News In your opinion, what is the highest value a society should strive towards?

[Smurf]

Ha! I know precisely because I'm not enlightened! If procrastination was enlightened, then I would be enlightened. Since I'm not, procrastination isn't either.

False Dichotomy. Enlightenment can involve much more than just procrastination. Thus, you can easily be a procrastinator and not have achieved full enlightenment. Enlightenment is a journey as well as a destination.

 

[Smurf]

WWII: (Pearl Harbor and) mistreatment of jews.

uhh... What about mistreatment of japanese and germans?

Why do we always forget our own crimes?

 

[sameandnot]

Siddhartha then. Sue me.

taking legal action seems to be the first response, nowadays, huh? silly, i think.

i will not sue you, but i should suggest that you first become aware of your ignorances and assumptions, BEFORE you let them shine all over a mesage board.

 

[pattylou]

uhh... What about mistreatment of japanese and germans?
Why do we always forget our own crimes?

Were those the basis of our going to war? I was under the impression that they were the result of war. They led to other troubles of course...

But my education was extremely poor on the flaws in American policy in this time frame, and your point is taken.

 

[Smasherman]

I doubt that this is the case, certainly not all of the time, but I think the idea that we base our choices on our life history makes perfect sense. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in this response or not, so I'll assume you are not.

I was not being sarcastic. I realized that the answer is kinda obvious after I posted, but I let it be, thinking that perhaps people hold certain higher ideals regardless of their more immediate experiences (assuming they have access to certain information).

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you're doubting here. Are you doubting that I "see", that my reaction was based off of recent experiences, or what?

 

[Anttech]

Pattylou.
You still haven't defined what a "White" person is?
:-)
I understand what you are getting at, but I still want a definition.. will you give me one?
Americans seem to use this expresion a lot.. A "White" person of European heritage.. But what does that mean? I know many Europeans (I am one of them) who are Darker than northern Africans, this is due to my Greek heritage...

 

[pattylou]

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you're doubting here. Are you doubting that I "see", that my reaction was based off of recent experiences, or what?

Oh, I see, Pattylou. My reaction came from some recent experiences I've had.

I 'doubt' that most participants base their choices on recent emotional experience. I actually expect that most participants here base their choices on reason and evidence and rational thought. I expect most privileged individuals can understand the problems with a class society, even if they have not experienced the down side of it directly. That's all.

And, I expect our experiences shape our choices.

 

[Anttech]

False Dichotomy. Enlightenment can involve much more than just procrastination. Thus, you can easily be a procrastinator and not have achieved full enlightenment. Enlightenment is a journey as well as a destination.

you tell him obi1

 

[pattylou]

Pattylou.
You still haven't defined what a "White" person is?
:-)
I understand what you are getting at, but I still want a definition.. will you give me one?
Americans seem to use this expresion a lot.. A "White" person of European heritage.. But what does that mean? I know many Europeans (I am one of them) who are Darker than northern Africans, this is due to my Greek heritage...

I would define "white" as the US census bureaus uses it. This definition is lacking, increasingly more so as 'races' become more intermixed.

To a first approximation, the US census bureau has the following categories: Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Native American, ... ( A few others I may be forgetting.) The census bureau is revising its definitions of race, however, and my use of the term may indicate not only my American upbringing but also my age.

Meditteranean isn't in the mix, so you'd be white even with your greek heritage.

ειλικρινώσ,

(I hope that translated right),

Patty

p.s. I realize I still didn't actually define it, let me know if you want me to google the Census Bureau's actual definition.

 

[Anttech]

Nah.. I didnt want a "census Bureaus" definition.. I wanted yours being an american..

So this is more or a "geographic" definition rather than colour? It seems that way, as for example a Morrocan isn't Black, isn't White, isn't Asian..

καταλάβετε ελληνικά? :-)

 

[loseyourname]

The Census Bureau recognizes Caucasian, Asian, African, and Native American as races. People of Hispanic descent get to mark that they're Hispanic, but the box is auxiliary and they're still counted as Caucasian. The categories are geographic. You're Caucasian if you're of European or Russian descent, Asian if you're of Asian descent, African if of African descent, and Native American if of American descent. Since a great deal of people in the US are of mixed descent, especially in the east LA area that I worked as an enumerator, we were instructed that a respondent just picks whatever race he/she self-identifies most as.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that this practice of recording races in these four categories began during the Nixon administration, well before we had the genetic knowledge that we have today, and realistically speaking, they're pretty much meaningless. Even for recording self-identification, they aren't all that useful, as the Latinos in Southern California hate having to list themselves as Caucasian and definitely do not think of themselves that way.

