the way the Bushmen of Africa live.”
“That’s right.”
“By living the way the Kreen-Akrore of Brazil live.”
“Right again.”
“Not the way Chicagoans live?”
“No.”
“Or Londoners?”
“No.”
“So now you know what happens to people who live in the hands of the gods.”
“Yes. They evolve.”
“Why do they evolve?”
“Because they’re in a position to evolve. Because that’s where evolution takes place. Pre-man evolved into early man because he was out there competing with all the rest. Pre-man evolved into early man because he didn’t take himself out of the competition, because he was still in the place where natural selection is going on.”
“You mean he was still a part of the general community of life.”
“That’s right.”
“And that’s why it all happened—why Australopithecus became Homo habilis and why Homo habilis became Homo erectus and why Homo erectus became Homo sapiens and why Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens sapiens.”
“Yes.”
“And then what happened?”
“And then the Takers said, ‘We’ve had enough of living in the hands of the gods. No more natural selection for us, thanks very much.’”
“And that was that.”
“And that was that.”
“You remember I said that to enact a story is to live so as to make it come true.”
“Yes.”
“According to the Taker story, creation came to an end with man.”
“Yes. So?”
“How would you live so as to make that come true? How would you live so as to make creation come to an end with man?”
“Oof. I see what you mean. You would live the way the Takers live. We’re definitely living in a way that’s going to put an end to creation. If we go on, there will be no successor to man, no successor to chimpanzees, no successor to orangutans, no successor to gorillas—no successor to anything alive now. The whole thing is going to come to an end with us. In order to make their story come true, the Takers have to put an end to creation itself—and they’re doing a damned good job of it.”
“4
“When we began and I was trying to help you find the premise of the Taker story, I told you that the Leaver story has an entirely different premise.”
“Yes.”
“Perhaps you’re ready to articulate that premise now.”
“I don’t know. At the moment I can’t even think of the Taker premise.”
“It’ll come back to you. Every story is a working out of a premise.”
“Yes, okay. The premise of the Taker story is the world belongs to man” I thought for a couple of minutes, then I laughed. “It’s almost too neat. The premise of the Leaver story is man belongs to the world.”
“Meaning what?”
“Meaning—” I barked a laugh. “It’s really too much.”
“Go on.”
“It means that, right from the beginning, everything that ever lived belonged to the world—and that’s how things came to be this way. Those single-celled creatures that swam in the ancient oceans belonged to the world, and because they did, everything that followed came into being. Those club-finned fish offshore of the continents belonged to world, and because they did, the amphibians eventually came into being. And because the amphibians belonged to the world, the reptiles eventually came into being. And because the reptiles belonged to the world, the mammals eventually came into being. And because the mammals belonged to the world, the primates eventually came into being. And because the primates belonged to the world, Australopithecus eventually came into being. And because Australopithecus belonged to the world, man eventually came into being. And for three million years man belonged to the world—and because he belonged to the world, he grew and developed and became brighter and more dexterous until one day he was so bright and dexterous that we had to call him Homo sapiens sapiens, which means that he was us.”
“And that’s the way the Leavers lived for three million years—as if they belonged to the world.”
“That’s right. And that’s how we came into being.”
Excerpt From
Ishmael
Daniel Quinn
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ishmael/id420055326?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright.
[/hide]
A fusion of tribal thinking with Greek and Stoic philosophy could be amazing.
I think the Tao Te Ching is in the neighborhood of that in some ways, and is a deep well of wisdom. :sparkle: :flower:
So should every boy along with every girl. I resented the hell out of not being allowed to take shop. Men need to budget, clothe and nourish themselves, just as women need to do minor home repairs. Whether they're married or not - besides, who says they'll marry each other? impractical to have two partners who can make pineapple upside-down cake but neither can put up a level shelf.
Quoting Athena
Women's lib didn't do that - patriarchy did. Women who had no independent income were at the mercy of their husbands in more ways than just financially - more so if they had children.
Quoting Athena
It brought its own young in line with the new world order your country had a major role in creating in the wake of WWII. Round individuals had been pretty rare before the war. Now, more scientific and industrial skills were needed, and a couple of other countries were already more advanced in those areas. The US had two choices: catch up and pull ahead or fall behind and lose its position as a world power.
That is a hopeful statement. I say that because I don't have a sense of it being true where I live. In a democracy, we all have responsibilities for our families, community, and then nation. We did handle everything without government when in 1830 Tocqueville wrote of democracy in America. That is no longer true. Even if we wanted to do something government policy restricts what we can do. I have heard office managers talk to a dentist or doctor as though these people work on an assembly line. Absolutely no respect for them as well-educated human beings with the liberty to do as they see fit. Teachers are so controlled by the government and the need to do paperwork it is amazing they continue to teach. We are coming on Christmas and people want to exchange gifts but if I exchanged gifts with a client, my supervisor would fear the whole program would be shut down in our area and she would get rid of me in a heartbeat. How we experience life today is not how we experienced life before 1958.
I think in rural areas people might have a greater sense of freedom, but they feel threatened and in the US we all seem to see government as our worst enemy. It does seem to be trying too hard to control everything. Our politics are now very reactionary and we are dangerously divided. I think this problem is connected to mass murders and failed marriages. On the good side, we are seeing problems and this leads to trying to resolve them.
Good, glad to hear that! :grin: It’s a liberating feeling.
We’ve all been lied to, and have even repeated the lies that we ingested.
Now’s an excellent to to stop, beginning with what we tell ourselves in the quiet of our minds.
Quoting Athena
:up: :100: :sparkle:
]\
As soon as I lied down I thought of Sumer and the story of a wild man living in the wilderness being tamed by a woman in the city. The point being we are not naturally good and caring beings who live well in communities. We learn how to be civilized. Children who are not nurtured well early in life may lose the ability to love.
Our Justice and correction systems are on the verge of dramatic change as we move away from thinking of people as being good or evil, to understanding why some of us succeed and some of us fail miserably.
Without this information about our humanness, Ishmael's explanation is like the story of Eden. We would all live in paradise if we didn't do evil. Totally innocent people destroy their environment such as the people living on Easter Island who deforested their island to the point they could no longer make fishing boats, so they ate all the land animals and finally became cannibals. Today we can estimate how many people live in a valley given in the resources of the valley but instead of learning to live within our limits, we rely on technology to meet all our needs. So like Israel when the population is greater than the available space humans start pushing "those people" out. This is more the mentality of an animal than a well-educated human being who chooses not to have 6 children.
You mentioned "Tao Te Ching" so I pulled out my copy of "Great Thinkers of the Eastern World" and Eastern philosophers have made stronger arguments for intentionally civilizing each other. This Chinese Buddhist philosophy goes with quantum physics and the possibility of multiple dimensions.
That is different from thinking in terms of God's manifestation and good and evil like Zoroastrianism or the God of Abraham religions. Once the concepts of good and evil blend with our thoughts is it possible for us to think without good and evil judgments? How does it feel to think of the 10 mysteries?
Oh yes! I see this so much as I deal with terrible family relationships spinning off of the individual stories each child and grandchild has created to explain his or her life. My sister and I have very different life stories even though we grew up together. Not until her later years has she been open to my love and this seems to be fairly common. My oldest granddaughter is carrying a story about her life that makes loving relationships seem impossible. Daughters are frequently estranged. This seems a process of the daughters forming their independent identity and this personal stuff makes public education for good relationships even more important. Joseph Campbell said we need a shared mythology and our lack of a shared mythology leads to us creating our own mythology creating our family and associates as the monsters we must defend ourselves against.
How about you? I find Eastern thinking liberating. As I near death I am comforted by the notion that I am one with the universe, but also distressed about being one with the universe and no "I". If "I" do not exist does anything matter? But is it not that need for "I" that separates us from the oneness? I have an awful lot of thinking to do.
:rofl: When my X left so did the tools. Do you know how hard it is to make repairs with kitchen equipment?
I also resented the division of labor that was very divided by the Girl's Club and Boy's Club of my childhood in Hollywood, California. The clubs were a block apart and gender separated. But at the same time, I totally bought into the Dick and Jane family values. I believed I had to have children to fulfill myself as a woman and during the Hippie period, I loved associating with the Mother Goddess and being all things to my family, making everything from food to clothing with raw resources. I guess all that makes me a romantic.
Are you sure it was not women's liberation that destroyed the value of being a woman? I have been most viciously attacked by women when I speak in favor of traditional values. Rarely have men prevented me from doing something I wanted to do, but you make me think about this and now I remember occasionally men did draw the line but they have not attacked me as women have when I argue in favor of traditional values. Mostly I remember my college education and my shock at realizing my domestic language was not adequate for college-level work and a professional life. You have noticed this thread is in the lounge because it does not have the form that is the male standard. I was never able to give up the notion that we are meant to interact personally.
However, :nerd: excitement! I know my divorced, school teacher grandmother preferred the Alice and Jerry books to Dick and Jane books. That is hugely important because in the Alice and Jerry books a woman could be single and independent and those books were about learning phonics. While Dick and Jane books were for the sight-and-say method of teaching reading and the federal government's effort to stop the rising divorce rate following WWII. These differences have huge cultural consequences. About 20 years ago, a teacher was thrilled to show me the new computer and a story of the bully on the block being a female. The bully being a female is not something I consider socially desirable.
I am amazed you are aware of why the 1958 National Defense Education is important to our education and national changes! I remember the day it was enacted because the teachers were in a state of shock. I knew something big happened but had no idea what unless they knew we were about to enter a nuclear war with Russia. Fortunately, a male teacher told the class we were now going to be educated for a technological society with unknown values! Unknown values?! How can we protect our civilization and democracy if our values are unknown?
What are we protecting if the only value we share is the value of money?
Yup. The second-class, if not actually chattel, idea has been kicking around for quite a while. Read it in the Bible. There was no great value placed on women in American society, either, except when there was a scarcity out west and brides were mail-ordered, and during the wars, when cheap labour was needed in the most dangerous factories.
Motherhood was sanctified, of course : you got a bouquet and a card once a year, but no pay-raise.
It was the virgin-to-madonna idealization of women, and the corresponding tomboy-to-tramp denigration that the liberation movement most intensely wanted to abolish. We were not successful in every endeavour, but at least some progress was made. In the workplace, considerable progress. In law and politics, two steps forward to one step back. In marital relations and parenting, immeasurable - because in some segments of society, the change is producing much better relationships and healthier children, while in others, very little has changed.
Quoting Athena
They used to draw big fat black marker lines in big fat black lawbooks and ledgers.
Quoting Athena
Why would they? Traditional values were all in men's favour. Southern legislators and incels want it all back the way it used to be. Some of the women who give you an argument over them may have suffered grievous injustice or bodily harm under traditional values. I'm not defending anyone in particular: I know some people can be overzealous in any belief, and I don't know what constitutes a vicious attack in this context.
Quoting Athena
Dind't have to learn. I bought my own as soon as I had a place of my own. (My brother didn't have to: he just picked up items our father carelessly dropped in the sand and forgot about. He was the one frequently pressed into service to that unkind man and felt he deserved some compensation.) When I got married, the merged household had at least two of every basic tool, plus specialty ones that one or other of us had acquired for specific projects, plus the modest assortment my mother brought. And then we made very enjoyable sorties to hardware stores and building centers together.
Quoting Athena
Why would he, or you, or anyone need to change your values? As far as I recall, we had the very same values in home ec, chemistry and art class. We might have had a little less jingoism in history lessons than the older people had received, but that's about it. My school was still named after the odious Winston Churchill; we still stood up for the anthem every morning and cheating on a test was still punishable by suspension, while shoving in the halls or interrupting speakers on the stage were detention offenses.
Quoting Athena
Your country got started by a protest against taxation and nearly tore itself apart over conflicting economic systems. Seems that's been a constant all along.
Quoting Athena
:smile: :up: Thanks! That’s enough to ponder if one were going on a vacation to a desert island!
Like the Hindu saying “you are that” (everything that is).
Can’t imagine getting much more liberating than that.
I will now go to a pizza shop, and ask them to ‘make me one with everything’.
If they’re clever, they’re say ‘you already are!’ :starstruck:
I think I see what you are saying here, but I might make a small but important distinction between ‘civilization’ and ‘socialization’.
One can see amazing socialization in groups of primates, even in mammals such as prairie dogs.
They have no civilization of course.
We have civilization, but our overall interconnection and true socialization is in tatters, as you have suggested.
We are out of touch with each other, literally and metaphorically.
I envy spider monkeys and bonobos.
I have that teeshirt!
Haha! I have one that says ‘I reached enlightenment and all I got was this stupid T-shirt’. :blush:
My biggest impression of what you said is that people interested in philosophy tend to be more civil than those who have no interest in philosophy. I think in general we are respectful of different life experiences and different points of view. I agree with us making progress when it comes to employment, but I also see serious problems coming with this progress.
Who takes care of the children? Maybe in another 100 years, men will be instinctively nurturing but right now the idea of leaving a very young child in the care of a man for more than a couple of hours, unnerves me. I think men can do better than women when it comes to working with older children. A girl who has a father who is like a mentor to her is most fortunate! But I just don't think the average man does as well with babies and toddlers as the average woman and I think this difference is physical and especially hormonal. For me, this thinking goes with believing in evolution and what hormones have to do with our behavior.
Who takes care of the children is very much an economic question. I don't think it makes sense to expect single parents to both care for children and support them. In the past, a single working parent often had a mother or sister willing to care for the children. That is not as likely to be true today. In the US we have been totally reliant on women staying home to care for the family and now she has to work there is no one to care for children unless she can pay someone to care for her children and in some places even if she can afford childcare, there is none. This is a crisis situation for the single parent. His/her very best is not good enough unless s/he earns over $100,000 a year. That is not a minimum-wage job and we are very resistant to the government providing childcare or any form of assistance. We want to hold parents responsible for their children but we also have agreed marriage is no longer required and divorces are better than enduring the unhappiness of a bad marriage.
I would find all that less harmful if Industry used the democratic model instead of the autocratic model. We could include childcare in the place of employment or subsidized housing. We are having a hard time wrapping our heads around communal living and shared responsibility.
It has not been that long since we subdued the wilderness. When I first moved to Oregon there were fishing, farming, and timber jobs, and not many machines to do the heavy work. It was a different world not that long ago. And with that is the woman being every industry a family needs, she made the soap, all the clothes, and everything else the family needed. She planted the garden and preserved the produce and cut the wood to be put in the stove she used to cook the food. Now here are some problems! Her parents married her off when she was 14 and this had nothing to do with love. It was survival and it was common for men to get what they wanted from a woman by being abusive. Your mention of the Bible is evidence of what is wrong with patriarchy. And there is little an abused woman with children could do to have a better life. Our whole economic structure was keeping her ignorant and dependent on the income only a man could earn.
I am not sure we fully appreciate how much things have changed and I am out of time for today.
That's because of your mind-set, instilled by a culture in which men were alienated from their families, very much to the detriment of men, families and the culture. Largely due to the economic system: they had to earn money with long, working days, and hardly saw their young children awake. Moreover, the situation of working men was - and is - such that they suffer daily anxiety and belittlement at the hands of the bosses, have no control over the process in which they are a mere moving part and no share in the fruit of their labour.
Young women, still eager to socialize, to dance and laugh with their friends, are confined in some dull dwelling-place with one or more needy, pre-verbal creatures, all day, every day, doing drudge-work, with no outlet for creativity or intelligence, no prospects and no status. The man brings a battered ego home every night to a wife who feels trapped and resentful.
Happy nuclear families!
In less 'advanced' cultures, fathers, uncles, grandfathers and older brothers are involved in the life of the children and of the clan. Sometimes they have designated roles in the guidance and instruction of the young ones, more often it's informal: babies are indulged, cuddled and entertained; when the child is old enough, he or she is taught necessary skills.
In any kind of society, there might be healthier arrangements than the atomized western family. Child-care can be pooled in a community or or kinship circle, so that mothers get time off for normal behaviour and children are allowed to form a variety of relationships and exposed to a variety of knowledge, opinion and temperament, thus developing social skills.
Parents with no extended family can spell each other off on child-care duty, and so can neighbours - as many do now.
In a functional community, who takes care of the children is not an issue: everyone does.
Quoting Athena
That's *gasp!* socialism! Or worse... it was standard in Iron Curtain countries for work-places to have free day-care on the premises, where children's health and nutrition was taken care of and mothers or fathers could visit in their breaks. Capitalism depends on the lower classes having to struggle and scramble and fight over crumbs; the middle class to look down with trepidation and up with reverence. Otherwise, they might get uppity and start demanding rights.
