Redding California

Why bother with any of this?

For potential comfort and enjoyment, of course.

Longevity too, I suppose?

Potentially.

Why are you suddenly speaking in dialogue?

Sometimes I can think more effectively this way, if you must know.

You've lost it, noggin.

Thanks at least for supposing I once had "it."

So you put stock into what internet folks think huh? Sounds deep.

Whatever. At times we tend to be ruled by our inherent, instinctual moral sensibilities. Since that moral sense comes to us as we've inherited it from other beasts as well as by way of pack- and tribe-mentalities, it seems proper somehow that it be closely examined. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Why?

Because we, or most of us, no longer live in packs and tribes. We now reside with our families in towns, cities, villages, counties, and nations. We work within corporate structures and on the floors of factories and various other commercial venues and institutions rather than hunting and searching out berries. And we attend school for a very long time.

You're speaking as though we were still beasts ourselves, ruled by instinct. How ridiculous.

I think it's a mistake to assume that humans are not at least partly instinctual beings. Whether or not we ever evolve completely away from instinct is for me a pointless question. And I don't see any reason not to embrace instinctual kinds of knowledge.

Such as?

We'll return to that later, if anyone finds it worth pursuing. At any rate, I hope you'll agree that at least looking at our moral instincts can be valuable, potentially enhancing our comfort.

Again with the comfort. Make a hint of a point, please. Say something specific, for god's sake.

Got it. I'll start by quoting a chiropractic firend of mine, he's working on a paper for publication and wanted fresh eyes.  He explained the folly of over-reliance on the notion of free will a few months ago. I'll excerpt parts of his paper, which was long.



noggins chiro buddy:
Quote:
Not knowing your interest in or knowledge of neuroscience I will assume (and correct me if I am wrong) that you have not studied or read much in the field, especially from the last 10 years or so. That in mind, I'll point you to the recommended book I introduced in the Science forum, Consciousness: An Introduction, by Susan Blackmore, especially Chapter 9, "Agency and Free Will". It provides an accessible summary of the evidence against the notion that our conscious selves are the "deciders" in taking action. The evidence suggests that the conscious self -- the "I" -- is an observer, of sorts, after the fact of decisions to act.

. . . I am not talking about this evidence MEANING that we are not responsible in the sense that for actions that we premeditate (think about!) prior to action we (meaning our conscious selves) are just helpless watchers and therefore should not be held accountable. . . .

. . .

The frontal lobes are the last area of the brain to mature and the full potential development depends critically on the social environment. Meaning that to a large degree society is indeed responsible for failing to provide a nurturing environment for the full development of moral and ethical capacities in the brain. Note that this is more than just learning the rules for right and wrong in the cognitive sense. We are talking about those rules operating on many different levels in the life of youngsters such that it allows their brains to grow the right connections and instill moral/ethical judgment at a structural level, not just an intellectual level. In the heat of the moment, it is not the intellect that rules. [Some of you will now recognize the connection between this and my interest in sapience!] This fact is also responsible for the lack of good judgment we see in teenagers (where I believe the highest rates of gang homicide are to be found).
. . .

Those who support the death penalty are certain that THEY are in control of their actions. Why? Because it feels that way. To our subjective conscious awareness that is how it seems. But the huge and growing neuroscience lit on the issue of free will, or volition, just doesn't support the folk-psychology view. Your actions are planned and in the initiation stage several hundred milliseconds before you are even aware of it. Next time you have a heated argument with someone, note how after the fact you really regret some things you said or did in the heat of the moment. Also notice how you wonder how you could have ever lost control like that. The reason you even wonder that is because you want to believe your conscious self is always in control. But in the instant it isn't. The point of control is when your rational, conscious self, which is your frontal lobes working, can modulate or censor your impulses. For that you need a well developed frontal lobe. Then you can claim to be in control. . . .


Where is the comfort in this kind of reasoning?

Simply that an individual at any given moment is fully capable of turning off certain emotions that tend to be summoned as a result of moral indignation. Or turning on morality-based emotion as well.

When armed with chiro buddy-style analysis?

Of course. We're free to turn on and off emotional signals as we see fit to either inspire ourselves to prevail in some matter, or to embrace objectivity when such an approach is called for.

We've always been so free.

But we now have the means of building skill and dexterity in order to accomplish it.

You sound as though you're attempting to arrive at a Mr. Spock kind of objectivity and discard those nasty emotions as being useless baggage from an ignorant long-ago era.

Actually, I embrace emotion. It alone provides me with life meaning. Please pay a little closer attention to what I'm saying.

Shithead. What's next on your perverse and godless agenda with this thread?