 

[Smasherman]

I 'doubt' that most participants base their choices on recent emotional experience. I actually expect that most participants here base their choices on reason and evidence and rational thought. I expect most privileged individuals can understand the problems with a class society, even if they have not experienced the down side of it directly. That's all.
And, I expect our experiences shape our choices.

I was referring to my reaction to your posts, not my decision on the poll.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA: You asked what I think equality means. To me, it means recognizing that every person is a human being, and that the actions towards one group could have easily been directed against a different group had the dice (historical events) fallen differently. It also means recognizing the connectivity of actions and people on the planet. When one group treats another group in a particular way, there are ramifications for the first group... snip

Don't you think this is better defined as liberty? All people having freedom including freedom from the oppression of one another? In essence all people are equal in their inalienable rights. The word "Equality" does not mean people are free or happy or well off. In a society where everyone is oppressed by the law they are all equal. Then there is the fact that you are not using the term "equality" fully. You're restricting your usage to simply the equality of rights. There are several other attributes that can be "unequal" between people.

The problem I see myself with the term "equality" is that it helps reenforce the division that it seeks to negate. It focuses on the inequality and creates a victim mentality on both sides. Those with the short end of the stick become indignant and feel they are owed something by those on the high end and begin to discriminate against them. Those with the better deal become indignant because they feel they deserve what they have and that those with the short end of the stick want to "steal" from them in order to "equalize" the situation. This creates a people who have devided into enemies.
Do you remember the legislation they tried to pass making all people equal for hire a while back? It said that it will be illegal to make hiring decisions based on religion, sex, race, creed, yada yada yada. Who shot it down? The people who say they want "equality". Why do you think they'd do that?

 

[pattylou]

Anttech: Let me say simply that I don't "believe" in race but that I brought up "white" as a matter of convenience since most people kind of "get the drift." So, I don't have a definition for you ... but I would hold that use of the term is still expedient in sopme cases.

Smasherman: It looks like we had a miscommunication, and I apologise. Sounds like my "I doubt that" was taking something out of context.

TSA: I'm OK with that, I don't think we need to get hung up on the distinctions between words as similar as "equality" and "Liberty" (especially as any word can be modified by its use by a particular group, ex: "moral values.") In other words, if we agree on the sentiment, then the exact terminology is not very important. Still, I'd pick "equality" as being more in line with the sense of any particular life being equal in worth to any other, over "liberty."

 

[pattylou]

Anntech:

καταλάβετε ελληνικά?

Ummm, at a guess, "do I speak greek?"

No, but I love baklava and line dancing. Grape leaves, olive,s the works.

My father was mediterranean (sicilian) and a good friend was greek. She made us Easter babka (or whatever the appropriate greek name is) complete with a penny inside, although I never got the penny.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA: I'm OK with that, I don't think we need to get hung up on the distinctions between words as similar as "equality" and "Liberty" (especially as any word can be modified by its use by a particular group, ex: "moral values.") In other words, if we agree on the sentiment, then the exact terminology is not very important. Still, I'd pick "equality" as being more in line with the sense of any particular life being equal in worth to any other, over "liberty."

I think that the differences between words, however subtle, are rather important. The usage of these words tends to reflect and influence a persons perspective. You were interested in the reasons why anyone might pick one over another weren't you?
I'm sorry for coming off so argumentative.
I definitely respect you and your opinions Patty and I hope I haven't made you feel otherwise.

 

[Entropy]

Liberty and equality are luxuries, not necessities. People today are brainwashed with this "give me liberty or give me death" attitude.

I almost chose preservation of life, but I went with enlightment instead.

 

[pattylou]

I think that the differences between words, however subtle, are rather important. The usage of these words tends to reflect and influence a persons perspective.

But your definition of "equality" is evidently different than mine.

Are you suggesting that I adapt to your definitions? Or, alternatively, as I tried to indicate above, that we recognize that we have different definitions to begin with?

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[ron damon]

why would anyone want to live in a world where everyone is "equal" to each other? Without difference, there is no life.

 

[Smurf]

equal does not mean identicle.

 

[ron damon]

Ultimately it does, because in an emerging system such a society, much like in nature, new features will appear at unequal rates and of unequal quality when let loose.

If every element is to stay the same in relation to every other element, you need them to have the same properties to begin with, such as spheres thrown into a cylinder. But man and woman are emphatically not equal to anyone else, and bringing them into equality-compliance necessitates brutal edge-crushing mechanisms.