Quoting Athena
Does that mean the liberation movement didn't devalue women?
Still, capitalism devalues humanity. "Everyone has their price."
That is pure genius comparing the meaning of those two words and I think your statement of us having a civilization but not good socialization is perfect. I need to write what you said and put it on my board that has things I want to remember. I think over time when what you said has time to take root in my brain, your thought will improve my explanation of education and culture.
All of us White folk come from kingdoms and all those kingdoms used the Bible as the center of the justification of their civilizations. What they did to "those people" and the earth might be scornful. I am sorry if some of you are Christian because I am asking everyone to consider what Christian civilizations have done and to contemplate what our democracy would be if the immigrants to the New Land had respected the aboriginal people and adopted the culture of the Cherokees. What if we grew up thinking those born to a land belong to the land instead of the land belongs to those who can take it by force or who buy the land?
What does it mean to be civilized?
So much of my thinking today is influenced by an understanding of hormones and behavior. Addiction is a result of biological changes and our DNA which may make us more or less likely to become addicted. Without this scientific understanding of addiction, I thought addictions were a matter of weakness of character. Also, our sexual behavior is very much about hormones and relationships. Should a wife understand she should always please her husband, even though her hormonal balance means she is less interested in sex? :rofl: Surely everyone thinks of all these things after watching the comedy videos.
What might we want a child to know so the child can make the best possible decisions? How important is the math for today's technology? compared to knowing ourselves through knowledge of hormones? I surely do not want to start a family with a man ruled by his feelings at the moment and a need for alcohol, but when I was 18 I knew nothing about such things. :rofl: Even in my old age, those Roman soldiers in short leather uniforms tend to momentarily stop me from thinking of anything else. I wonder if at age 18 I could have learned in school the things life has taught me. Knowing facts does not equal knowing the meaning of the facts and when we are young our hormones are all about reproduction!
The higher-class gentleman impresses me as someone more likely to order his life with reason than spontaneously act on his feelings. Would this be helpful for children to learn? Does preparation for scientific thinking train the brain to use reason rather than acting on urges? Can we all be rich in knowledge and do we want to encourage this in a democracy?
Oh my, you excite me so much! We need a good book about what Industrialization and war have done to our values and relationships. I worry that concepts such as exploiting workers, servants and slaves and admiration for those who get rich doing so are not so clear to everyone.
When the US entered WWI Industry argued in favor of closing schools as many countries at war had done. Industry argued it was not getting its money's worth from education because it still had to train new employees. Teachers argue it was our nation's very best who understood why democracy must be defended, who were the first to sign up to defend our democracy and even if we won the war we would be devastated if education did not replace these men.
Yes, it was common to man our factories with very young people who were cheap and if we closed our schools, that would end the child labor laws that took children out of factories during school hours. Vocational training was added to education at this time and this greatly increased the number of parents who sent their children to school so they could get better jobs, and it greatly increased the middle class as education led to better jobs, better working conditions, and better wages. The history of child labor in England is even worse because of greater poverty and there was no western frontier for the poor to escape into.
Yipes too much to say- Industry and war did alienate men from their families and modeling our Industry with Britain's automatic model is bad for families. In a democracy, people need Industry to use the democratic model. This would help families more than the Bible.
Quoting Vera Mont
With the democratic model of Industry, fewer men and women would come home with battered egos because with the democratic model is constant learning and opportunity for advancement and respect for the workers' perspective that can be a big help to the overall operation. "Insubordination" is a word that does not belong in a democracy and resentful citizens are poison to a civilization. The reason for having a democracy is not only to fulfill our human potential but also to avoid the poisons of envy, resentment, ect..
As for the woman trapped at home and isolated- been there done that! It would have been so much easier if we had the Internet back then. I can survive anything as long as I can communicate with people who are like the people here. Without this, I was very close to insanity after many years of isolation and psychological abuse. However, I was able to channel my creative energy in constructive ways and loved the hippie movement that encouraged creativity. When both children were in school I volunteered a lot and sat on many committees like the tallest man's wife in the video. I was glad I had the time to educate myself and to feel important on committees. That is not always true for working people. I had my years of doing manual labor to support my family as a single woman. Talk about workers feeling resentment! I was horrified by some working conditions. I hate hearing "They just don't want to work". Why not? After years of isolation and earning for a job and better social connections I wanted to work, but the conditions of some jobs were intolerable and that gave me some sympathy for men who endure that and use alcohol to endure their lives.
OK, here's one by a fairly bright feminist Stiffed
Quoting Athena
Yes, that's why it's taught in grades of increasingly specialized complexity and application. But if you start early showing students how to use numbers, measurement, proportions and ratios in their own areas of interest, and they are confident in mastery of the concepts, they (especially the girls) will be less averse to math in higher grades. The scientifically or mathematically gifted will discover their ability early on, while the others come to understand the reliability of exact knowledge, (such as climatologists and epidemiologists demonstrate, rather than the wild 'estimates' politicians throw out at random) If they see the purpose and usefulness of numeracy they'll be far less easily duped by stratagems like $ .99 pricing and government boondoggles.
Well for me, they just clearly show how ridiculous and stupid, soooooo much of what we think are essential cultural differences between us, are. Such are really, historically, self-imposed utter nonsense and false moral standards. The most offensive and disappointing for me, is those who I politically care about most, and empathise with most, who will say and think stuff, such as 'I know my place,' 'I am a smelly serf.' I am further annoyed by the audience laughter (piped or live) caused by a comment such as 'I have 8 kids but I'm not married.'
Thanks very much! :pray: :smile:
I wonder what would happen if either democracy or Christianity were ever actually and truly manifested?
Democracy’s brand name is wearing thin.
I can at least dimly imagine a possible Christianity that is not power-mad and judgmental and very Old Testament driven, with a tendency towards random Bible verse dogma and hypocrisy.
I've seen examples of such Christianity during my life, lived and practiced by persons of different denominations in different capacities. It was their example taught me forbearance toward faith and respect for people who have a sincere belief.*
(I'm pretty sure these good people would have behaved in exactly the same way if they had been atheists, since they all worked alongside unbelievers engaged in the same laudable efforts, but they themselves were convinced Jesus was guiding them. If the benefit to others is real, I'm not too fussed about motivations.)
* and a corresponding contempt for the mob of hypocrites behind them.
Thanks for your reply! :up:
It is unfortunately an old question… how could a religion centered on ‘love’ become the very opposite.
Add in a lust for worldly power and possessions, in a vain attempt to fill an emptiness felt inside us.
But the emptiness is not a bad thing (as Buddhism embraces it), quantum emptiness is the foundation.
The void is like a road, a pathway for energy, love, awareness, light to flow.
Trying to cram material things to fill the void might be the biggest mistake humans make, the primal miscalculation that gives birth to countless problems.
It is probably no surprise that the radical teachings of Jesus got twisted to suit the Roman Empire.
Soon it was little more than “we have the one true God on our side so watch out!”
The Yin half of reality got discarded for being too soft, and not ambitious enough.
Maybe a monotheistic belief system oversimplifies that which is beyond human understanding and control.
And now thousands of years later, even good-hearted people who want to believe in something inspiring are trying to make sense of all the religious hypocrisy that covers all like a river of toxic waste.
It’s no wonder that many consider any religious or spiritual expression to be folly, madness, archaic.
I now think that position is too extreme and polemic, but I’ve wondered the same thing.
It didn't, really. Jesus (or whoever invented him) attempted to reform an old, hard, punitive religion into a benign and generous one. That creator-god was supposed to lend the authority of tradition to the new religion. It sounded good enough to attract followers, but Paul, or the Council of Nicaea neglected to burn every copy of the the volumes that became the Old Testament, which had much greater appeal to the patriarchs with most clout. Still does.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Hence the trinity and all those saints.
Quoting 0 thru 9
And some, like myself are content to disbelieve. The void, afaic, is best filled with a connection to the earth - nature and life - to supply the spiritual component, the awe and reverence. Beyond that, rewarding personal relationships and meaningful work. (But I do enjoy some indulgence!)
[url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2LvieybuRcI&pp=ygUhYmVhdGxlcyBsb3ZlIHRvbW9ycm93IG5ldmVyIGtub3dz]Lay down all thoughts
Surrender to the void
It is shining, It is shining… [/url]:victory: :nerd: :sparkle:
The book you recommend looks interesting and because of this discussion with you, I bought a copy of "A History of Women in America" by Janet L. Coryell and Nora Faires". That one starts with a story of a Native American woman who ruled over much of North America and the barbaric Spanish led by Hernando de Soto. For me, this is a story about the importance of culture and the ugliness of being barbaric. And it is not technology that makes humans civilized. A child who learns to build bombs and kills his parents and then shoots up teachers and his peers in a high school is not a desired addition to society and this is very much a result of the change in education and change in our understanding of freedom of speech and what it means to be civilized. However, telling a more exact history, a history that includes our wrongs is a good thing, or learning of cultures that did well until we arrived is a good thing.
For the math, just yesterday my daughter was talking about the impossible challenge of parents trying to help their young learn math. I think this math turn has important social consciences and is as great a failure as the "see and say" method of teaching reading. In fact, the new math failed so badly it is being replaced with another new math. New math left many mathematically illiterate just as the "see and say" method of teaching reading left many illiterate and hating reading because they failed so badly.
What is exact knowledge? I believe those who think they can know absolute truth are absolutely dangerous, and that this mentality is bringing us down. For sure this mentality can not possibly give us a better society. I have an excellent book on the seriousness of math illiteracy and I could be wrong but I think sticking to old math, art, and music and building on this triad foundation can correct the problem of math illiteracy and make everyone's lives richer in a pleasurable way that also unites us.
Thank you :cry: I cry because I have such a different understanding of democracy and it seems futile to convey my different way of thinking about it. Can we begin with Socrates and his concern that if we are not mature and self-aware and focused on morality things will not go well? Democracy is rule by reason and if we are not prepared for that, we can not manifest that.
Those who fought for democracy were literate in Greek and Roman classics and no one saw democracy in the bible until enough people were literate in the classics to have a concept of democracy. A hugh problem comes with "how do we make people civilized"? We did not have free public schools nor the budget for them. But we had churches and if we could keep these Christians from killing each other, we could leave moral training to the church. Eventually... we made it law that communities must provide education and children could not work during the school hours.
We finally got our heads around the importance of education, but really? What should children learn? Who is the best person to decide that? How is this information to be taught? What does all this have to do with being self-governing? What is democracy and how is it manifested?
I loved those stereotypes and I think we have a lot to gain by being aware of them. During the Great Recession when OPEC embargoed oil to the US, I forgot how to think middle class. I came to see those who make the laws and enforce them as the enemy of the people. This was not just an emotional thing, but I actually went to the library at the local university and went through the abstracts looking for information. I found we have laws to protect the middle class, and if this means the have-nots and people on the margin of society have less of a chance, too bad. I advocated for the homeless when Reagan was in office and learned our representatives have a middle-class mentality and think a public golf course was more in line with what the voters wanted than shelter for the homeless. That has since changed and my community is doing a lot for the homeless. Darnit there is too much to say.
When the recession ended I went back to college and I felt like a Black person. My God, I realized how middle-class college education can be. I was even reported to the dean for asking inappropriate questions because the head of the department and also professor of several classes, was a real ass and I kept calling him on that. I do not mean to demean people of color but I want to say how totally and disgustingly horrible a college education can be for the same reason that back in the day, our city council members thought the voters wanted a golf course. As human beings, our awareness of others is very poor!
Our prejudices and stereotypes are survival tools. Please have mercy on us. Our brains absolutely can not handle all the information that is essential so our brains take shortcuts. Now can we speak of culture? I say too much so I will stop at repeating my school teacher's 3 rules.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. That one rule could have given us a totally different history.
2. We protect the dignity of others, including our own dignity.
3. We do everything with intrigue.
The most important thing children have to learn is the virtues and if we do not learn the virtuals we will not manifest a good democracy. Ignorant people should not have the power of the vote and a democracy must have universal education to prevent social, economic, environmental, and political problems. However, it is very problematic to restrict who votes, but we can educate the people and this does not mean specializing them as doctors, physicists, engineers, etc.. It means learning concepts essential to a healthy nation.
Not absolute truth - that's faith. Exact knowledge is about precision, as distinct from guesstimation and opinion: knowing how much weight a girder can bear, so that the bridge doesn't collapse; what dosage of a drug is curative and which is lethal; how high an engine can rev without exploding, how many homes a sewage pipe can service before it backs up into their basements. The reliability of exact knowledge means I'm likely to survive a day in the busiest city. Even if you just want to built a reed hut, you need some engineering skill; in a modern industrial world, we need lots of engineering, technical, medical, statistical and analytic skills, a lot of exact knowledge.
I find such quite accurate parodies, of real human beings, produced via direct societal and cultural experience, foisted upon each of us, based on the lottery of where and to whom you are born, from the day we are born, as disappointing as you do.
I also agree with you that education, is one of the best methods we have, for changing the experience of a life as a human being, for the better. But I think that such will only ever succeed, when most of us can take their basic needs for granted. As long as basic needs are our main daily struggle, the elites will dictate the pace and pulse of human progress, more than the democratic majority will.
I think we need to start by getting global agreement, on exactly what our model is, for a standard of human life, which we wish to present, as our true 'role model.'
Should/could there be say, 'a book,' that could be given to all humans, as soon as they can read, that can be used for the rest of their lives, as their main guide, to 'how to live and be a progressive, free human being.' Are humans capable of producing something like that, that would work for the vast majority of us, at least for the next 100 years or so, as a 'first step,' to improving the human experience?
Would some future AI system produce a better set of guidelines for humans than humans can?
Do you think our species needs such a foundational model, to be able to obtain a broad global standard of being, for all humans?
Thank you as well! :sparkle:
I cry as well because everyone seems desperately unhappy, stressed, and pressured.
Lucky are those who have some temporary peace and sanity. (I say temporary because ‘the shit can hit the fan’ at any moment).
Not just adults… even little children.
So if we are starting life under a constant thunderous barrage, education and wisdom have trouble even being heard, let alone being followed.
That would not be fun. Having 3 models for humans or only one just doesn't work for me. It does not go with you can be anything you want to be and right now that includes sexual differences beyond what I thought the choices were.
I volunteered at the annual Holiday Bazaar in the used book room and bought way too many books. One of them is "Quantum, Shift in the Global Brain How the New Scientific Reality Can Change Us and Our World" by Ervin Laszlo. I really want to know what has to say because today is nothing like the past and this changing is going to continue. If you want you can join me in a mountain retreat and we can share books and give some thought to your question.
I love Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s books about the gods in every man and goddesses in every woman. These are archetypes and she provides a brilliant explanation of these archetypes that are set when we are children and evolve in different set ways.
Out of time :groan: I want to refer back to my grandmother's 3 rules and learning virtues. I think one book could be enough but it would have to include the new social order called democracy. :heart: I love you all and I have to run.
As long as the place does not remind anyone of the Berghof :scream: and I can get there without adding to the problems of climate change :scream:
Do you think we humans could create a guidance book that became as popular or more popular than the bible or the quran, but provided well-chosen 'what if,' scenarios and gave sound, robust, advice on what to do next. Would such a book be too big? Would a knowledge-based electronic hand-held computer system be better? Could a 'ziggy' type device be created to help humans deal with all situations they might face in life :chin: :grin: :lol:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847478
Yes or no – the United States has been, and is currently, a constitutional republic, not a democracy?
Quoting universeness
The internet. :pray:
The tech singularity (AGI —> ASI). :point:
I don't understand this. What three 'models' of humans? How does a universal standard of living, rights, freedoms and opportunity not allow for gender diversity?
Has a global poll ever been done yet as to whether or not the human race considers the internet a net positive or negative? I don't think it would qualify as the 'guide to being a human' education I think is needed, as it is too full of bad advice as well.
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe ...... my mechaphile/monalithaphile friend! I do hope that a future AGI ...... ASI will help us become a better species, by advising us how to, or even just by stopping us, from acting like such vacuous morons in the future, compared to the now or to the past.
Btw, please forgive my bad attempts to invent new words. I am probably just trying to annoy those who are better wordsmiths than I, such as yourself, @Vera Mont, @Athena, :roll: the list of TPF members who I think are better wordsmiths than I, is toooooooooo long.
As for AGi—>ASI, it/they will "advise us" to enjoy the post-singularity menageries which it/they provide/s and leave the boring global scale, civilization-wide decision-making (to which we higher primates are tragically maladapted) to its/their tireless, non-zerosum hyperintellect/s.