Education. Unless I manage to lure in some discussion with this thread as it is so far.

Don't count on it.

I've read "Consciousness Explained" by Dennett and "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, thus far.

Thanks for the tip.
In the interest of discussion, you could summarize for me though. Just a thought.

Man I need to lighten up.

hey noggin...

perhaps you should get a cat?

Sounds like we are having some difficulties dealing with the struggle between  the "ethics of individual rights" with the "ethics of the common good".

So what is the Common Good" ?

Maybe it is more simple than you think?

noggin wrote:

As I see things, we have natural morality (unadulterated, residing in our nerve and other cells) and historical morality, which gets handed down via written and spoken words. What do you think?

Yes

That's right! I see biology and societal development as completely antithetical. I agree with Procopious' postion earlier that Native American cultures succeed when the numbers are low. I don't know of any evidence suggesting that they deliberately kept their groups at or below a certain number but if true, would be an admirable example of thumbing the nose at mom nature. But let's face it, most native cultures identified with group more than self, maybe I'm wrong, but their ideas of being part of the world around them seem to be at odds with the egocentric culture we've created for ourselves.
There'a a great book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond that gets into this stuff. I'd recommend it.

It helps.

You'll dig the book. I have Collapse, his new one. Read first coupla chapters, then got into Dennett.

I think morality comes from our ability to see beyond our present situations.  Rats crap in their nest and food bowl because they do not understand the consequence.  We'll supress our biological urge and go later, some of us even wash our hands afterwards

noggin wrote:

I think it's the decline of Authority and Learned. I've been in the field of education for some time now.


--noggin

Boy did I have you figured out .  I was going to ask if you were a public education employee !!!!

The best teacher I had  was an English teacher in the 11th grade.  She started us on the first day of school with the question:

"Are people born bad or do they become bad from life experiences?"

At the time I said people became bad.  Now I think it may not be the correct answer.  The fact that I even tried to think about it seemed to please my teacher.  In fact... I was the only one in  a classroom of 25 that even tried to think about it.   I loved it, but some of the goody two shoes types didn't. 

I had a very good relationship with that teacher, which was not the norm for me.  I  was always looking for answers that were divergent from than the pablum they were dishing out to us.  Which usually got me sent to the office.

Anyway, I  got A's in her class. 

I don't think the public school system works.   In fact I know it's not working because the really smart kids do poorly, and the sheep always seem to come out looking good.  There is something very wrong with that.


Back to morality. :rollseyes:

noggin wrote:

The old ways worked. For the most part, nobody questioned them back when God was universally considered the ultimate parent . . . back when Biblical instructions held great sway, and not only allowed but encouraged teachers and parents to do what they needed to do to keep their kids in line

You have got to be kidding.....You don't really believe that do you?  Have you hung around kids that were raised in Catholic schools?   I had friends that were, and I don't believe it works at all.

I remember the days when the teachers hit us with a board.  Turned most of my friends into revolutionary types.  Maybe that was good.  We weren't as apathetic.  We wanted to burn the school down.  We tried a couple of times.  Mostly just trash cans, but we really didn't like the system much.


The gym teachers would grab the guys going the take showers after  P.E.  They would forcably cut their hair.  These guys were my friends.  They were smart people, but they ended up in trouble.  Some ended up dead. My husband says he learned violence from his teachers and the jock/ bullies.  He was the more passive type, love peace all that, but his high school experience changed that.   

Looking back now I think we should have been more violent.  But we were trying to practice passive resistance.  Boy was that stupid.  I wish I had been more outspoken and not  tried to do well in school now.  Everything I have learned I had to teach myself.  The schools failed us terribly.


So you think it worked?  You are wrong.  Maybe you are just trying to get  people worked up?


I like toad's answer.

noggin wrote:

Fair enough. Although crapping yourself, while icky, isn't technically immoral or unethical.  But I agree, Toad, it has something to do with our consciousness, or forethought.

Well that would be a starting point and our concepts over time and learning things the hard way evolve ( eek evolve )  into morality blaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh.


BTW noggy thanks for joining, you got this place to liven up.  I've done everything I could to get rikki back here, all it took was a bit of nogification.

noggin wrote:

Not public, riki...private.

noggin,

Please accept my apology for the rude comment I made connecting you with the public school system.

(that should adequately piss off some public school teacher somewhere)

Pro - Let me read a bit more on this guy and I'll get back to you. Thanks.

Riki - I was unoffended. I have several friends trying their best to do good work in that broken system. They feel like Sisyphus (sp) sometimes but they keep pluggin along.