Equality is the cornerstone of totalitarianism, stagnation, and a nightmare of desolation and lifelessness.

 

[pattylou]

Well, this is not the sense in which we are using the word.

I would have thought it obvious, but evidently not...

A rose is sometimes better that a lily, and sometimes worse. It is fair to consider them roughly equal overall. More roses are sold at valentines, more lilies at easter. Some gardens have one, some the other.

Same with a grilled steak, and fried chicken.

I am sorry that you are interpreting equal to mean identical. We can all easily agree that we would not like to live in a a society where everyone is identical. Thank you for helping make that point.

However, most of us *would* like to live in a society where we can be valued as either a steak or a chicken, depending on our nature and circumstance, and know that we will be valued as much as the person who was the other, through circumstance.

If flower shops insisted on selling only roses, this would be similar to a society in which one group is valued extraordinarily more than another group, for reasons that make no particular rational sense.

 

[ricardo kuhn]

HoNoR

(I guess you can call it "Concius" (conciencia en espanol) if you want to.

I think if you are really Proud about your actions and aware of your responsability as a human being, everything kind of folds into place, after all is No Soap or perfume strong enogh in the world to clean you Dirty consius and the Ill effects of a act comited, generate or Omited for selfish reasons, and if you just made a honest mistake you Honor will come to the rescue and fix whatever when wrong .

No... I'm not religius, selfish or even mistical...
In fact I think Honor plays a integral roll in any society if is focus as a comun benefit since everybody will do the best they can for the benefit of the whole.

yeah i know is a little idealistic but somebody needs to start somewere.

 

[Smasherman]

Smasherman: It looks like we had a miscommunication, and I apologise. Sounds like my "I doubt that" was taking something out of context.

It seems so. Sorry for my part in this miscommunication.

 

[ron damon]

So if I *value* a homeless person the same as a billionaire, am I living in the spirit of equality, or some action to bring one up and the other down is essential as well? Where do we stop in producing equality? Do we handicap bright people from becoming rich, and reward imbeciles who will otherwise become homeless? What qualities other than economic conditions, such as sexual access, are in need of redistribution? How is it fair that good-looking men get most of the good-looking women?

 

[ron damon]

Thinking about it further... let's say you have person A and person B, equal to each other. Person A then develops quality C, and person B develops quality D. Now, if quality C stands in relation to A as D stands to B, you can have value-equality, such as your example with flower colors or food tastes. But what if quality C is far beyond D, even strikingly so. How is a living being capable of perceiving beauty to value them both in equal terms?

 

[ron damon]

And then again, what if I fancy Equality requires equality of dress, like Mao did? Or equality of capabilities, culture, intelligence, imagination... after all, this discussion started with the question of what society should strive towards. Am I to stand still while the shadows of the Collective gather around me?

I don't want anyone coming in with some toolbox and equalizing me so I fit the whims of a madman, a rabid mob, or a Democratic majority.

Fear the Equalizer. Relish difference. Bleed for freedom.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't want anyone coming in with some toolbox and equalizing me so I fit the whims of a madman, a rabid mob, or a Democratic majority.
Fear the Equalizer. Celebrate difference. Bleed for freedom.

Death is the great equalizer.

Since we will all die, we will all end up equal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Archon]

And then again, what if I fancy Equality requires equality of dress, like Mao did? Or equality of capabilities, culture, intelligence, imagination... after all, this discussion started with the question of what society should strive towards. Am I to stand still while the shadows of the Collective gather around me?
I don't want anyone coming in with some toolbox and equalizing me so I fit the whims of a madman, a rabid mob, or a Democratic majority.
Fear the Equalizer. Relish difference. Bleed for freedom.

I think you're making some big assumptions here. Equality could also mean things like equality of opportunity or equality under the law. I presume you're for these two forms of equality, yes? Again, nobody is advocating that force everyone to conform to a certain image or anything like that. Nobody is saying that everyone should be exactly identical to everyone else. Naturally, this is impossible (unless we all died, of course. Then we'd all be "the same," even if it would only be a small consolation to the evil, and now dead, conformist democrats who want to homogenize society).

 

[loseyourname]

So if I *value* a homeless person the same as a billionaire, am I living in the spirit of equality, or some action to bring one up and the other down is essential as well? Where do we stop in producing equality? Do we handicap bright people from becoming rich, and reward imbeciles who will otherwise become homeless? What qualities other than economic conditions, such as sexual access, are in need of redistribution? How is it fair that good-looking men get most of the good-looking women?