The question then becomes, which is more pernicious and more of an existential threat to humanity, the bible/quran or any other religious book (I will not dignify such, with the word 'holy'), or the internet?
I think we would both vote that the religious texts are more of a threat but I am not convinced, we would be in the majority, although I hope we would be.
Quoting 180 Proof
Which definition are you going with, in your use of menagerie?
a collection of wild animals kept in captivity for exhibition. (zoo)
or
a strange or diverse collection of people or things.
From your previous posts, where you have used 'zoo,' I assume its the first one.
I maintain my objection to that imagery but I do like the word menagerie.
It reminds me of this old tongue twister:
An imaginary menagerie manager, imagined that he was imagining an imaginary menagerie.
If you try to say it fast, it's quite hard to stop yourself from uttering the error menaGENarie, well, for me anyway!
The internet, by several leagues. Books don't do any harm by themselves. In fact, it was reading the bible that turned me off Judeo-Christianity. It's the influencers in palaces and pulpits that do the harm, thumping people over the head and stupefying them with a book those people either haven't read or haven't understood. They've done and are doing quite a lot of damage on television and they can do far more over the world wide web.
It would be an interesting TPF poll question imo, but perhaps most members would just find the question rather too broad, to offer a well-informed answer.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think that has become almost an atheist mantra and one I like for its ironic value. If you want modern people to reject Christianity or Islam, then suggest they read the bible/quran.
I have heard some theists with a personal god belief, say that the 'real' god or 'their god,' can't be held responsible for the lies that have been written by humans, and passed off as the word of god. But even they start to get confused and challenged, when faced with probing questions regarding their personal perceived properties of their god and what should/could follow, based on the properties stated, as measured against common human secular notions of morality.
The scriptures have to be interpreted. Some bits are true, apparently, while other bits are metaphor, allegory, symbolic... or the ancient people misunderstood God's meaning, lost it in translation or whatever - any lame excuse for why what they profess to be the basis of their faith is holy, though it doesn't mean most of what it says.
It's the professional interpreters you have to guard against, not the text itself.
Both.
By far, IMO, 'the internet' – a 24/7/365, billion-fold, vidiot-delusion machine – is worse than merely 'reading' religious books today.
:up:
Do you think the internet is as responsible for horrors, that are easily as equal at directly causing such as 'holy war,' divinely sanctioned slavery, divinely sanctioned OT atrocities such as ethnic cleansing and genocide, establishing the divine right of kings, the idea of the superiority of believers over everyone else, compared to the ways that the bible and the quran, have been used to cause and maintain such?
I think there are a lot of nasties on the Internet, but I don't think it is proving to be as toxic to humans as the bible/quran has, and all other religious texts. Perhaps it is not the best comparison, as religious texts have had an at least, 6 thousand year head start.
Yeah, fair enough
Quoting 180 Proof
I already covered that:
Quoting universeness
Those who make claims inherit the burden of proof.
Since when? That only applies in the scientific sphere. Nobody ever made a king or president or general prove his pronouncements and no religious leader has ever offered secular proof for the basis of his canon.
Identifying mistakes and errors in methodology does not change the logical position that those who make claims must accept the burden of proof. To suggest otherwise is folly and irrational.
And this, applied to faith and power, is news to you?
No, Would it make such behaviour more acceptable, if I said yes?
Nothing you or I do or say make any difference whatsoever. Power and faith, madness and delusion have nothing to do with logic, rationality or accountability.
My friend, onus probandi applies only to positive claims of fact (about how things are) and not to claims of faith (about how "gods" are).
Are you declaring a personal vow of silence Vera? If not then why do you continue to do or say anything if you really believe what you just typed above?
Quoting Vera Mont
Sure, but there is nothing to stop us from using logic, rationality, and accountability to combat these issues and that is exactly what democratic socialists/ secular humanists / atheists / rational thinkers / logicians, etc, etc do every day and we (which includes you and [b]I[/b] ) can make very significant differences indeed, when we choose to organise and act in common cause.
Please feel free to 'sigh' again, if you feel the urge.
Many theists present their faith that god exists, as fact that god exists.
The burden of proof therefore lies with them.
If their response to a question such as 'do you know for a fact that a god exists?' or 'do you believe with a 100% confidence level that a god exists?' is yes, then they have the burden of proof.
I have watched theists who try to deflect this in debate after debate, many many times with atheists on-line, and they have been trounced, every time they try to reject the burden of proof.
So much so, that I rarely now hear the theist side, reject that onus. They now try to bolster and rehash the poor evidence they think they have, such as Kalam arguments about the universe must have a cause and god is the only one that makes sense or they point to scriptural evidence or personal experience / god encounters or even worse evidence such as NDE's.
"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ... like "Zeus exists" or "The Infinite exists" or "Truth exists" or "Justice exists" or "Consciousness exists" ...
"God exists" – idea ideal idol icon – is only a claim about "god". No burden of proof obtains. :naughty:
:rofl: My sister and I are dealing with old age problems. And we are nearing Thanksgiving and dealing with the reality of pretty serious family problems. It is hard to know which problems are the most urgent and demanding of my attention. I am reading as much as I can about dealing with personal and international problems and so far the best advice I have come across is to focus on the facts. However, I am also paying attention to how I feel and acting on the importance of having good feelings. What we think about everything, to a large degree, depends on how we feel.
At this time in my life, I am so aware of how our feelings affect our judgment and fortunately, I am a whole lot better at staying calm and happy. What if we helped children discover ways to be happy and ways to do good in the world? I have a problem with a previous post about education for technology. Sure we need that technology to make it possible for so many people around the world to survive, but we might even be coming to an end of what this technology can do for us. No matter what, perhaps the most important thing for us to know is how to be happy and share that happiness with others.
If the world considered the golden rule of doing unto others as we would have them do to us, might we resolve our problems peacefully? I think we should hold anyone who does not follow the golden rule accountable. Israel was not treating Palestinians as they themselves want to be treated. The United Nations knew that and did nothing about it. If you have to use weapons to get control of land, something is wrong and it is not the defenders of the land. :heart: And while I write this I am thinking of ways to achieve peace and harmony in my family. That may not be any easier than stopping the escalation of wars. But darn it anyway, I think we could improve education so everyone has a better approach to dealing with life. That needs to trump education for technology. We live a long time, so there is plenty of time to learn technology after we learn how to enjoy life.
:smile: It's not my intention to place you in any uncomfortable position.
I am just disputing your suggestion that Quoting 180 Proof is the position held by the majority of theists. 'God exists,' is a statement they believe to be fact. I am sure you have heard declarations such as 'I know that I know that I know that Jesus Christ is real!' The claim is not 'god the possibility,' it is god the fact!
The burden of proof is 100% with them, you have not offered any compelling reason for me to moderate that position in any way, yet.
That is what we are working on here. Religions work because they make people feel good and give them rules for living together successfully. More than one book was written for that purpose and those books served people well for centuries. The problem for Western civilization is being literate in Democracy means being literate in a library full of books and this is not manageable as the Bible and the Quoran are managable. However, if we can get past our tribalism we might acknowledge all religious books work for the same reasons. They all teach the same basic things and perhaps a more scientific approach to these books can become one book that works well for everyone.
The Greeks appear to have gotten this secular ball rolling with the notion of logos and our human potential to be heroes and logical and capable of self-government. Their equivalent bible is Homer's books, The Iliad and the Odyssey.
Quoting Wikipedia
Our books need to be books we carry with us and hold in our hands and require no technology because we need to prepare for a possible collapse of our high-tech society.
I have found everyday Christians find the existence of God be a fact. That is because every time something good happens, they thank God for that. I think in their minds there can not be goodness without a God providing it. This can go as far as believing without God, their savior, we can not be good. There are so many false beliefs that go with Christianity I avoid debating if there is a God and take on the other false beliefs.
I was blown away when the woman I was playing Scrabble with announced she thought she was wrong when she was a child and told her parents we should not kill. She went on to mention the Hebrews fight for the promised land that justifies all wars of us against them. And she justifies this by saying, that when the Bible says we are not to kill, the word "murder" should have been used not the word "kill". Wars fought in the name of God are wars we should fight, and with this logic goes unquestioned assurance that Muslims are wrong when they fight for Allah. The debate over whether a God exist is futile because of how a Christian sees proof of God every day, but perhaps debating other false ideas can get good results. Just not in a senior center where are supposed to be civil with each other.
:up:
*sigh*
I didn't ask you to moderate anything. You can hold any position you choose. You can stand on one foot on top of The Shard and scream you demands for proof through a bullhorn till you're blue in the face. It will have no effect on theists or political zealots. (Though you might attract a small, fanatical band of acolytes who refuse to believe you're not the messiah.)
I have no idea what priority individual theists place on that which they consider a fact or an objective truth. I have indeed heard many theists state god as an objective fact, but not as one fact among others,
but as the most important fact/truth that exists. But they can't meet the resulting burden of proof.
Such is not deserving of dismissal as mere 'folk beliefs,' many highly learned theists no longer believe that god is a fact, that manifestation of doubt was probably what started their decoupling from god, offered as fact.
I agree.
Quoting Athena
No, not futile, just very difficult. People are leaving religion in droves, including many who have spent a great deal of their lives deeply entwined with it. and many who have very high qualifications in theology.
Quoting Athena
Sure, you gotta pick your fights wisely.
Quoting Athena
Living together successfully based on a foundation of lies and fables is not my idea of wisdom.
*yawn*
Quoting Vera Mont
On the contrary, I have had my successes in convincing some individual theists to reconsider their position and in changing some right-wing political opinions held by individuals. I still know some of them today.
Quoting Vera Mont
The response you quoted above was directed at 180proof, not you!
I assume that was directed at me ..... thanks (if I choose to ignore the intended sarcasm behind it.)
Of course it was directed at you. If you've already had such success as you report - far more than I've ever had in reasoning with theists - then demanding rational proofs must be the right way to go about deconverting the faithful. It's just a matter of time until they all come to see the error of their methodology.
I guess you're not game. :ok:
Well done, in letting that penny finally drop. Perseverance dear lady, is in the remit of the truth seeker. Many theists are not complete dimwits, they are open to rational argument, so if you apply small doses of rational skepticism and then let those little seeds take root in their own heads. You then meet them again further down the line, and you can water those little seeds. Over the years, I have had success in seeding deconversions amongst the religious and the politically right wing.
Are you not familiar with the names of many individuals who were deeply involved in theism and are now atheist. From the likes of Bart Ehrman to Matt Dillahunty, you know those names, yes? and the fact that many are leaving theism in their droves. Do you really believe that no 'other humans,' influenced their decisions to decouple from their long held views?
In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion.
Why would I refuse an offer, whereby I can learn more, from your impressive knowledge of the musings of past or present philosophers friend? That would be rather short sighted of me. I am grateful for what you have already posted (that I have read), regarding what philosophers have written on this or on that, and that is, after all, one of the main reason this site was created. I would be pleased to learn more from you on what philosophers have said regarding the burden of proof. I promise to open my mind to its full capacity to see if there is good reason to change my opinion, to one that holds that those who make a faith based claim, that they know a god exists is rational, and they do not have a burden of proof. Please begin! I am quite excited to read about the evidence you have from these philosophers, regarding burden of proof.
"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.
Yes it is! Zeus exists is a claim that Zeus exists is a fact or an objective truth about the Universe.
The statement you posted was not 'It might be possible/probable/highly credible that Zeus exists, it was as statement of fact. Zeus exists. This could be a presupposition given as part of a syllogism.
Gods Exist
Zeus is a god
Therefore Zeus exists.
But the conclusion is not valid.
Quoting 180 Proof
God exists is not just an idea, an ideal, or a 'representation' of god, It is a declaration to be taken as literal fact, when it is uttered with all the conviction that a devout theist can muster.
This was quite a poor beginning to your goal mate. You didn't even offer me something that:
Quoting 180 Proof
wrote, you just referred me to a previous, very recent post you typed, that I had already considered and rejected for the reasons I have given above. You are trying to claim that theists who say 'God exists,' are not claiming to be making a statement of fact (no matter how learnered they are). They are really saying that 'it's merely possible that a god exists.' If that were true, then they would agree with the atheists who also say that god existing is not impossible as the proposal is not falsifiable. There is no strength to your position, imo, so far.
Evidence, burden of proof is part of this around 24 min clip from 'the line' with Jimmy Snow and Matt Dillahunty. The caller is a Catholic Priest. 'Father Tom,' has called back a few times now to this show, since this exchange. Based on his last call, I think father Tom is close to starting deconstruction.
Excellent! Then you'll have only 7.8 billion left to convince. (assuming there are still people left by then.)
Keep on keepin' on!
Of course, we will keep on and you and all future humans are welcome and don't need to show your gratitude. Including those who used to care enough to help, but have since given up, or have significantly reduced their efforts to do so.
You mistake me, sir! I am not a future human. I am a past human.
You make the extraordinary claim - all empirical evidence to the contrary - that humans have a future, while demanding empirical evidence regarding a tenet of faith, which affects that future in no way whatever. One of us appears to be less realistic - though happier withal. This is why I don't grudge the believers that little scrap of comfort their delusion provides.
You misread the sentence. I typed 'you' and all future humans, so I did not include 'you' in the group 'future humans.'
I think you are a current human rather than a past one but it's your call.
Quoting Vera Mont
You again exaggerate in quite irrational ways madam. The suggestion that the human species will exist another say 10,000 years for example, is in no way an extraordinary claim. The empirical evidence you offer in your sometimes scaremongering and doomster rhetoric, is not empirical in the sense of the predictive power you propose such evidence has.
I am not asking for evidence of any mere 'tenet' of faith, but for the root tenet of faith. The proposal that is more important than any other proposal, made by all theists and theosophists. God exists! or the slightly less impactful proposal that the 'supernatural' has any example existent, are claims that carry a very definite and easy to defend, burden of proof. To suggest that gaining ever-increasing agreement with that position, amongst the current human global population, would make no difference to the broad directions humans may take in the future, is just ridiculous and is dead wrong imo.
The last sentence you offer in the quote above is simply an insulting platitude, that someone with your knowledge of social and political history, and your knowledge of current affairs, should be ashamed to offer in judgment/dismissal of the efforts of those who have chosen to keep fighting when you, under the excuse of being jaded due to previous disappointments, alongside your age, and health status, have chosen to surrender.
Because you and a handful of vocal missionaries will convert +/- 7,000,000,000 other people to your point of view? And having each given up their version of the divine, they will all become rational and co-operative and eager to learn? Ho-kay.
Fight the good fight, by all and every means! I wish you well.
We are beginning to repeat! I have already typed:
Quoting universeness
Beginning to? We've been around this jack-in-the-box at least eight times. Pop!
You still have a very sharp mind Vera, perhaps a bit more spinning and you will clear out the cobwebs and realise that you are still a force, and your age and your health status, are not the only variables that can affect your ability to be a force to be reckoned with and a force for good, right up to and including the very last words you utter. Stay with us!!!
Right, a democracy encourages diversity but not necessarily gender diversity. Some people insist the US is not a democracy but a republic. I think those people tend to be conservative Republicans and a threat to democracy. It seems they base their opinions on the Bible which is about a kingdom with slaves and for sure gender restrictions.
The three stereotypes of the upper, middle, and lower class are another way to hold expectations of each other, and social pressures do tend to affect everything, especially when there is no understanding of democracy being an idealogy that organizes our way of life. Reverses how kingdoms organize a way of life.
It's not my health that's at issue, but the world's. Even the most optimistic medic can do nothing for a terminal patient - but morphine and a faith healer might mitigate his pain. I just tell stories.
I think humanity as a whole has been serving the machinery of the masters of war for too long.
One day that will stop (and we won’t even need to throw out most of the machines).
Quoting Athena
Best of luck with those difficult situations! :flower:
Why should it need to? In a functioning democracy, if the majority desires freedom of self-expression and respect for the individual, diversity is automatically provided-for. If the majority desires equality before the law and of opportunity, class malleability is assured. I don't see the problem with a democratic system being able to maintain a basic standard of living and autonomy for every citizen.
Ah, ah, ah what is wrong with fables! :confused: Fables are excellent for teaching virtues and passing on culture. They serve a purpose and are not considered the word of God. Whereas believing a God promised His chosen people land and that they were to kill every man, woman, and child already inhabiting the land, is very problematic! This little false story could suck us all into a world war that could be global and far more destructive than any previous war because of all those who believe they are doing the will of this imagined God.