Quality post Ray, Thanks.  And welcome.

I'm a golden rule person too. Simplest form of empathetic projection there is and damned effective if followed.

It's not so easy for me to get past the inherent morality we're born with, though. There is so much unknown about it and I'm a naturally curious being....so as I see it....

When an apple is ripe and falls out of an apple tree gravity always pulls it down. Gravity is part of dharma as are all the laws of science both the ones we know and the ones we do not know. There are many scientific discoveries that can and will be made that humankind can conceive of. However, there are infinitely more that will not be made, not in the near future, because we cannot conceive of them.
Morality most likely is part of dharma, meaning that we cannot create morality any more than we can create gravity. Morality exists. It's how we define morality that is muddled. For example, if homosexuality is considered as a moral issue it can never be resolved because it is not a moral issue.
Also, if morality is part of dharma then it's proof will be in the laws associated with it. This is where the rat test and the dog test gets interesting. In my own life I have experienced consistent consequences as a result of my moral decisions. "You reap what you sow; Money is the root of all evil; It is more blessed to give than to receive;" there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are universal, moral laws. Perhaps science can tell us one day if morality is as much a part of nature as are the seasons. My guess is that it is.

noggin wrote:

When an apple is ripe and falls out of an apple tree gravity always pulls it down. Gravity is part of dharma as are all the laws of science both the ones we know and the ones we do not know.
Morality most likely is part of dharma, meaning that we cannot create morality any more than we can create gravity. Morality exists. It's how we define morality that is muddled. For example, if homosexuality is considered as a moral issue it can never be resolved because it is not a moral issue.
Perhaps science can tell us one day if morality is as much a part of nature as are the seasons. My guess is that it is.

Just some more background.... I studied  at a Hindu ashram that was it the mountains in the area where I grew up before I was out of high school.

Okay , dharma is not the easiest of terms to define. So, yes dharma does mean  the laws that rule the universe, but it is also used as a  spiritual term defining the process of moving away from the instinct that the individual is more important, to the practice of putting others first. It is conducting yourself in a way that does not conflict with the natural laws.  A discipline (imo) not particularly natural to human nature.

I think that the western idea of dharma  being something  that comes natural would be an insult to Hindus and Buddists .  I know for a fact  that some of the Hindus I knew didn't like the way  their religion was being trivialized.  But then they weren't in it for the money like most.  I guess there is even a tv show that had someone with the name Dharma?  I don't watch tv so I don't know much about it.

On the other hand an apple dropping because the force of gravity is physics.  The apple  is propagating itself. It is gravity and a natural process that happens with the rippening of the friut.

So let us look at homosexuality.....If the sexual drive is a means for propagating the human race, isn't homosexuality a deviation from that natural process?  Wouldn't this deviation go against  "dharma"...so would not be for the common good?



_______________________________
<edit>

I had to stop in the middle of posting and attend to something.
____________________________________

Last edited by rikitikitavi (Monday August 07th 2006 11:08:59 am)

I agree that the "Golden Rule" is the closest we will get to teaching morality.

It is one common thread that runs through most of the world's religions.

Cause and effect also affects the inanimate. So I don't see it as a motivation to keep us from hurting others.

If morality was something that comes natural, why do so many of the world's religions feel the need to teach it? Also why has there been, and probably always will be such lack of morality?

Just read history or look at the current news.  Nothing changes.....How about the recent news of the teacher that admitted to molesting up to 200 children?   What about the children that were evacuated from London during the blitz, just to be molested by the people their parents were trusting to  take care of them?  "Nothing is new under the sun"

Here is a quote of Native American origin.  I think I may use it as my signature. 

"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.

Peace.....

JoeSoldier wrote:

Whats funny to me is that we posted the link to this forum on the newspaper and so many of the participants at the newspaper site have never posted here.  Its as though they go there only to argue and flame each other, but seem to find the search for a solution to the decline of our society not worthwhile.

cool   whatever......

Last edited by rikitikitavi (Tuesday August 08th 2006 5:03:42 pm)

For the most part, I'm too damn busy to post much. As I assume are Toad and Ninershark. (I love seeing you guys striking a truce, Riki)

I'd love for more editorial discussion to come this way via the Record Searchlight, unfortunately I don't think the RS is to keen on sending it's interactive traffic away to another site.

There was one half assed mention about 1.5 years ago in the RS Blogs:
http://blogs.redding.com/redding/rswebm … ditry.html

I appreciate JoeSoldier dropping the link on RS and bringing on some new members. There are some great local issues that could use more discussion, but they dissappear from RS's main pages so quickly, this would be a great place for them to continue.