Sounds to me like you think diversity should be on the poll. Alas . . .

 

[Anttech]

Anntech:
καταλάβετε ελληνικά?
Ummm, at a guess, "do I speak greek?"
No, but I love baklava and line dancing. Grape leaves, olive,s the works.
My father was mediterranean (sicilian) and a good friend was greek. She made us Easter babka (or whatever the appropriate greek name is) complete with a penny inside, although I never got the penny.

You guessed right.. Literally means Do you understand Greek? (katalaves Hellinica) :-) Sicilians and Greeks are much the same. Balkava is great, you know its actually Arabic ;-) but I wouldn't tell a Greek that

 

[ron damon]

equality of opportunity... nobody is saying that everyone should be exactly identical to everyone else.

That is exactly what "equality of opportunity" entails; reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

 

[ron damon]

Sounds to me like you think diversity should be on the poll. Alas . . .

But not arbitrary, dictated-from-above diversity; only diversity that thrives on its own merits.

 

[arildno]

Well, I would have chosen "happiness", but that wasn't an option..

 

[Anttech]

That is exactly what "equality of opportunity" entails; reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? What total and utter dribble

To have equal opportunities to education (for example) only entails that everyone can get educated to a high degree if they choose to. If someone then desides they do not want to strive to be the best, they are under no obligation to do so. Its actually a very healthy thing, as you will have more people with better skill sets.. The only people who should be scared are the people who don't want there golden spoons taken out of there mouth...

edit: LMAO! well I suppose someone who chooses "Supremacy" wouldn't want everyone to have equal opportunities, might undermine there position in life... Mind set of a dictator and all that

 

[ron damon]

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion? What total and utter dribble

To have equal opportunities to education (for example) only entails that everyone can get educated to a high degree if they choose to. If someone then desides they do not want to strive to be the best, they are under no obligation to do so. Its actually a very healthy thing, as you will have more people with better skill sets.. The only people who should be scared are the people who don't want there golden spoons taken out of there mouth...

That is exactly what I said... think a little bit harder before reaching for the insult. It's hard, I know, but generally yields better results.

edit: LMAO! well I suppose someone who chooses "Supremacy" wouldn't want everyone to have equal opportunities, might undermine there position in life... Mind set of a dictator and all that

 

[Smurf]

Well, I would have chosen "happiness", but that wasn't an option..

Utilitarianism was kind of the happiness option. it means the objective of maximizing happiness for the maximum amount of people.

 

[wasteofo2]

Well, I would have chosen "happiness", but that wasn't an option..

Smurf's right about utilitarianism.

Though, have you considered that happiness can easily be induced through the administration of many different sorts of drugs?

A gramme is better than a damn...

 

[sameandnot]

Smurf's right about utilitarianism.
Though, have you considered that happiness can easily be induced through the administration of many different sorts of drugs?
A gramme is better than a damn...

your happiness is transient, and therefore is not Happiness. your happiness is more like temporary pleasure, and the simultaneous aversion from what is not drugs. as soon as the drug has run its course, you must still face what is. then you avoid "what is" and turn to the drug again. you are a pawn of your mind's pleasures and aversions... unfortunate to hear it this way perhaps, but i am not trying to make you happy, or tell you what Happiness is, just tell you what it isn't.

true, that the happiness that you get is derived from pleasure, but it's false, because it depends on the pleasure, that you have erroneously defined as: Happiness. it is fleeting. happiness does not depend on the weaknesses of the psyche, but is the fulfillment of the psyche. "fulfillment" through drugs is temporary and incomplete, therefore can't be labled Happiness.

Oops, I did what i said i wouldn't... oh well, good for us, maybe. thanks!

P.S. this is an F.Y.I.

 

[ron damon]

In all seriousness, I think that a society should strive to push the human spirit further, to reach what has been unattainable to those who came before. That's why I cringe at anything that resembles past failures, foremost of which are the varieties of socialism.

Every time someone mentions things such as "equality" and "opportunity" my mind immediately pictures the bleak, gray, blocky buildings I saw during my childhood, the dilapidated playgrounds, the oppressive government offices filled to the brim with desperate and tired people struggling to fulfill mind-numbing regulations... the black beast of the State swallowing any shimmer of individuality, stomping on any flower peering over its pre-regulated parcel, while loudly proclaiming the maxims of social justice.