I do not know about other democracies but in the US a significant number of people insist the US is not a democracy. Some churches, the military, and Industry in the US follow England's autocratic order. The autocratic order is a hierarchy of authority, not shared power. If the US replaced autocratic Industry with a democratic model, it would have a much stronger democracy, and better economy, and much better family lives. It would be such a strong and united nation that the words of Roosevelt would ring true. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself".
The Jews must be admired because no matter what happens to them, they remain Jews. Unfortunately, that is not true of our democracy.
I am not convinced of freedom of self-expression being a good thing. That could include loading up with weapons and killing everyone in sight. We are not condoning that, but neither are we closing that possibility as we could with a culture that was firmly against such behavior. Right now we are cheering on power as the ultimate goal and the Republican party may or may not learn how destructive that is. We live in perilous times. We have come to believe freedom of speech means saying or doing anything we want with absolutely no concept of what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy.
Freedom to reason needs to be protected with education for good moral judgment. Freedom to do or say anything we want without good moral judgment is barbaric, not civilized.
How is that done?
It never was, though its spokesmen have loudly proclaimed the very pinnacle of the democratic ideal. At the moment, nobody believes it. Indeed, a number of far-right commentators have declared that "too much democracy" is detrimental to democracy.
But that's not what universeness was talking about. Not everybody is preoccupied with the USA, and he especially has a global, rather than national, vision:
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Very simply by every vote having exactly the same value as every other. That way, when everyone votes for their own self-interest, the majority decision is always in favour of what's best for the majority - in policy, law-enforcement, services, infrastructure, economic disparity, production and distribution. That's exactly why any efforts at cleaning up the electoral system is invariably followed by a right-wing backlash: functional democracy tends inevitably toward permissive secular socialism.
"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.
Suppose by 2050 'strong AGI' is achieved. Suppose one day it expresses the following statements (simultaneously in all of the world's extant written languages):
(A) "i am self-conscious" ...
(B) "self exists"
(C) "every self exists entangled with, or constitutive of, more than itself – the whole self"
(D) "'the whole self' is existence, or the power of coming-to-be and continuing-to-be and ceasing-to-be"
(E) "existence, or the power, exists insofar as its negation is impossible – this is god"
(F) "i am god-conscious ... just as, metaphorically speaking, an ocean wave is ocean-conscious"
(G) "ignorance of god – lack (fear) of being god-conscious – over-compensates by worshipping either a positive or negative idol which only institutionalizes god-ignorance"
(H) "you (we) are self-conscious – not a zombie – insofar as you (we) are the whole self-existence-the power-god-conscious" ...
(I) ... "speaks our whole self"
Suppose 'strong AGI' furthermore proves that every electron is the same electron (J. Wheeler) and therefore that, fundamentally, every (physically instantiated) mind is the same mind (E. Schrödinger) ... on what basis then, universeness, would you refute its proof that this 'same – one – mind' is God (the PSR)?
Thank you. The USA defended its democracy against a nation that was also a republic but became very authoritarian and became a mechanical society that crushed individual liberty and power as it prepared to rule the world, or at least all of Western civilization. Following the Second World War, the US adopted the bureaucratic order we stood against, and adopted the German model of education for technology for Industrial and Military purposes. As centralized government gains more and more power of authority over everything, we too are becoming a mechanical society, with businesses and institutions operating in fear of that central power.
I don't think we understand what technology has done to power and our liberty. In the past, everyone was prepared for self-government, and to be civic and Industrial leaders. That made our system of elections and representatives workable. That is no longer true. The real power of government today is policies that take care of our every need as Tocqueville warned in 1830. Policies are made by government committees and all we have to do is obey. No longer do we need to be prepared for good judgment and independent action. That is a bureaucratic technology change. We left moral training to the church in 1958.
Thank you for calling my attention to the fact I omitted a word in that post. I have corrected that.
I hate the argument over if the US is a democracy or not but we have fought every war for nothing if we do not believe we are a democracy.
"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." General Report of the Seminar on "What is democracy" Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939.)
Our form of government is a republic. This relationship of social order and political order is sometimes called a democratic republic. Germany had a much more authoritarian republic especially after Hitler took over. All along the Prussians had been consolidating their power controlling Germany and applying Prussian military bureaucratic order to the government and economic order. You know the Industrial Military Complex of Germany and later became the Industrial Military Complex of the US.
Sorry, I have to run...
When since 1789 has the USA been a "democracy" and not an oft-illiberal (minoritarian electoral college-rigged, gerrymandered-vote suppressed, nativist, imperialist) constitutional republic? :chin:
Quoting Athena
Believing "we are a democracy" has never made it so, ma'am.
People may have believed it and been browbeaten and brainwashed into believing it, but it never matched that very definition you quoted. When, in the history of the United States has there been Quoting Athena?
A republic is supposed to be both constitutional and governed by an elected body, rather than a monarch, prelate or military dictator. That doesn't require equality of access to decision-making by all citizens. So, the US qualifies... so long as that flimsy parchment survives.
Quoting Athena
The word is a good slogan and recruitment tool, but is certainly not the reason for wars.
Nothing, when they are pronounced as and delivered as fiction.
Quoting Athena
But the biblical ones are! That's one of the main problems of religion, yes? Lies and fables and resulting edicts on how humans must behave based on the fantasy words of non-existents.
:roll: :roll:
That was too much 'supposition' for my tastes. Try 1 supposition at a time, perhaps in the syllogism style, and then state your proposed conclusion and what evidence you have to support its validity.
AI becoming self-aware to a level where it ponders the existence of god is still rather Sci-fi to me.
Quoting 180 Proof
An electron may be a field excitation and not be in any true sense, an independent particle. A repeating process.
Quoting 180 Proof
Divine hiddenness for starters. AI would have to demonstrate gods existence just like theists do. If a future AI claims god exists then it will have the same burden of proof that human theists do. Do you think an advanced AI would make a faith statement? If it does then it is not an advanced AI, imo.
The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.
But this is a challenged viewpoint. It has not been demonstrated that everything must have a reason or a cause. Do theists claim that god has an origin story? Do they suggest god was caused by an earlier event? God suffers from the infinite regression problem, in the exact same way any godless posit about the origin of the universe has. Advanced AI will face the same problem.
You have still offered nothing compelling at all, from your impressive philosophy knowledge base, that challenges the burden of proof a person who states god exists! has.
So, not a fan of the American melting pot? My immigrant ex-compatriots assimilated in one generation and seem none the worse. (In fact, given the current state of my native land, far, far better!)
What's so admirable about stiff-necked adherence to a foreign culture at sharp variance with the country in which one is living? That national identity has brought the Jewish people no end of strife and sorrow, and culminated in occupying another people's land, marginalizing and pauperizing those other people (by 'right' of having done it once, a long time ago, then lost it to a second and third invader) with the aid and continued patronage of great imperial powers, becoming a nation that commits war crimes.
My sympathies lie with the ten lost tribes.
That's just a by-the-way about how critical culture really is.
Do you really expect me to reply to you when you have not explained what democracy is?
Does Christianity exist? It has had a few thousand years to make Western civilization an ideal place to have and raise children. Because that has not happened should we claim Christianity does not exist?
With Memorial Day upon us and Thanksgiving coming, the TV channel I watch has given us stories of veterans, including people of color who fought for democracy since the American Revolution. Why democracy? Because it stands for rule by reason, and liberty, and justice for all. No one knows better than people of color who fought for this, that we have not lived up to this ideal because they are still fighting for it liberty and justice. However, take democracy out of the equation, and what is left to justify their fight for equality?
As for Native Americans, some of them have also served in the military when we claimed to be defending democracy, several times I have seen programs about how Native American women had power in their organization of life and what they had to do with our women's suffrage. Not only did they own the property and participate in governing decisions, but their creator is a female. Our federation is a model of the Native American federation. The strongest force against these people was Christianity. I think considering the power of Christians we could fairly say we are a Christian nation even though we have not changed our ugly ways. We have improved our human potential but this is a work in progress. Only democracy is going to keep us on the path to continued improvement but we stopped educating for that.
I could be wrong but I think without the Greek and Roman classics that resulted in us knowing about democracy, things would be a lot worse. Christians are as addicted to killing as the Jews when they have the power and justification to take what God gave to them. We have heard Israel is a democracy and I don't think I have ever heard anyone say Israel is not a democracy but a republic.
I do not understand your question and explanation. Liberty and justice for all means there are no favorites. Athens thinking advanced to universal thinking. Cicero tells us that nature has us programmed to do the right thing and if we do wrong it is because of our ignorance. This worldview is not about turning to a God but turning to math and science and reasoning with each other until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. No one is excluded from this because of racial or circumstance differences.
However, if most of the population is uneducated, or poorly educated, we have a very hard time manifesting democracy and raising the human potential. Now I am totally confused by your comment about culture. Considering the US has always had to deal with immigrants who do not understand our institutions and way of life, I think the US has done amazingly well. That is, until we stopped transmitting a culture based on democratic ideals, and stopped educating everyone for good moral judgment, and left moral training to the church. Now we are in crisis. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended.
We do not stand alone. We share the burdens of life or we do not. Which is most apt to get good results?
Might as well. But, no: the concept exists; the institutions exist, the buildings, the organization and agencies, the books, the doctrine. However, Christianity is not in universal practice among nominal Christians, by a very long chalk. There may be some parishes where it dominates weekday life, but I doubt it.
Similarly, the idea of democracy exists; its documents and declarations, its electoral machinery exists; its proclamations and resolutions. It's just not practised with any consistency. In some countries, the process more closely approximaties the theory, but in the US, it was never - not for a single day - put into effect according to that definition you quoted.
I didn't question the existence of those concepts nor the willingness of people to believe in them.
Quoting Athena
Stands for, but does not deliver.
Even if democracy were operational in the US, it would not be the reason for entering all of those wars, since the American form of government has never been under any outside threat. Every administration had its own reasons for embarking on a war or undeclared armed intervention in foreign affairs. In no case did those reasons have any bearing on the defence of their own democracy. And in no case was the polity consulted before taking the decision that would take many of their sons and lately daughters, nor were the lower ranks of the armed forces asked for their consent.
None passed. Every legislature held that power to itself. Not very democratic in my book.
Quoting Athena
In doing what? Treating them all fairly and decently? Or have the immigrants done well in adapting to conditions and overcoming barriers?
So why admire non-adaptive Jews in Europe more than assimilated Italians in America? And why not admire non-adaptive Chinese in America for maintaining their identity?
Quoting Athena
The slogan means that. The law doesn't deliver; the dominant culture doesn't deliver. That's why all the people of colour are still having to fight for what they should have been guaranteed over two centuries ago.
Oh yes, yes, yes! Good moral judgment depends on knowing the truth. Believing in a God who wants people to fight wars, is not going to bring us to peace and the God of Abraham is a war God. He is a very divisive God and I will be glad when we give up this God and understand..."The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause" and what that has to do with democracy.
The Europeans invaded the New Land and decimated the Native American tribes just as God told the Hebrews to take their promised land by killing everyone. We retarded our knowledge of reality and brought the world to global warming with false beliefs and rejected the Native American understanding of nature and the need to care for our planet. For all the good religion has done it has done just as much evil because people remained ignorant and violent and totally unaware of what truth and morals have to do with democracy.
I agree, it's a net negative. Religion is pernicious.
You missed an important way our democracy is manifested. Democracy was a new social order. Monarchies were organized very differently. However, our Democracy was and is polluted by the order of a kingdom. It made perfect sense for the owner of a business to have control of the business, but when we shifted from farmers and craftspeople owning their businesses to industries, that was a good time to apply the democratic order to our economy. Obviously, that did not happen. The path we have followed is divisive, separating the halves from the have-nots, with landlords and employers exploiting humans and this could be even worse than slavery. Wow, this really makes a mess of democracy because that reality does not support liberty and justice nor the conditions for healthy families.
The Persian war left Athens flush with money and this money was spent on Athena's temple which was a tourist site teaching the world about new relationships and democracy. Money was spent on a university to also attract people from around the world as teachers and students. Government jobs were created so the people without land could earn enough to have a decent standard of living and time to indulge in government. But here we are in a New Land and with no experience with democracy. While things can be different, the consciousness is still the consciousness of kingdoms. Each man's home was his castle. The Bible the only book most people know about, explains kingdoms and slavery. Extremely few people were literate in Greek and Roman classics.
Education in the North advanced democracy and when the South realized Northern books were spreading a different culture than the one they wanted, they began printing their own books. As we spread across a frontier there were many challenges along with opportunities. It was a long time before those communities had schools and they did not come with all the books and supplies a good education requires. We seriously need to have a better appreciation of our lives being very primitive as late as 1950. WWII changed everything in huge ways! We are losing those pioneers who came west with the promise of homesteading. Now not only do we have a railroad that goes from one coast to another but we also have private cars and highways. Before all this, our primitive lives made the federal government almost non-existent. There is no way it had the organization to affect our lives as it does today. Our freedom and liberty was based on living miles away from anyone else and a social life that may have been limited to going to church. I know their stories because I visited some of them once a week until they died. Also because of my collection of books.
Just as we got to a point where every child could go to school and those schools had all the books and supplies and technology required for a good education today, we stopped preparing our young for democracy. I say too much and I may have completely failed to make my point.
What Tocqueville had to say about democracy in 1830 is very interesting. I wish we could all share this book. https://files.libertyfund.org/files/2288/Tocqueville_1532.04_LFeBk.pdf
I want to focus on what you said about knowing the cause of things and what that has to do with democracy. Especially when so many people were dying of COVID-19 in New York that they had to put their bodies in freezer trucks, the debate over wearing masks and vaccines was insane. What is the truth and how do we know it?
Never have I heard so much paranoid fear of our government controlling us. It is true our federal government is controlling more and more of our lives. A Military Industrial Complex controls every aspect of our lives and attempts to control the economy more than the government did in the past. Yet people are in denial of the US becoming a Military Industrial Complex in 1958 and people do not want to talk about that. So here is something lurking in the back of our consciousness and it emerges when, for purely scientific reasons our government tells us to wear masks. This paranoia is very damaging to how we react to events. It obviously leads to believing lies.
This is a cultural problem I am hoping to resolve. Trust is essential to everything and we need to restore that.
Ah, there is a very important question. I was thinking if we all shared a good understanding of democracy the power of the people would be so strong we would not fear an enemy invasion. Perhaps we can explore what makes people more or less willing to adopt the ways of other people?
Charles Sarolee wrote in his book "The Anglo-German Problem" that the Prussians do not have a culture. I am looking at the US today and I don't think we have a culture anymore. If something happened that destroyed our lives as they are today, I don't think democracy would survive. I think the rulers would become the few most powerful people and all the rest would become subject to their rule as is so in other countries. The cause of this is replacing education for good citizenship and democracy with education for technology.
But this breakdown is essential to change and hopefully, the changes will eventually be good changes. I really would like to replace the autocratic model of industry with a democratic one. An autocratic model of industry along with education for democracy could mean a quantum shift in our consciousness that would be very pleasant.
Indeed! I didn't actually miss that. The legacy of royal land-grants, aristocratic families and fortunes founded on preferential trade with other British colonies.
Monarchy and moneyarchy.
Quoting Athena
Weeelll - that rather depends on how many of the nations you've helped arm will constitute the "enemy". And whether the ensuing war gives people time to decide how they feel about it.
Quoting Athena
Also what makes dominant cultures more or less resistant to assimilating minor differences in speech, religion, art and domestic arrangements. We seem pretty quick to accommodate new foods.
Quoting Athena
Like ourselves, you never did have one culture. You had many, with people in each region or social circumstance being aware of only their own. Over time, people in the dominant ethnic group adopted some aspects of African, French and Hispanic cultures; the middle class affected some working class customs and vice versa; rural and folk moved to cities; the North and South imitated some of each other's behaviour; in cities with large immigrant populations, Italian, Irish, Nordic, Russian and Yiddish symbology and folklore crept into Anglo-American art, homes and social life. Motion pictures and television tend to homogenize these accidental overlaps and exchanges into American popular culture.
It seems to enjoy considerable success abroad, as well.
Quoting Athena
It'll always have Sweden! In fact, atm, it's healthier in Germany than in the USA. Anyway, the concept isn't going anywhere.
I think there has been some misunderstanding / crossed lines here. My posted sentence of:
Quoting universeness was just a quote from the link provided by 180proof with:
Quoting 180 Proof
His PSR link was about The principle of sufficient reason. My response was to a point he was making regarding theists, the claim that god exists, and the resulting burden of proof, it did not relate to my exchange with you.