Boats are no fun unless they are bouncing through waves

Okay, I looked....

Luv ya.....

Me here! Me looks up and me thinks, that's some heavy intellectual shiite up there and me Hmmphhs and says life is too short to worry about the past when life is going so sweet RIGHT NOW! count me out on this one..LOL

im to confused........

You can come over and indoctrinate my children anytime Rikki

my stated goal -"Rather than just going to the dictionaries and Wikipedia, I'm hoping to start a plain-speaking discussion about real-life concepts behind morality and ethical consideration. Opinions not only from atheistic sorts but also from religious people are welcome, and I would hope all such opinions would be intended to further thinking rather than simply to smear dogmatic negativity on concepts under discussion. "

ninershark wrote:

LOL! I did indeed take it as a compliment!

Riki, were you just trying to stick up for me? Wow, I don't know what to say! I'm usually on the noggin end, ..er no offense. I feel a Bob Dylan song coming on!

I got a song for you!  It has been going through my head all day 

Kinks
» Apeman


I think I'm sophisticated
'cos I'm living my life a good homo sapiens.

But all around me ev'rybody's multiplying
And they're walking round like flies man:
So I'm no better than the animals
Sitting in the cages in the zoo man
'cos compared to the flowers and the birds
And the trees

I am an APEMAN.

I think I'm so educated and I'm so civilised
'cos strict vegetarian. And with the over population
And inflation and starvation crazy politicans.

I don't feel safe in this world no more
Don't want to die in a nuclear war.
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an APEMAN.

I'm an APEMAN
I'm an APE
APE MAN
Oh I'm an APE MAN.

I'm a king-kong man 
I'm a voodoo man
Oh I'm a APE MAN.

'cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an APE MAN.

La
   la
      la
         la...

In man's evolution he has created
The cities and the motor traffic rumble
But give me half a chance and I'd be taking
Clothes and living in the jungle.
But the only time that I feel at ease
Swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Ohwhat a life of luxury to be like an APE MAN.

I'm an APE MAN
I'm an APE
APE MAN

Oh I'm an APE MAN.

I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man

Oh I'm a Ape MAN.

I look out of the window
but I can't see the sky
'cos air polution is a fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an APE MAN.

Come and love me
be my APE MAN girl
And we'll be so happy in my APE MAN world.

I'm an APE MAN
I'm an APE
APE MAN


Oh I'm an APE MAN.
I'm a king-kong man
I'm a voodoo man

Oh I'm a APE MAN.

I'll be your Tarzan
you'll be my Jane
I'll keep you warm and you'll keep me sane
We'll sit in the trees and eat bananas
All day just like an APE MAN.


(Of course you can switch the gender types to fit.)

post skipper!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks
If spirituality fosters morality which fosters democracy, then if one is lacking the other two will suffer. Symptoms being apathy, open acceptance of corruption, moral relativism, etc. 

Does spiritual variety have something to do with ethical or moral variety?  What is the relationship between spiritual and ethical or moral variety?  If there is a relationship, meaning if spiritual variety fosters moral variety, which in turn creates a sort of moral relativism which puts us on the path to apathy and decline. 

Examine the longest human civilizations, were they democracies?  I would hazard a guess that they longest living civilizations were not democracies, but some other form of gov't that could enforce a morality.  But in each human civilization, in order for it to succeed and have some measurable longevity, there must be a moral code, standards. 

Someone has to say, this is right and this is wrong, not "this is valuable because this other culture does it this way."  Thats perfectly fine to practice whatever moral behavior in the other culture, because thats where it fits.  But the devil demands his due when the lines get blurred.  No?

Musn't we accept the diversity being spoon fed to us nowadays?  The acceptance of lifestyles.  Wouldn't you say that this leads to a moral ambiguity, which if the theories are correct may be the cause of the decline of democracy and also our country in its present form?

Is it freedom to practice whichever lifestyle you want vs. a long term civilization?  Choose one or the other.  As we are now, the people will choose moral ambiguity and the freedom to be left alone, fragmenting into smaller and smaller bits, islands.  I think they will accept any morality that says first, "as long as it doesn't immediately physically harm anyone (that doesn't want to be harmed)" eventually people will become so apathetic wouldn't they simply not care what anyone else is doing as long as it doesn't enter their dwelling?

Your thoughts?

Last edited by JoeSoldier (Tuesday August 15th 2006 5:18:31 pm)

Spirituality can foster morality, sure. It's supposed to for a good number of folks, but I'm still captivated by the idea of biologically motivated morality. I'm not sure that morality fosters democracy. What I mean is, I don't know if democracy is a necessary by-product of societies that have a collective moral identity. In the west, given the hierarchical nature of the Christian church, it seemed the form of government most congruent to it would be a monarchy and for a good long time, that's what we had.

My thinking puts modern democracy at the feet on Enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Rousseau.  The morality at work here has little to do with religion or spirituality but more with Reason and property. Especially with Locke.  The organizing principle for governance is the protection of property, you surrender something to live in given societies. The trade-off is you get to keep what you earn/make and those who would damage or attempt to take what is yours are punished. Locke believed that in general people can get along and live quite peacefully, a pretty favorable view of human nature.

Apathy is related to leisure, greed, and frustration with the existing systems of leadership. Leisure allows self-gratification on a level quite rare in bygone societies. You know, I'm fat and happy and could care less about anything else. Sports, entertainment, etc... these are all part of our leisure culture. The list is long.

Greed goes hand in hand with this. Keeping up with the Joneses turns our focus away from issues that in general are more important. Our identities are so tied into what we do, what we own that for many Americans life is a futile race to stay absolutely modern.

Frustration really needs no explanation. Watergate, the pentagon papers, Iran Contra, the countless scandals...our leaders have eaten away and eliminated much of the public trust. Incumbency rates are staggeringly high so the turnover (in hoping that new blood might correct the problem) stays low too. So it's a vicious cycle. When folks explain to me their frustration with the system, I have to believe that they're sincere. They aren't lazy, just pissed enough to get out of the game.

Spiritual variety leading to moral variety. Hmm. Interesting question. I don't know. We'll need to re-visit this later. I'll address the other questions when I get another moments' peace.  You're making me think Joe. Keep it up.

-noggin-

A few thoughts...
  Empathy fosters morality which fosters both spirituality and democracy...not the other way around.  If spirituality led to democracy then whats up w/the Middle East?  We follow the laws of society which are dictated by our morality, which is based on several factors, and empathy is one of the major contributors.  I know Joe will disagree because he once told me empathy is my weakness!lol  Just giving ya a bad time Joe!
  Apathy is a different story.  As Noggin' noted previously, several factors play a part with apathy.  Though we should add other factors such as low IQ's, making the ever complicating political system hard to understand.  That said, I think the number one factor is a lack of confidence in the political process.  Joe, also noted correctly, that complacency in ones life can also lead to apathy. 
  Riki, What I was meaning in my previous post is that shared morality or common goals are what lead to a society.  If you examine other social animals you will find them made up of families or groups who aggressively defend their common goals.  But in cases where there's a shared common goal between groups, such as a watering hole, they cooperate as one group.  Only in these shared comman goal instances do we see this.  Think back to right after 9/11, when we saw unity not only in the USA but accross most of the planet.  The reason for this is because we were sharing a common goal (the removal of the Taliban).  Once the goals changed our unity dissolved.

Ray-"Though we should add other factors such as low IQ's, making the ever complicating political system hard to understand."

Interesting Ray. Is the system currently more complicated than in years past? My guess is yes, if only because of the increase in legislation. More laws to be accountable for, etc. But the process by which we engage is still pretty much the same, no? I want my rep to vote for the things I feel are important. I may be the minority but I'm still obligated to let them know how I feel. The idea that the system has outrun the collective IQ of the constituency fascinates me.  I'd be interested in any further proof you can posit on the subject. Reminds me of a Faith No More song "Would any tell me if I was getting stoopider?"

I'm tempted to agree...although I'd couple that agreement with your (Joe's) other position that complacency is also to blame. They're probably not mutually exclusive. I think that the deep seated distrust of our government stems from Watergate and the Pentagon Papers and Vietnam. Folks who were active in that time period are now older and (most) have played the important role of primary educators to the subsequent generations. By now, it's entered another generation, although I freely admit that the conservative revolution of 1994 has also planted powerful memes that are quite prevalent today, even in the youth. A remarkable feat, to be sure.

-noggin-

I'd lump Kent State in under the umbrella of Vietnam, but it's important I agree.

Did the kids deserve to be killed? Don't be a moron Riki, please. Why do you insist on assuming such nonsense? Because I didn't mention it, I endorse it?

Being a primary educator isn't simply memorizing what happened. My point is that events like the ones I mentioned give rise to a distrust of government that is then often, (not always) passed on to subsequent generations. If it's not distrust, it's at least skepticism.

-noggin

Last edited by noggin (Thursday August 31st 2006 12:36:23 pm)

noggin,

You mention experiments on rats in you first post, but I haven't seen you mention the The Milgram experiment. You know the "Obedience to Authority Study"

T