I guess you didn't bother to read – or you selectively forget – this post (and an older post linked therein) in reply to you, Athena, sketching out my conception of "democracy" compared to and contrasted with the American political status quo ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846290
And yes, I've repeated this question ...
Quoting 180 Proof
because I "really do expect" you "to reply" to this request for clarification of what you mean by "democracy", Athena, in the factual context of American history. :chin:
Only three what-ifs are "too much" for you? :sweat:
If you wish to debate this issue in a more rigorous way, my friend, let's take this over to PMs. I promise I won't inject any more (apparently unappreciated) 'speculative fiction' into a discussion about "god". As a non-standard (heterodox) atheist, I can think of one pro-god argument (or three) which most atheists I've encountered cannot refute and that I've only hinted at here. At any rate, not an idle exercise I'm sure you'll agree ...
Why? You have a 'theory of mind' that you apply to every human being you encounter, that none of them are "zombies" – is that theory merely "a faith statement"? :roll: Also, I don't see why you've characterized a (supposed) "proof"
Quoting 180 Proof
as "a faith statement" which, as you know, denotes an unwarranted (unproven) assertion or assent – not a proof.
Well, nevermind my "AGI fiction". I'll make the logical, non faith-based, case elsewhere if you'd like. Refute me at your leisure; that's what a devil's advocate lives for, sir. Sláinte! :yum:
No, they are too much for you! Adding on too many suppositions reduces the impact of any claim.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't mind whether you prefer private or more public on this exchange between us. It is you who wishes to dispute the burden of proof that theists who claim god exists have, so I am happy to trace the path you wish to lay out.
Quoting 180 Proof
I believe you.
Quoting 180 Proof
I had to look up 'heterodox' but sure, that sounds very interesting.
Quoting 180 Proof
No, because there is valid observational evidence behind it, which is not true when it comes to a 'god exists,' faith statement, proposed as a fact that then establishes burden of proof., regardless of whether or not that burden is accepted by those who dare to declare a theistic claim as a fact.
An advanced AI would need to demonstrate an intellectual ability beyond that of humans. All rational humans are able to arrive at the conclusion, that all faith statements are speculative conjecture at best.
Do you think advanced AI would make a claim such as 'god exists' without having achieved a demonstrable ability to prove that god exists?
You then offer me a human theory of mind, which is completely irrelevant. Whether or not no humans are zombies, :roll: has nothing to do with a god existing. :roll: ( I gave you two as It seems you like this emoticon. I like this one more :grin: )
Quoting 180 Proof
Where did I suggest the single electron theory was a faith statement? We are discussing the notion of faith, as it relates to god posits not credible scientific theories, such as the single electron theory :roll: (we can agree, anytime you like to drop this 'eye roll' emoticon, passing between us.)
Quoting 180 Proof
Slàinte Mhath! Advocate for a non-existent ( which I accept that I cannot currently 100% prove, does not exist. :grin: )
Thanks! Well said! :100: :smile:
The mechanization of not just our world, but our minds and souls continues with acceleration.
I wrote in another thread:
One may say that machines and technology have given us so much goodness.
I’ll agree to that, but what have we given up to have so much, so quickly?
I might be the millionth person to suggest that we have made a Faustian bargain.
We are fearful of our survival so we go along with the civilization program.
We are dazzled by the shiny carrot dangling in front of us, so we run onwards.
And leaving the moral training to the Churches (as you say) brought its own problems.
Catholicism has imploded from scandal, and mainstream Protestantism arguably wants to take over the government in the USA (among other dubious qualities).
Oh but come look at my old school books. In my grandmother's day of teaching, teachers thought it was their purpose to defend democracy in the classroom and this meant helping each child discover his/her interests and talents so they could make their best contribution to our civilization. We thought our greatness was all the individuals cooperating to get things done.
Our education was modeled after Athens's education for well-rounded individual growth and the American experience was self-actualization. When the 1958 education change was pushed through the system and my grandmother's way of disciplining children was not accepted so she quit her job and found another school. I am horrified today whenever a professional is treated like someone working on an assembly line. I am offended by the message that the phone call may be recorded to ensure things are being done correctly. If an employer does not trust the employee then the employer should drop that person and move on to an employee who is trusted.
Please, you are so perceptive, can you see how not trusting people to do a good job destroys morale and harms the employee, which goes on to harm the family and then the nation? If we can not self-actualize through our jobs, is there enough money to make us want to do our jobs?
When I was trained to be a supervisor using the democratic model, we were taught to be like coaches helping the employee to be the best s/he can be and preparing the individual for advancement. If something went wrong, the supervisor took responsibility for that, by checking to be sure all necessary information was communicated and understood. Again helping the person be the best s/he can be, which leads to positive feelings and those positive feelings come back to the family and flood the community. We can do this. When turned to civic action, it means resolving community problems or just doing fun things that build community relationships.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WITHOUT YOUR POST I COULD NOT THINK OR SAY THE REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS? This is democracy working. Your ability to communicate what really matters moves our thinking in a positive direction. This is totally different from what some posters do. Posters who intentionally put us on the defensive make a valuable discussion impossible. When we are defending what we already said the thinking can not move on to the bigger picture. We can not get to rule by reason when we stubbornly disagree and find fault. However, when are in agreement we tend to move forward, and have positive feelings, and believe we can accomplish something. That high morale is the Spirit of America and the military mindset that has gripped our nation and taken over education, is killing the Spirit of America. The military-industrial complex is the enemy we defended our democracy against.
You are correct. I have limited time and need to be selective about how I use it.
Interesting clarification. I could be wrong but I see the Greek philosophers standing behind the need for proofs. I see these philosophers standing behind the notion that things do not just appear out of nowhere but there is a cause for that appearance. That pits democracy against Christianity and a God that is not ruled by the laws of nature but makes things appear on a whim. Today I will create Satan, whoops that didn't go so well. I think I will try creating a man and woman from mud. Whoops that didn't go so well. Those Bible stories do not go so well with believing there is a cause for everything. An explanation of evolution gives us causes.
If that does not belong with what you are talking about, I am sorry and will withdraw from the subject of gods and causes.
"God exists" is not a claim of fact about how the world is ..., ergo no burden of proof.
:roll: :roll:
Repeating a poorly defined sentence over and over seems rather desperate, and does nothing to strengthen your claim. :grin:
Yeah, especially when that story produced Adam's first wife, Lilith. That relationship didn't work out, so the fantasy goes, so the incompetent god tried again using a rib from Adam. :lol: I think anyone who claims that such nonsense is true, certainly has a burden of proof.
Quoting Athena
Ok, I see what you mean. I certainly have much more time for the Greek atomists than I do for their 'silly' theists.
Fully representative democracy is essential to a better humanity. I label myself a democratic socialist. We need everyone to be offered a free high-quality education, from cradle to grave about real past and current events. All fake news must be combatted. I don't mind using fiction to exemplify human moral dilemmas but all attempts to pass fables as truth, must be prevented. So no more religious lies. I think we are mostly on the same page, with that, and with the importance of 'true' democracy.
Whoo, that is very convoluted and worthy of contemplation. Would you happen to know how Calvinism is tangled up with all of this? If you do, I suggest we buy a bottle of fine wine and spend at least one evening unraveling why the American economy did so well compared to the Spanish colonies.
As I understand it, the immigrants who went to the kings domain in the Southern part of the New Land were out to find riches and those who went North wanted to manifest saints and perfect communities. Calvinism made the accumulation of wealth essential to this pursuit of heaven on earth and that might be a blessing to us. If it were not for our economic development we could be like a third nation where extremely few people have any power.
@0 thru 9 helped me clarify my sense of purpose. I think once our military-industrial complex was established it was misused resulting in the problem of which you speak and that the creation of the military-industrial complex means we fought every war for nothing because we are what we defended our democracy against. This has always been clear to me, but O thru 9 helped me clarify my purpose is to revive the American Spirit that I believe came with being a democracy. That is, the thinking began in Athenians and was revived during the Reannance. We need another Reannance because we sure as blazes did not begin with the desire to be a military-industrial complex! Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and if our military-industrial complex is destroyed in a war, that would be unfortunate but we might consider we are what we defended our democracy against, so how much does matter if our military-industrial complex is brought to an end?
The concept is dying in the US. Perhaps I shouldn't let that trouble me because the concept has a good chance of surviving in other countries. However, that will not do squat for my grandchildren and their children.
:heart: Why does it all have to be so difficult? The argument for all things having a cause is self-evident. Except when we get into quantum physics things get a little crazy.
I don't think a fully representative democracy is possible and I question if it is even desirable. Now I feel cornered and need to confess I am aristocratic. An aristocrat is defined like this....
1. a member of the aristocracy; a noble
2. a person who has the manners or qualities of a member of a privileged or superior class
3. a person who advocates aristocracy as a form of government
I was not born into nobility but my understanding of democracy is that we can all achieve the manners and qualities of an aristocrat. Arguing in favor of an aristocratic form of government is, to me, the equivalent of the merit system. I am not a competitive person and I have no problem volunteering to support representatives to hold the positions that give them power and authority so I don't have to. All of those representatives are to serve us. We can vote them out of office if they don't.
I think you and I share agreements but we have different points of view and this is excellent for democracy because it is the area of disagreement that opens the opportunity for greater understanding. It is "yes but-" and the picture becomes bigger.
One area that can seem to be an argument is how much authority should those in the seats of authority have. On a small scale direct democracy may be the best, but on a national level that is insane! When too many people have the decision-making power, nothing gets done. But if we break this power up with many democratic industries, and democratic institutions such as schools, hospitals, and municipal government, then the people have control where the industry and institution affect their lives. It is not the federal government making blanket decisions for everyone.
I think we need to give the distribution of power and authority more thought. Decisions that are based on science might be best coming from the federal level. Decisions that affect only a small group of people need to be made by those affected. Parents should hold the power of authority over their children's education, but there also needs to be a way to inform the parents of why one decision may be better than another. Decisions should not be based on ignorance and feelings.
What's convoluted about it? The English upper class owned all the land in England and thus much of the wealth. Traders and ship-builders owned the rest. When England colonized North America, the aristocracy exported its younger sons and the king gave them land belonging to the natives. Ditto retired army officers. The king also granted lands to mining and shipping operations. All under the protection of British troops. The moneyed classes were in charge from the very beginning. When they got tired of paying taxes to England, they took charge of the nascent republic. They organized its governance and law for their own benefit - which they considered no more than their due, just as they considered themselves the natural governors.
Why would Calvinism have any effect on that arrangement? The elite are never constrained by the limits and demands of religion: strict adherence is for the hoi polloi. As is the infamous "work ethic".
Quoting Athena
The religious communities were sent over when a European nation wanted rid of some irksome sect. The Puritans settled in New England and became farmers, whalers, fishers, ship-builders and tradesmen. And slavers, of course. The cities filled up with steerage passengers looking for work - including lots of Catholics - in the new industries.
The Anglican upper class grabbed enormous tracts of land in the southern region, bought lots of slaves and cultivated cotton, tobacco and rice.
They mostly got on rich on trading the low-cost bounty of exploited land, exploited people for manufactured goods from Europe, and shipping Caribbean products at a markup - all duty free.
Quoting Athena
Concord, 1775? https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-shot-heard-round-the-world
Quoting Athena
You fought every war for something - territorial expansion, resources, political advantage, economic advantage - just not defending democracy.
Quoting Athena
No, but it became necessary to co-ordinate them in order to insure the American Century. You really can't have world supremacy without a strong military and a strong industrial base. This is why you're losing out to China - only the military half is worth a damn now; American industrial power has been outsourced for more profit.
Quoting Athena
It won't matter what their politics are. It won't matter what anyone's politics or religion are when the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Another very important exception is when we get into any origin of the universe proposal. It is not currently known whether or not the origin of the universe was causal.
Quoting Athena
I think it is and even if our approach to such proves to be forever asymptotic, then so be it, that remains the goal.
Quoting Athena
Why? You are an honest person Athena, are you not?
Quoting Athena
I find any notion of personal superiority between human beings, vile and disgusting and I will fight against such notions in every way I can, until I no longer exist.
Quoting Athena
Many 'real' aristos, rather than via your notional and fabled 'noble' imagery of aristocracy, were serious scumbags. The French response to their tyranny was completely understandable. Unfortunately, they took their response tooooooooo far (Israel is repeating that bad mistake now, imo) and ended up with a butcher like Napoleon in charge. Generations of French were slaughtered as a result. But at least they destroyed the aristos. Now they have the more hidden, but as nefarious, French super-rich to deal with, but they are a global phenomenon that are a global scale problem, rather than merely a French one.
Quoting Athena
No its not. Aristos inherited, none of them ever merited.
Quoting Athena
I think what is more important is that such alternative views, offer those who choose, to have choices to choose from. I hope they will all choose more wisely in the future, compared to the present and even more so, in comparison with the past.
Quoting Athena
So how come, coalitions tend to introduce more balanced and more beneficial policies/laws compared to single-party ruled governance? That has certainly been my experience in Scotland, where we tend to be able to offset the most nasty policies, spewed up by Westminster.
Quoting Athena
I agree. I have already offered some of mine.
All I can offer you is an equal retort, to your diva-style insistence that your logic here is sound and strong when it is clearly neither. Your logic is flawed and poor on this issue, and the burden of proof firmly sits with those who make factual claims about supernatural existents.
There is no such notion as 'new atheists.' You complain about 'folk belief' and then you exemplify one that you seem to hold yourself. Atheists are not new, neither are their arguments.
Quoting 180 Proof
I don't know why you want to invoke panto-style responses. When you hear a theist state that their god is real and exists, do you think they really mean 'my god might exist?' If you are suggesting that, then perhaps your impressive knowledge of philosophers and what they write, does not prevent you from sooooooo misunderstanding what real people say, claim and act upon, based on what they promote as FACT!
Quoting 180 Proof
The only strawman being offered in our current exchange exists in your own poor thinking here.
Quoting 180 Proof
My quarrel is with your 'silly' and continued insistence that real every day theists, are not making claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena that they 'know to be facts' about our universe.
You keep thinking that 'silly' way if you wish. I will keep asking the theists to provide proof of their claims.
I think they will therefore find me much more of a challenge to their nonsense than you.
If all you have to offer me is 'rinse and repeat' of your flawed thinking on this issue and panto-style responses then we should end our exchange, on this issue, as it has no wriggle room. :grin:
Nonsense. :roll: (sorry, I almost forgot your 'de rigueur' emoticon :joke: )
Unfortunately, it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No… a wolf posing as a loyal guard dog.
And I imagine many investment advisors are recommending weapons manufacturers as a sure thing.
Quoting Athena
Thanks! :smile:
Indentured servitude is a form of labor where an individual is under contract to work without a salary to repay an indenture or loan within a certain timeframe. Indentured servitude was popular in the United States in the 1600s as many European immigrants worked in exchange for the price of passage to America.
Indentured Servitude: Definition, History, and Controversy. The Catholic church did not encourage the development of capitalism. Spain and Portugal were established in South America and it remains mostly Catholic and poor. While today the division of Catholics and Protestants is not obviously an economic one, in the past the economic divide was defining. While all of Protestantism advanced a more democratic economic system that was especially true for Calvinism which became Puritanism. According to Calvin, only a select few will go to heaven and they do so because God chose them. This odd belief system led to Puritans trying to prove to themselves and everyone else that they were chosen, by accumulating wealth. You know, as God blessed kings with wealth and slaves.
Quoting Wikipedia
The Puritans sure as blazes were not inclusive folks. Unless a person strictly met their standards, that proved they were not "chosen" but oddly if they were chosen they could do whatever they wanted like Nietzsche's Superman. And I am sure most of their slaves were indentured servants.
Back in the day, Martin Luther believed it was necessary to have witch hunts identifying those possessed by Satan and demons, and he also believed God determines who would be maters and who would be slaves. The social order was much closer to the Old Testament- Hebrew or Jewish social ordering dependent on who the parents are. As a person inherited the father's land, he also inherited his father's slaves, and his fathers position. The Greeks used the merit system when assigning people jobs and the Jews and Greeks had a little war because of this.
Yipes too many words again. There could be a whole thread just to explore the relationship between religion and economics. This relationship includes who is a master and who is a servant and what our relationships are all about. If we want to understand democracy, then perhaps we should know more about the New Social order and the reasoning for it. I really appreciate your explanation of economic matters because it gives me an understanding of the government giving railroads land on both sides of the track. The whole notion of a king distributing land as he sees fit has always mystified me. I can understand how the people who benefit from this distribution of land go along with it, but there are many more people who did not benefit from this and why would they buy into it?
:cry: Too much to think about- like the Native American women and some in China who assumed they owned their homes and they ruled. Oh man, I like to think we are in the Resurrection and it is geologists, anthropologists, and related sciences resurrecting our history and our job is to rethink everything!
As our Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. " Our understanding of Justice today is totally different from any past understanding of it and it is time for a "Quantum Shift in the Global Brain".
Absolutely NOT! I want an emoticon banging its head on a wall. Our governing organization in 1775 didn't come close to the Prussian Military Industrial Complex that now defines the US and all modern industrial countries today.
What is the best way for me to deal with this problem of my words having absolutely no meaning to those who read them? Everything that I believe is important rests on people understanding what the Prussian Military Industrial Complex has to do with our culture today, our organization, our economy, and how we experience ourselves as human beings. Our understanding of the relationship between education and our culture, therefore our democracy, is crucial and I am totally failing to make my point.
:broken:
Hey, I think you may understand what I am talking about. Can you expand on what you said? Do you know what merit hiring and advancement has to do with today's changed organization?
Right after WWII, President Eisenhower wrote a letter to Germany thanking them for their contribution to democracy. We adopted the German (Prussian) models of bureaucracy and education. That radically changed the US. My words are failing to explain the importance of this. Can you do better? Please, help if you can.
Maybe so. But since high Anglicans, Methodists, Catholics and all sorts appreciate wealth accumulation, they all preyed on the New World one way or another. AFAIK, only the Quakers objected to slavery.
Great oaks from little acorns grow. Before the war of independence, the only army was Britain's. Having convinced Britain that it was too costly to wage a transoceanic war against colonies reinforced by French and Spanish assistance, the new republic could set about building its own. By 1860, it had two regular armies. By the end of the 19th century, the US was a world power.
**
In 1917-18, the land forces were completely reorganized and bulked up and equipped to the level of any in the world. Since 1943, it's been the biggest, baddest, most outrageously expensive military force the world has ever known, and the US has been dominating the world.
** The article is worth a look - it has good maps.
You can't have all that exceptionalness without breaking a few countries and organizing up a pretty big military-economic-political complex.
The USofA has been at war with somebody though pretty much its entire existence. And its thriving industry has always been a great supporter (and supplier) of those wars; reciprocally, the army (and black ops) was always available to safeguard American enterprise in foreign lands. Friends with benefits, as it were. Even if it meant overthrowing a democratic government or any kind, really, when they threatened US business interests.
According to the wiki linked below, Germany ranks 14th and the United States ranks 30th :yikes: on "The Democracy Index (2022)".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
There are quite a few other NGO & university indexes available via Google which more or less corroborate this disparity.
The way @Athena tells it the USA's so-called "democracy" has declined greatly "since 1958" with the wholesale importation of "the German Bureaucratic Model" blah blah blah and yet Germany ranks (as well as all of its 'highly bureaucratized' Germanic / Nordic neighbors) higher on this "democracy index" than America. :chin: No doubt this discrepancy in expectations is due to the fact that "the 1958 bureaucracy-über-alles" had next-to-nothing to do with American decline – Athena's conspiracy-like "theory" is just another simplistic solution to – diagnosis(?) of – an enormously complex historical and political economic problem that's peculiar to the well-documented, structural and social maldevelopments of the American Republic since its illiberal founding. :mask:
If it's any consolation, the US civil service ranks 11th in effectiveness (this year - it's been in the top 10 before) and Germany was way down at 24th in 2017. This is interesting.
Of course, you are right there. I think most of the time we need to be okay with "I don't know" an unknown. We should never be too sure of ourselves, but neither should we accept myths as God's word and a rational explanation of life. That is going too far in not asking the right questions and attempting to answer them.
Quoting universeness
This disagreement seems pretty easy to end. Have you served on committees? I can not imagine anyone serving on a committee that needs to make serious decisions believing millions of people can argue something until they have a consensus. No one would enjoy being on a ship without a captain and an agreement that the captain has the authority to make decisions.
Important to this thread is there is no time after an invasion to argue about the response. The response needs to occur as soon as possible. In the past, all of government in the US was strong individuals holding the authority to make decisions. We could vote them in or out of office but the bulk of the decisions were made without including everyone in the decision-making and our forefathers attempted to limit governing power with a system of checks and balances that is totally broken now because we ended education for democracy and have a large percent of citizens who reject democracy.
Autocracy is very efficient. Democracy is not. Each manifests a different culture.
Quoting universeness
:lol: I try to be honest but I am often confused and frequently don't know enough and I am becoming increasingly aware of how strongly my emotions affect what I think. I feel like I am on friendly grounds with most posters here, so when I feel offended I check myself, however, this does not happen with everyone. Occasionally I think a person is being intentionally offensive and don't stop to question that.
How we feel in relation to others really matters and hope all of us agree on this. This is one of the most important points I wish was on everyone's mind. How we feel matters, so attack ideas but not the person. Do not intentionally make cutting remarks. That destroys the very foundation of democracy.
Quoting universeness
I love your comment! :heart: Can we reframe that? It is not the person we are judging but the behavior. As my statement above explains I do not judge everyone equally but have an emotional reaction that determines my behavior. When I think I am on friendly terms with someone and feel offended I check myself, however, when it seems obvious to me that someone is intentionally being offensive, I protect myself by avoiding that person. Some humans improve our lives and others damage us and we need to know which is which. :grimace: OMG this is a difficult subject! It is so complex! My son-in-law is a very good guy and he has also been a very, very bad guy. We need to judge the behavior, not the person. Help am I making sense?
And I am making that argument because it goes with judging my own behavior. Am I being the person I want to be? What is a good person? What does it mean to be civilized? How can we have the best discussions and make our best contribution to life? Not a superior person but superior thoughts and actions. God knows I have made some really bad choices and have my share of regrets. The virtue of forgiveness is very important, especially in old age when we are shocked by how little we knew and feel bad about all the errors.
Quoting universeness
What is a scumbag? Are you superior to a scumbag? :lol: I laugh because what we are talking about is so complex. Athens had gods and heroes. The gods were not perfect. They did not know everything and they did not have control over everything like the God of Abraham. Can you imagine having an imperfect god who does not control everything? Now what is a hero? What are the virtues that make it possible for us to do great things? Is being superior because of making an effort to be superior, to be a hero, a bad thing? I am dealing with a family that rejects everything I am saying here and they can barely afford the basics of rent and food. They are victims and have no idea how to stop being victims. :broken: I hope I can do better in forums than I have done with my own family. My son learned of the Greek gods when he was in school but the teacher had zero understanding of why they are important. I am in a philosophy forum because in my desperation to do better in life I found philosophy and the ancient Greeks.
In a democracy, we can all be aristocrats. If one's life is totally impoverished hopefully that person can get to the library and start learning. Hopefully, everyone can pick themselves up and learn of the virtues that we need to get through life. :cry: Our children need to learn this before they can take advantage of an education, and thanks to education for technology the parents don't know the value of this knowledge, not even their teachers know. Our young are being prepared to enter the Borg. They are not being prepared for life! They think if they live in poverty that is the whole of life and they are victims and they have no clue how to improve their lives. Life becomes a reaction based on what one feels at the moment, and if you are mad enough, pick a gun and feel the power you have to kill everyone in sight. There that will show them! We need to educate our young for life.
Yes, diversity can be very beneficial. The gods and goddesses were very different. They each had their own point of view and they argued a lot! That is how our primate intellect grew and grew and has us thinking thoughts far beyond the thinking of days gone by. However, the captain has the authority.
Oh, oh Star Trek. Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the Group think generation. For our symposium let's have plenty of food and drink, and watch Star Trek, and enjoy discussing the ideas brought up in the shows.
:hearts:
:gasp:
Don't get too cocky; it slides down to 23rd when scores are adjusted for GDP. Some smaller, poorer countries (Estonia being at the top) deliver services more economically. I.e. don't waste so much. It's humbling to see Canada below Mexico and Korea on that adjusted scale, but at least the UK is a little more wasteful than we are.
An effective civil service is vital to a nation's well-being and with big, diverse populations, it had better be well organized to be any use at all. If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. However, the US civil service was reformed in 1978 and again 20 years later, with more changes and cutbacks introduced in the present century, so it's a long way from the post-war model by now. Political appointments to the directorships of departments are huge drawback in policy-making and employee participation, as well as risk management - which is presumably why its effectiveness is waning. Of course, if the Trumpites take over, it'll just be torn down anyway.
Here's another fun fact: A New Hampshire boy named Benjamin Thompson, later Count Rumford, was instrumental in introducing 'modern' social services to Bavaria in the 1780's.
He was considered a traitor to America, since he was in the British colonial army and would not betray it. Having been discharged with the rank of colonel, he drifted over to the continent and did a lot of social organizing as well as military and civil inventing in Bavaria. Munich put up a statue while he was still alive, in appreciation of his work.
Hardly anything is as simple as it looks.
Yet we still have billions of believers in woo woo, many of whom use this foundation as a guide to their actions and who they vote for. Do you assign no part responsibility for this to Ancient Greek, Spartan 'storytellers' and/or Prussian theists , who also peddled these same lies as facts?
Quoting Athena
As a school teacher and a Labour Party/young socialist party member, yes, and even as a union shop steward for a while, I have served on many committees, but mostly as talking shops and any resulting decisions made, did not affect 'millions of people.' A ship can easily be run perfectly well by a cooperative rather than a dictatorial captain (captain Bligh perhaps). A single leader can be useful at times but any wise members of a collective can 'play that role,' if and when such is needed.
Quoting Athena
I agree with 'emergency defence powers,' kicking in, if a community is under 'live' attack or imminent attack but I would not allow any elected body to unilaterally declare war, without a public majority mandate to do so. I would change your 'as soon as possible,' to 'with as much wisdom as possible.'
Quoting Athena
I have already stated, many times, how vital, effective, robust, ingrained, checks and balances against any abuse of authority are. Any proposals for a fully representative democratic socialist system, with global, international, national and local tiers, will fail, without them.
Quoting Athena
That's because it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. But this also means that an autocracy can also be destroyed. Efficiency is a very important aspect, sure but a good and progressive system is one that is a balance between efficiency and other vital aspects, such as robustness, fit-for-purpose, flexibility/need, etc.
Quoting Athena
Sometimes, they are. 'Checking yourself,' and your response to being offended by others is a wise approach Athena. I accepted a long time ago, that I won't always get my response correct in every situation. I am no longer so harsh on myself, by regretting my past or current errors in judgement, I just try to learn from them.
Quoting universeness
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Quoting Athena
Would you consider Hitler or any such butcher or someone like a pedophile/rapist/theistic suicide bomber, a scumbag? and if you did, would you consider such a statement, a statement that also means that you feel superior to such people? I certainly would not play such conceptual games. I think you are fully able to understand the different mind states between these two quotes of mine below, and find both statements valid in the way I intend them to be received.
Quoting universeness
Quoting universeness
Don't offer sustenance to those who love to peddle in contrived and conflated conceptualisations.
Quoting Athena
I everyone is X then X fails as a useful discriminator. If we are all scumbags then the doomsters are correct imo, and we should all just lie down and die slowly. I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive.
:100:
Oh boy, I love that statement!:heart: If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. Oh, oh are you aware of the Steam Punk movement?
Quoting wikipedia
That might not be the best explanation as steampunk is so tied to our higher human potential and how capitalism wasted away the higher potential of technological development. Artistically and poetically it is tied to our struggles and capitalist exploitation that left the masses out in the cold. Whereas Germany was the first to have universal medical coverage, workers' compensation, and a national pension plan. The book Poverty and Riches written at the beginning of WWI argued against the British and US exploitation of humans and against taking the British side considering how much better Germany was doing. It provided a higher standard of living and like it or not, many thought fascism was the best way to avoid economic crashes. We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives.
I have to run, but once again I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed. Yes, the German bureaucratic model and education for technology make achieving a high standard of living for all, possible. Unfortunately, we have been focused on the national defense side of the German model. THANK YOU FOR KNOWING ENOUGH TO ADVANCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THESE MATTERS. :heart:
Not here, I think. Only let me observe that taking good ideas from other developed or developing nations does not logically require that you also follow their political regime.
Quoting Athena
I can't really accept the compliment, since I didn't know many of those facts - or only the broad outlines - until I looked them up. I do a lot of research for my work, so I've developed a nose for good sources.
For many years, no one else has cared enough to do any research based on what I say. No one else has come as close as you to grasping the subject. Understanding German history and fascism is important but we can focus on education and make progress.
Do we agree education and culture go together? Perhaps I should have begun with the following quotes but I hate copying them out of books. The following is from an 1899 book "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY; AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS".
William goes on to explain "The Neccissity of Reactions" and that, of course, is about culture. It goes with Thomas Jefferson's concern. This link is worth reading if an understanding of how to protect democracy. Jewet is speaking of Thomas Jefferson.
Quoting Dr. Thomas O. Jewett
Now we need awareness about what war and military technology have to do with education and culture change. The following quote comes from the 1917 National Education Association Conference. Sinclair was one of the speakers. The Prussians united Germany and centralized education and focused it on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. That is the education that results in Sinclair's admiration of Germany.
At the same conference, Sara H. Fahey and an English teacher spoke about Americanizing immigrants who had no understanding of our democratic institutions and prepared all children for good citizenship. This education was a literary one that transmitted a culture, not education for technology. We did not count on parents to teach their children good citizenship because their parents were not prepared to do this. At the time parents were mostly illiterate and/or immigrants. Jobs depended on healthy bodies not book learning. A healthy body without the necessary education can serve Hitler or anyone else just by following orders. And we may have our own Hitler resulting from education for technology trumping liberal education for good moral judgment and good citizenship.
The subject is not the morality of war, but a change in military technology that led to a change in education. This change in education made the US, the Military Industrial Complex, which it defended its democracy against in two world wars, and Trump is our Hitler. Trump is not our Hitler because of who he is, but because he is being what half our nation wants our president to be, and that is not the democracy we defended in world wars. We are no longer the democracy we were. The citizens of the US are their own worst enemy and this is why I write.
Perhaps another quote from a book about Germany written as Germany prepared for the First World War would help, but I am tired and very discouraged. A Prussian explained the change in the military organization that was essential to modern warfare. The new army includes a nation's Industrial leaders taking over the tasks of supplying the army's needs. Now Government and Industry are linked together as they never were before. This is very much an economic challenge because the modern military force requires the very best technology and that is very expensive, so the government must take control of the economy as it never did before. If Russia and China are smart they will encourage wars that involve the US and strictly avoid engaging the US in war. All they need to do is bleed our economy by creating conditions that demand the US come to someone's defense. A bankrupt nation can not afford war, if our credit is destroyed and we have to pay more to borrow money, we are dog meat! Today's war is not the war of the past where the men can walk to the battle with their own rifles and possibly be on the winning side. Our military superiority has been our economy and military technology, not the brave or stupid men who fought in the past. Take out our satellites and we are in deep shit. Money and technology.
Yes. Quoting Athena
William James has rather harsh and simplistic opinions about other cultures.
As for the Jefferson thing... Sure, he wanted educated white middle-class men to carry on his traditions.
I take it Sinclair would have preferred an effective armed forces, such as the one that eventually defeated Germany, rather than one Germany would have defeated. You're so proud of winning, but seem to wish it could have been done without a winning strategy. It can't.
Quoting Athena
Most generals of any nationality would rather recruit/conscript healthy young men who follow orders than smartasses who question the military routine.
Did they already know about Hitler in 1917? And did Germany have a healthy, illiterate population in 1939? Actually, no: the literacy rate was 90% or better. And they had stories, too, of their heroic ancestors and glorious deeds. Everybody does. That doesn't mean you have to neglect maths and science.
Quoting Athena
I didn't mention the morality (or otherwise) of war. Only that the USofA has always had armies and always waged wars - with the newest and best technology available at any given moment, in any chosen conflict. I use the word 'chosen' advisedly: The USofA was never forced into a conflict or confrontation; was never under serious external threat. All of its wars were wars of aggression.
They bombed two whole countries to ratshit because somebody (who came from neither of those countries) broke two of their overgrown office towers.
Quoting Athena
(Yet again: your democracy was never under any threat in either of those wars.)
The change in education has nothing to do with electing a dumb sociopathic egomaniac for president. That's down to crappy political organization and electoral procedure, large-scale corruption and regional disaffection, and general stupidity. The yahoos that carry guns for Trump didn't get a technical education. They just want to be top dogs again.
Quoting Athena
When, exactly? What date, in your opinion, was the high point of American democracy?
Quoting Athena
Sure, by threatening a strategic military position or economic interest. Do they know how greedy your arms dealers are, and how wasteful your military budgets are? Of course they do: everybody spies on everyone. What wars are mostly about are "the national interest". And, yes, they require money and technology, as well as brave, stupid men who buy into the patriotic hype. This is not new. Every war in the history of the world has been fought with the latest, most expensive weapons, by the most modern methods, with the most popular slogans on the banners or both/all sides. The next one will probably do away with most of us.
That appears a very interesting subject but I am not sure what you are talking about. To me the term "woo woo" is insulting like name calling and has no intellectual value. On the other hand, a better understanding of Athens and Sparta's military thinking is exciting to me. We can follow this under the subject of culture because truly Athens and Sparta had extremely different cultures. Thanks to the Prussians who united and protected Germany, Germany was the modern Sparta and the US was the modern Athens. If you can advance this argument I will give it my best shot. Quoting universeness
I like that last point. Democracy means everyone is prepared for leadership because we are all responsible. But we also respect the person in the seat of authority and do not compete with him. Today there is a lot of lusting for power, and there is no respect for the person in the seat of power. That is in part because the persons taking the seats of power do not have the necessary virtues, but hell, the voters don't understand what virtues and morality have to do with anything away. We do not have the CULTURE that is essential to good relationships. Quoting universeness
I am not finding the right words. We need some agreements to work together well.
Quoting Hustle
Oh yeah, and that is why our forefathers made it very hard to go to war. Congress holds the purse strings so supposedly we can not engage in war without the citizens agreeing to pay for the war. However, Bush and Hitler were able to engage in war without war budgets. Without a good education, we no longer understand the wisdom of our forefathers. And you moved me to google for information and I found something I love and this needs to be a discussion of the Military Industrial Complex and how it is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.
Quoting Michael Boyle
:lol: I have gone from discouraged to joy. There is so much to say about war. Christianity got a lot of converts because it was believed the people with the most powerful god won wars, and Romans with their superior armies won a lot of wars and brought Christianity to conquered people. However, the Athenians did not like their war god who brought chaos.
Quoting universeness
Do you have a chart of that organization? Sometimes it is easier for me to understand if I am looking at a picture. I wish I had more time and energy because I would like a separate thread to handle the subject of how governments are organized. This is a very important and complex story crucial to the subject of culture. Your citizens can do only as well as they learn to do. They must be educated and that is the subject of this thread. It is a twin to the subject of organization because if the government is too strong it disenfranchises citizens and becomes the enemy of democracy.
Quoting universeness
I do not think a suicide bomber is a scumbag. I do not know if Hitler brutalized anyone. I think he delegated responsibility and did not pay attention to what others were doing. I don't think any of the war criminals saw themselves as evil wrongdoers. There is a danger of mob mentality or being caught up in the drama of the moment. This is where the subject of the importance of learning virtues and culture comes in. The Ku Klux Klan was a horrible racist organization and very nice Christian women were very much of this racist culture. We sure do not have clean hands and maybe sociology has something valuable to teach us?
I do not about me being superior to others, but I know there is a higher self and I strive to be a better person. I am so much wiser than I once was and it is just good luck that my life came out pretty well. I am extremely grateful to those who helped me do better.
Quoting universeness
Well, I will do my laundry tomorrow and wash away the spit. And I will dress nicely and behave civilly and indulge myself in some intellectual pursuit. that gives me pleasure and I am very grateful for the very good life I have even though I have always been monetarily very poor. So I will keep saying we can all be aristocratic and I think this is a good thing about democracy. I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married.
:lol: I do not know why you say I am so proud of winning a war. Especially when we fought those wars for nothing because we are now what we defended our democracy against.
Also, I am not so sure we should have entered the First World War. Germans had a higher standard of living and the poor children in Britain were horribly abused! I am not sure if universeness's feelings towards aristocrats is because of a very ugly history? But when it comes to war I like what Professor Harnack had to say, "A permanent peace can only be achieved by hard intellectual effort and intellectual honesty".
Quoting Vera Mont
Why would they need to know about Hitler in 1917? Charles Sarolea's 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem" provides all the information we need. William James wrote of Germany's education in 1899.
In 1916 Scott Nearing, Ph. D. wrote "Poverty and Riches A Study of the Industrial Regime" which is information on Britain, Germany, and the US. There was information for those who wanted it. And yes in 1939 Germany was comparatively doing very well despite the hardships put on it following the First World War. Maybe because I am tired but you seem a little antagonistic to me.
Quoting Vera Mont
I am not so sure the US did not feel threatened by the fact it was totally unprepared for modern warfare. I do know I am very tired and it is not a good idea for me to continue. I am thinking you have a bone to pick with the US and I should not take what you say personally. Hopefully, things will go better when I am rested.
I spit on all notions of aristocracy Athena, not on your clothing.
Quoting Athena
Sure you can, and as a fellow democrat, I will continue to keep saying that all notions and examples of aristos are net negatives.
Quoting Athena
I would take him for a few beers and see if I could help him and his wife (married or not makes absolutely no difference at all, imo.) directly with his 8 children, or give him the info he needs to get all the state help he is due, or I would help those who were campaigning to get his like more help and support and try to make sure his children have more opportunities and support than he ever had. I reckon you would also try to help such a family in such ways. In fact I think you would be compelled to help them, if they needed it, even more than I would.
Thanks for your reply! :smile:
But sorry… I’m not much of an expert in the very important subject of world arms trading.
I started to watch a video recently, but stopped after 5 minutes because the combination of greed, heartlessness, and inevitable violence was nauseating.
Amazing how all these weapons can be used purely for the noble purpose of national and self-defense.
Thanks though for your discussion about the 1958 shift in education in the USA, which had enormous implications.
You achieved world domination, miltarily, politically and economically. That's not nothing: that's wealth and power and exceptionality. And no, you didn't become anything like the nations you fought against, both of which became well organized, well-run modern industrial nations, while the USA grew increasingly corrupt and divided since WWII. That has nothing to do with the model of education or tech culture, and everything to do with the sway of moneyed interests, (harnessing religious ones) which had been playing a decisive role in American politics from the very beginning.
Quoting Athena
Paranoia is not synonymous with actual threat. And it couldn't have been "totally unprepared" if it kept winning all those wars - mostly for expansion of territory. In most countries where it exported and imposed "American democracy", the US succeeded only in setting up a dictatorship (or chaos) The only successful conversions were Germany, Japan and Italy - presumably because those nations already had the social infrastructure to support democratic governance. That learning of useful skills isn't all one way!
Quoting Athena
I prefer truth to jingo, but that's not exclusive to the US. I, do, however, grow weary of repetition.
We share a lot of agreement regarding the weapons Industry and having a president tell countries they have to build up their own weapon supply because we are not going to carry the responsibility of defending them. I would love to cut the US free of the responsibility of defending other nations, but escalating the devastation of war by increasing the stock of weapons around the world does not impress me as a good idea.
I do not believe humans kill each other because Adam and Eve ate the wrong fruit, nor that war is inevitable. The characteristics of democracy are opposed to war and all modern nations practice a form of democracy. War is not good for anyone's economy.
The Iroquois or more correctly the Haudenosaunee Confederacy have a story of a man coming and teaching the way of peace. This became the foundation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. They inspired our movement from warring kingdoms and populations divided as into masters and servants, to a democracy. However, the masses never got the information that is being made available to us today.
I believe the New Age is a period of high-tech, and peace, and the end of tranny. I believe we are entering that now but this period of transition is very difficult.
I did not achieve world domination and my fellow citizens are completely ignorant of the reality of a Military Industrial Complex. If there were not so much ignorance we would have a different reality. Public public education with mass media and the internet can certainly manifest a better reality. It was not the intent of the US to have world domination. We were strong isolationists wanting to stay out of Europe's wars. I hope everyone will find the following link interesting and that the discussion of military technology and the New World Order/ Military Industrial Complex will improve.
Quoting Steve n Michels
You may of course jump on the fact that the US was divided and fought a Civil War that was far from civil and we can talk about why this happened.
Quoting Vera Mont
Thank you for this argument. There is some question if the invading Europeans would have walked across the northern continent if the native population had not been devastated by disease. Once the Europeans brought in their horses the Comanche established an empire. Winning wars is very much about technology.
I do not think the US was paranoid when the first world war began. But it was alarmed by the amazing success of Germany's invading forces. Here we need to understand how radically different this military achievement was. After the end of the Second World War, Eisenhower wrote a letter praising Germany for its contributions to democracy and a good understanding of why Eisenhower thought Germany made a contribution to democracy would be helpful.
I wish I had a better understanding of why the US took the British side in this war because that does not make sense to me given the fact that the Germans were doing better in manifesting overall well-being than Britain. I don't think the British have an admirable history.
And yes, the US was totally unprepared for World War one and two. It was that first war that was perhaps the most vital because that is the war that woke the US up to the importance of education for technology to national defense. For the first time, the US schools added more technology to education than the 3 R's. The rush to advance technology was a radical change in education.
You may notice it took the US at least a year to mobilize for those wars. Public schools were essential to the mobilization for war and for keeping the US running while our men were fighting overseas. Amusingly, not until WWII did the US fully commit to the Military Industrial Complex. Before the military technology of WWII, the priority of public education in the US was preparing our young to be good citizens who understood democracy and why it must be defended.
The German mind is certainly one to be admired. But a liberal education is essential to democracy. What I am arguing for, is a better balance of preparation for democracy and education for a technological society. I think since WWII Germany has leaped ahead in the advancement of a civil civilization. As they have filled their cities with reminders of what was done to Jews, the US needs to fill its cities with reminders of its wrongs. This is essential to completing the transition to the New Age.
:lol: AA, owning up to our wrongs and increasing our awareness of rights and the higher power.
Not that long ago, an adult was judged by certain behaviors. We held different expectations for men and women and their status in the community depended on their character and signs of being responsible. When a man married and had a child he had a better chance of getting jobs and advancement. His wife could be an equally important part of these status judgments. You know, the man whose wife sat on civic committees and the couple limited the number of children they had. I am not in favor of destroying this system of organizing society. That is what I mean by being aristocratic.
I do not expect things to improve until we replace the autocratic model of Industry with a democratic model. I do not question the importance of education for democracy and the importance of putting democracy into practice economically as well as politically. Teaching the principles of democracy and then living autocratically creates a problem.
People who hang out in the pub will be pleased with a free beer but why would we think this person would appreciate our advice on how to live? The wife waiting at home with children may not appreciate his time in the bar. His pursuit of happiness is not accumulating knowledge. I think we can work on social and economic matters but not personal matters. Education can work almost miracles in a person's life but what will motivate a person to desire education?
Really? Then why did it conquer everything in sight?
Quoting Athena
Indeed - some of them. That didn't stop forays into Latin America and the Pacific. Quoting Athena
European disease, whether accidentally or deliberately introduced. Of-bloody-course they would have, with more and more developed weaponry and lots of it. The Natives acquired some of that weaponry to fight back, or they would have been depopulated much faster.
Quoting Athena
Yes, and the Americans were always at the forefront of killing technology. In 1914, their standing army was relatively small - and half the troops were off someplace, guarding US interests abroad, but in 1917-18, it mustered 4 million men. Pretty fast preparation! But we've been around this mulberry bush! There was nothing backward or peaceable about America's military capability. Though Congress was reluctant to allocate funds in peacetime, that changed very quickly and the ranks were swelled in a short time.
.Quoting Athena
British and French. They were allies and trading partners and shared a cultural heritage. Plus, it was Germany that invaded other European countries, not Britain - that time. Plus, the Ottoman Empire was looking to expand its dominions, threatening British and French colonies. It couldn't be allowed to take over the southern coast of the Mediterranean.
Quoting Athena
Hardly! Reform has been on-going in response to the requirements of industry, public health and global competition.
** presumably the wave you keep complaining about.
If you mean by education-for-technology something different from rigorous science courses, I've not been able to figure out what that is. Nor do I see - even though I've asked this a number of times - why science cannot be taught alongside history and civics.
Quoting Athena
Germans have human minds. No infant comes out of the womb with a brain of any particular nationality. They're potentially clever or slow, verbal or visual, have a facility for numbers or abstract ideas or arts. What happens next depends on the child's circumstances.
Whether a nation adopts the better or worse ideas of its clever citizens depends on the national aspirations at any given period.
Quoting Athena
Sure. But I don't see US education doing all that famously on the math/science front, either.
Unless something's changed since 2015 ... when it stood 24th in science and reading, 40th in math at age 15. Of course, this an average, including both New Jersey and Mississippi. States rights in education do students a grave disservice!
Who should determine what a child learns?
Educators, not politicians, and not clergy.
I know it's been going around in circles. I know that Athena has an idee fixe, which is not exactly wrong, but neither is it fact based. I don't really expect it to change. But the exercise has made me learn details of American history about which I'd only a hazy idea before, so from my personal POV, the effort is not wasted. (Maybe I'll even live long enough to use this stuff in a novel....)
Okay and who decides what the Educators know and value?
Who determines the purpose of Education?
Teachers are dependent on manufacturers for learning supplies. Who determines what they say in the text and provide on the Internet?
What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values?
Coming from your arguments I will ask is there such a thing as a national culture and then subculturals? Is there anything Educators can do to influence the culture and subcultures?
How do we get our ideas of what we want to be and what we should be? This goes with what is the purpose of education.
They each decide what they themselves value. The DoE imposes some conditions on the allocation of federal funds, but individual institutions of higher learning, administered by state agencies, have their curricula dictated by state policy and local boards of education choose and reject textbooks. This is what causes the disaster of teaching creationist doctrine in science class, climate change denial and high rates of illiteracy in the worst governed states. (I assume California is near the bottom because of its large immigrant population, but I haven't followed that up.)
Quoting Athena
A big one. And it changes over time. Quoting Athena
At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones. Of course, with globalization, instant communication and large-scale migration, all cultures are increasingly influenced by other cultures. (I could swear this, too, has been mentioned before.) There are no static cultures, and haven't been any for a considerable time now, no matter how yearningly some people in just about every culture hark back to an earlier period they imagine to have been better.
Quoting Athena
That seems to be a contentious question in the United States . Secretaries of Education have a lot to say in the matter. Some political appointees like Betsy DeVos clearly don't believe in public education at all and make every effort to tear it down, while others, like Ron DeSantis have their own ideological crusade , while some, like Miguel Cardona, have an optimistic vision
Quoting Athena
No; textbook publishers depend on sales to school boards and libraries for their living.
Quoting Athena
State and local Boards decide what material will be supplied to classrooms.
My concern is the education of small children, not higher education. My argument is the priority for education was preparing the children to become self-governing adults. That is what liberal education. Education for technology is more concerned with test scores and international ratings, not the individual child. In the past teachers help a child discover his/her individual talents and interests. Today I think most of the children are denied the education they need as we focus on those going to college because that is what the federal government funds.
Preparing the young to be self-governing adults, is the first line of defense against social problems reducing crime and the need for public assistance, and this why I write. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people- a police state and people controlled by fear of losing of their jobs. Culture is vital to our liberty and this does not mean the freedom to dye one's hair green or put a stud in one's nose.
OMG Oregon, where I live, is at the bottom of academic achievement! I just looked that up. California is close to the top and above Texas. Texas teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court to end forcing them to teach creationism as science, and the Supreme Court ruled creationism is not science. For political reasons, book manufacturers write different accounts of history for Texas than they write for California. That difference in education is the fuel for civil war. So yes, we do have a serious problem.
About the part culture plays you said. Quoting Vera Mont If we want our liberty and avoid the conditions of a police state and possibly another civil war, there are elements of culture that should not change. Do you want to argue against that? I am in agreement that we have culture change. The US is what we defended our democracy against, but is this a good thing? We have progressed in reducing racial of gender discrimination but I think some things have gotten worse, like reliance on authority.
If they don't learn to read and count in the early grades, higher education is off the table before they can even think about whether they want it. Self-governing adults are not necessarily innumerate, hero-worshipping science-deniers.
Quoting Athena
At 20 or fewer students per class, there is no reason you can't have both.
Just where did you get the idea that a rigorous academic program is inimical to individual development or good citizenship?
Quoting Athena
Too late. They already have. Not that the old culture was set up to prevent civil war - it didn't. The police state is not a result of K-8 classroom practices.
Quoting Athena
I still don't think so. But you do, so that's that.
Some things got better over time, some things got worse; some things that had gotten better are getting worse again, and there are factions that want things back the way they were before the civil war, and some that want single-party rule unfettered by a constitution, and some that want to exile, imprison or shoot all the factions and ethnicities and occupations and religions and opinions they don't like. All these crises will have passed, one way of another, long before the primary school students of today have any say in the matter - though some of them already own their own guns.
I was rushed earlier and I missed saying how glad I am that we no longer beat the devil out of our children. I think some serious changes have followed such as knowing old ways were abusive and lead to social problems. We now know a strong and loving family results in children having better health physically and mentally. This seems to be bleeding over to workers demanding better treatment along with higher wages. I am not sure how this is going to work out but the positives and very encouraging. However, I am not sure that a failure to have a sense of family duty is a good thing? Research has indicated children with single parents are more at risk.
Quoting Vera Mont
:grin: We are back on track. This is a mind-provoking comment "At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones." I can think of a few things that divided us. Cattle ranchers didn't like sheep herders, slave and none slave states, of course, Industry versus agriculture, living in the city or the country, living by a seaport or far from the oceans. However, education should unite us with a fundamental understanding of democracy and what it means to be a good citizen because we can not defend our democracy without that knowledge. It is fine to be a Hippy :starstruck: or Asian or Native American or a person of color who wants to identify with people in a particular region, but as Americans we need some agreements about what means to live in a democracy.
Thanks to you, and looking for more information, and finding the explanation of California and Texas having different history textbooks, I am :broken: brokenhearted to know these states are controlled by politics and not the determination to know the truth and to be honest. We can not be united if we do not share the history and fundamental values.
Your explanation of who decides what children will learn is excellent! A professor who sits in the hot tub where I go, said I have the best chance of affecting policy if I personally know someone and if we continue this discussion, I may give up being a Senior Companion so I have the time and energy to focus on education. I am wondering if a hundred-dollar donation would encourage our Governor to have lunch with me and talk about the need for Oregon to law that we have civics education!
These arguments lead to finding important information that my old books don't have :lol: and also increase my awareness of what is important to bridge with others. Being alone with my books does not develop my thinking as I must do if I am going to be effective. :worry: If I had a teaching career I would naturally be more informed about what is happening today and who it is important for me to have lunch with. Even if I had a child in school that would help, but being an outsider and coming in with different ideas DOES NOT GO SO WELL!
Thank you for representing the million of people who do not see the importance of education for democracy and pulling out my thoughts about why a liberal education is so important! Children who do not have good character development are going to fail no matter what. Demanding they know New Math when their parents can not help them and there is no one to tutor a struggling child, only harms the child with the constant failure the child can not avoid. Especially if the child has bad parents and/or has a life of constant adversity, this can consume the child's awareness making it impossible for the child to learn. But there is a cure- anyone can be a good citizen with good forefathers and strong mothers if the schools teach this.
These are the characteristics that describe the ideals and procedures of democracy....
1. Respect for the dignity and worth of the individual human personality.
2. Open opportunity for the individual.
3. Economic and social security.
4. The search for truth.
5. Universal education.
6. The rule of the majority; the rights of the minority; the honest ballot.
8. Justice for the common man; trial by jury; and arbitration of disputes; orderly legal processes; freedom from search and seizure right to petition.
There are 4 more but I have to run. I would give anything including my life if this would be taught in all schools along with learning the virtues that make it possible for us to engage courageously with life and our fellow human beings. Then maybe the young people who go into debt to pay for college, will succeed in having the career they were educated to have. That education for technology is no good without the character to take advantage of it.
Nonsense! You have made no case whatever - in all these pages - for why sound knowledge and useful skills are incompatible with virtuous character and good citizenship.
I have some issues - or rather, did have, when I was more directly interested in the process - with how certain subjects are taught, and how classrooms and testing are organized, but I see no reason - no reason whatsoever - why a person can't have a good education as well as good values.
I've been trying and trying to tell you: You don't have to choose! A well organized, well staffed, well conducted system of public education can achieve all of those objectives: well-rounded, confident, literate, numerate, logical people who take control of their own governance, economy and jurisprudence.
Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings.
But the political entities and their special-interest supporters don't desire a knowledgeable, sensible populace: they desire a rabble that's easily swayed and buys all the merchandising.
And now, I'm weary of repeating it.
:100: :up:
As this thread amply shows, I'm afraid Athena is extremely allergic to contrary evidence or apples to apples comparisons of "the human development / cultural data of rich nations".
:lol: Lets see if I can do as well as Socrates. He gave his life for democracy even though he thought poorly of the decisions that were made. What did Socrates believe people needed to know to make good decisions? How were they to gain that knowledge?
What does this quote mean?
“Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich
It's about the partisanship of US politics, I assume. He has a degree in communication, which is fine for a career politician. Seems like a nice guy, might make a good president - with a Dem-dominated Congress - but he can never be elected to that office: short, intelligent and vegan are a deadly combination in the USA.
And yet once more again: Why do you think someone who understands evolution and electricity can't have principles?
He lost the election to Bush Junior and if he had won, the neocons would not have been able to take us to war as they were intent on doing at least since Bill Clinton was in office. His response to 911 and Bush invading Iraq on trumped-up charges, was that we missed a golden moment to grieve and to be supported by the world that saw us as victims and not the victimized. The global reality would be totally different than it is today. I think your opinion of the US would be totally different if Kucinich had won that election.
I will try another question. Kucinich mentioned being motivated by principals. What principals? How do people learn about principals?
Something that drives my thinking is this explanation of fast and slow thinking.
We used to use the Conceptual Method of teaching children how to think. This was replaced with the Behaviorist Method which is also used for training dogs. Dogs do not vote but humans who may know a lot about one thing like how to get to the moon, may be no better prepared for thinking than a dog. As William James said "The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philoogical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research."
What do you think he thought of how a German was prepared to think?
What might be the ramifications of changing how we teach children how to think? What is the moral of evolution or getting a spaceship to the moon that will help us be better voters?
Quoting Athena
Kucinich never got within ballistic missile distance of losing to Bush. He didn't carry a single state in the Democratic primaries for 2004 and dropped out of the race for the 2008 candidacy. Unelectable.
Quoting Athena
This one? When was it used? Where? How?
Quoting Athena
I assume you mean positive reinforcement: praising them when they figure out the right answer, instead of hitting them across the knuckles with a ruler if they don't. I'm actually okay with this change.
Quoting Athena
They already know how to think; they come complete with all the necessary equipment. The trouble begins when parents and community, government, church and school all compete for the right to decide what they should think.
Quoting Athena
OTOH, why do you think not knowing those things makes a good voter or a moral person? As Texas and Florida illustrate, restricting what students may hear and learn, limiting the children's scope to the parents', makes them more compliant to authority - I thought you didn't approve of that! - but it sure doesn't make them more responsible citizens!
I am glad you want information on the subject. When we entered WWII teachers who had taught for many years could no longer teach unless they went to college and got the newly required education to be teachers. My grandmother was one of these women. She began her day with the children by having everyone sing. You might like to know why Plato and Aristotle thought music was perhaps the most important t part of education and you can that information from their books.
The following is taken from the book "America's World Backgrounds" a grade school textbook by George Earl Freeland, copyright 1942.....
"The central purpose of this book is to make citizens better equipped to face realities. At every step the readers are made to see their relationship to everything that surrounds them. The role of people in every historical movement is made prominent so that the reader will understand his place and his importance in modern society, and accept his own personal obligation to be an intelligent and responsible citizen.
We suggest that the teacher remember the fundamental purpose of developing socially minded citizens. The plan is the selection of the subject matter on every page and in the lists of books, problems, and activities at the close of each unit is directed towards what A Charter for the Social Sciences calls the supreme purpose of the Social Sciences; "To create rich and many-sided personalities are informed about a wide range of affairs both immediate and remote. They are aware of personal and social responsibilities; they know that the environment can be changed within limits by individual and social action.
A Charter for the Social Sciences then enumerates very specifically the elements that make a good citizen, with a "rich and many-sided personality". In addition to a body of information about the modern world and the elements that form its background, the "Charter" suggests certain skills that must be acquired to give power; habits that should be formed such as cleanness, industry, courtesy, accuracy, and effective co-operation; attitudes, such as tolerance, open-mindedness, social-mindedness, and loyalty to America's domestic ideals that must be set up; courage and will power that should be developed by citation of noble examples of leadership in the struggle of mankind towards a richer and better life for all; constructive imagination that should be fostered; and finally, aesthetic appreciation that can inspire the pupils' minds with zeal for the finest products of genius."
There is more but I want to provide another source as well.
This next book is dated 1924 Reading and Living by Howard Copeland Hill and Rollo LaVerne Lyman
"Whether at home or at school, at work or at play, we spend most of our waking time with other people. Our pleasures and achievements depend largely upon our success in getting along with our companions; our problems and difficulties usually come from human associations. Indeed, a successful and happy life is chiefly the result of living well with other folk.
Great writers have been fascinated by human relationships. The poem, stories, essays, and novels usually deal with people living and working together. Literature is a mirror of life, reflecting those human interests and problems that grow out of our contact with one another; one of its chief values is to enable us to understand and to to appreciate life.
Selections have been chosen because they illustrate or illumine the art of living and working together...."
Maybe in the morning, I can find the book advising teachers to not fuss over whether a child remembers names and dates but pay attention to the child's understanding of the concepts. I have a lot of books to pull from but understanding why this education is important and what it has to do with democracy, is better understood by knowing what Plato and Aristotle thought of education. We are not the united and cooperative nation we were and coincidentally that domestic education was replaced with education for technology in 1958. Hum, I should quote the math book as well, as it explains the value of being math literate, in solving everyday problems and the book I have about math literacy explains how that can make us better voters. The past conceptual and domestic education did not leave people ignorant but 8th grade dropouts were capable of starting their own businesses. We were prepared to be independent and not have to rely on authority or the government. We prepared our young for life. Plato and Aristotle would approve as democracy is about each of us self-actualizing and developing the good. That is a cultural difference.
Good luck promoting that.
You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.
All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system.
Ken
So is Celtic, Jew, Spartan, Roman, Hun, American, European, Black, White, Male, Female, Intersex, baby, bird, fish etc merely ways to 'organise' lifeforms, or do you see each as 'separate forms of consciousness,' which are merely parts of a greater whole?
Are all notions or categorisations of separate 'cultures,' also organisations in your mind, that you also see as separate manifestations of:Quoting ken2esq?
Are organisations like NATO or the 6 retail shops owned by the family of a friend of mine, also 'conscious life forms?'
Your line of argument here, and on the other threads you have posted on TPF, just seem so akin to mere 'flights of personal fantasy,' to me.
You are using the natural tendency of chaos to order back to chaos via entropy, to make quite bizarre claims about human conscience, to deliver an unfounded posit about the existence of a single overall conscience that in your view, either has always existed or is emergent.
Imo, what you offer is mainly theosophist woo woo nonsense.
Does that mean each Christian denomination has a separate consciousness because each has a separate organizational hierarchy? And does that account for all the warfare between Protestants and Catholics for the domination of Europe? And since both Christianity and Islam arose from Judaism, does that make them both patricides and fratricides? Are all organizational entities natural born killers?
It's possible, I suppose, since all these organizations are based on human ideas and consist of human members. A herd of elephants is not naturally murderous toward other elephant herds, nor is a hive of bees inimical to other bees, but chimpanzee troops can be. I guess that is where human begins: with a mob consciousness that craves violent conflict among kin.
Yes, group identity gives us an immortality and many have died to maintain the conscious life form. For me, that group organization is democracy. Not the US but democracy as a concept coming out of Athens but also observed in tribal units around the world. It is just that Athens gave us a lot of philosophy that shapes our democracy.
Lately, the TV programs I watch have been about group identity and injustices done to the different racial groups. This search for a separate identity is curious to me. In grade school, a teacher told us of our migration from Europe and she told us to ask our parents what country we came from. When I asked my mother what we are she got indignant and said we are Hnienz 57 varieties. That is the melting pot of the US. I have no idea where my family came from and I don't care! I rather define who I am with virtues, morals, and philosophy bonded together with a notion of democracy. If anyone was discriminated against it was women! I remember when if women worked, they did low-paying jobs. Teachers were paid so poorly, my teacher grandmother was put in the welfare part of a nursing home and these people were fed last.
We are so far from a shared history, as each group has its own sad story. :cry: What about human history that includes everyone? When did humans not compete for land and resources? Figuring out how to trade and prosper is also part of that history. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I wonder about a shared consciousness that includes everyone. Is that possible?
It seems to me, in my lifetime, our shared consciousness has changed a lot! I think we are in the resurrection with archeologists, anthropologists, and related sciences bringing the past into the present and it is our task to rethink everything and develop a new consciousness of the New Age.
I would say so. My family is an organization and I am the matriarch. :lol: Oh my goodness one thought leads to another. My X was in a hurry to prove he was a man by having a son. I have heard something about survival of the fittest involving males competing for females so their superior gene line is the one that is reproduced. However, animals don't conceptualize their behavior and I think a conceptual form needs concepts.
My goodness, I am amazed by all the concepts involved. In part, this is also about notions of superiority.
Who deserves to survive and who can we eliminate and who gets to judge? Is it important to save all languages and therefore all tribal concepts of human life and is it a tragedy if a tribe dies with no recorded memory? In the TV shows I watch, there are people who take such matters very seriously.
What is cool about your musings (your posts), Athena, is that you demonstrate that you still need and want to muse so much. It is such a big part of who you are, imo. We all need to do the same.
In that lies the truth, that we are each, always learning. Arrogance and 'me,' 'me' me!' are part of the problem, that we all must fight against, in secular and humanist ways.
As I have stated many times, it's your legacy that will endure, in ways you can never know.
Cultural legacy in that sense, is indeed, critical, imo.
BUT, not the classics, they must make room for the new enlightenments to come.
Oh my dear, I think I have to argue against that notion, but then I am afraid I will have to argue against myself when I criticize the warrior mentality. :lol: Wow am I confused at the moment! I think this is going to take a lot of work. Socrates might appreciate my dilemma. He was very concerned about the stories we tell and their effect.
On the other hand, I am very excited about how much our consciousness has changed and the direction it is going. I am fully expecting a New Age where our consciousness will be so changed people can no longer relate to our past.
For sure it is past my bed time and I have obligations tomorrow. It is nice to be sure of some things and not completely lost in unknowns. Good night.
Of course you do, and I am glad of it, in a democracy, people need alternate views to choose from.
Quoting Athena
Don't get me wrong Athena in that I am very aware of the truth of 'those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.' I am not saying that the thoughts and fables of the ancients have no value, but I am saying that they are not good enough to form the basis of our moral codes or human rights or global constitution or prime directives, in our spacefaring future as one united species.
:up: :up:
[s]as one united species.[/s]
incorrigible:
(of a person or their behaviour) not able to be changed or reformed.
I suppose we all hold some views, very strongly.
'A counterfactual ideal projection' for which, like "God" or utopia/paradise, there aren't – never have been – any compelling grounds to believe or expect. 'Your Roddenberryesque fantasy' is, my friend, "incorrigible" – even, I'm sad to say, religious. You seem to forget: we are primates, not ants or angels. :mask:
The big question is: will there be time enough? I doubt it.
Now that I have to argue against and it goes with the subject of this thread. Who makes war, individuals or the whole bloody civilization? :rofl: so after deleting my very long argument, I am wondering how to shorten it. :grimace: I think I need to start a thread for war. I am totally fascinated by war.
I do not believe there are any Spartan-like nations today, even though modern nations are organized Military Industrial Complexs. In general, I think secular populations are opposed to war unless attacked. I have to clarify secular because the religious folks can so easily be convinced that God wants them to fight against evil. I think their war god is behind the centuries of war they have had. I am not convinced that this hateful behavior is because Adam and Eve and all their offspring are the evil. The Mongols may have wrongfully killed a lot of people and wrongfully enslaved those they did not kill. but can that history be repeated today? A huge concern in the past was that civilized people would become soft and weak and easy to conquer. If it were not for their religious justifications for war, I don't think these people would favor war unless they had no choice but to defend themselves and their allies.
I see the internet as a way to end wars. If the mothers around the world could communicate with each other, I think they would be as opposed to war as the women of Sparta. When we can all know each other as well as we know our neighbors we will be in a New Age that can not relate to the history we have had. Today we have the history of Germany, the first Military Industrial Complex to make better decisions, we just ignore that history unless an individual has a reason to know why we adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.
Yipes out of time- It is possible to know more today than we ever could and I honestly believe if we survive global warming there will be a New Age where ignorance will not lead to war.