I imagine the future humanity as composed of autonomous communities, linked by shared values and ideals, but nimble and independent, proud and protective of their cultures and identity, yet curious and imaginative, open to trade in goods, arts and ideas.

I believe that poverty is an unacceptable feature of our world, that an enlightened society cannot live side by side with homelessness, that medical care and drugs should be available to *anyone* who needs them, that education, culture, art and science should be widely accessible, and that the world's resources should be mobilized to preserve what's left of our natural heritage.

But alas, as long as our civilization remains intoxicated with socialisms, those hopes will go unfulfilled.

 

[Art]

Utilitarianism was kind of the happiness option. it means the objective of maximizing happiness for the maximum amount of people.

Personally I prefer hedonism.

 

[sameandnot]

still more of the same, with mr. damon.

I imagine the future humanity as composed of autonomous communities, linked by shared values and ideals, but nimble and independent, proud and protective of their cultures and identity, yet curious and imaginative, open to trade in goods, arts and ideas.

I believe that poverty is an unacceptable feature of our world, that an enlightened society cannot live side by side with homelessness, that medical care and drugs should be available to *anyone* who needs them, that education, culture, art and science should be widely accessible, and that the world's resources should be mobilized to preserve what's left of our natural heritage.
But alas, as long as our civilization remains intoxicated with socialisms, those hopes will go unfulfilled.

oh... but surely, you see, that the different "autonomous cultures" would in some way conflict with each other, so the possibility of war is eminent... not just physical war, but also cultural war, where ideas combat with others, which tends to occur naturally in traveling from place to place, leading inevitably to violent war. "our idea is better and we are proud of it!"... "no! our idea is better and we are also very proud about it"... "we will never let our children mingle with your children! cause you are WRONG and BAD, and (maybe even) EVIL!" do you see?

tell me what enlightenment is, then tell me that enlightened society does not jive with homeless people. there is not an enlightened society without enlightened individuals that compose it. the individual is the society and the society, the individual... see? what is the enlightened person? first you must know, before you make such claims. k?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

oh... but surely, you see, that the different "autonomous cultures" would in some way conflict with each other, so the possibility of war is eminent... not just physical war, but also cultural war, where ideas combat with others, which tends to occur naturally in traveling from place to place, leading inevitably to violent war. "our idea is better and we are proud of it!"... "no! our idea is better and we are also very proud about it"... "we will never let our children mingle with your children! cause you are WRONG and BAD, and (maybe even) EVIL!" do you see?

Variation does not breed hatred. Ignorance and lack of respect for things that are different does this. There is nothing wrong with variation of culture and ideology.

 

[sameandnot]

Variation does not breed hatred. Ignorance and lack of respect for things that are different does this. There is nothing wrong with variation of culture and ideology.

indeed. the presence of diversity is the basis and the measure of strength in any system. but you mention ignorance. what do you mean? after you have shed light onto the meaning of "ignorance" as you use it, you might help me see this other "thing"...

isn't it so, that ideology is fundamentally dualistic? that beliefs always have a counter belief, and as a result "end up" in conflict with each other? are you saying that humans are so happy and respectful, all the time, that all successive generations will find no flaws with their native ideologies, or want to rebel against their parents. or maybe u believe that all people will, because they are allowed to live their own ideologies (which is a system of beliefs, ie. right and wrong), will all, metaphorically, "hold hands and sing across the world" or some other ideal notion of different peoples respecting each other for respect's sake. there must be rebellion in such a world. if not in the first generation, in the subsequent ones. this is not pessimistic, it is just a recognition that dualism breeds conflict and, as a result, leads to violence.

families can't even get along. you know about family feuds that have lasted for generations, only to get worse and worse, in time, because of some discrepancy. this is a microcosm of differing ideologies, in conflict and violent clash with each other.

perhaps, if the family's individuals, on both sides, were enlightened to the nature of duality, and to the Nature, Itself, there would be no need to develop imaginary ideologies, or to conform (and thereby destroy diversity). individuals are naturally, without the implementation of ideology, the greatest expression of diversity. people, as they are naturally, when in groups, express the greatest fulfillment of possible diversity, within the limited set of peoples in the set.

imposing ideology only hinders variation and breeds disrespect, spawned from ideological pride.

pride and prejudice, my friend.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Humans have a tendency unfortunately to lash out violently towards things that they do not understand. This is what I mean about ignorance. Too few of us possesses the patience and curiosity to seek understanding.

 

[Anttech]

That is exactly what I said...

what? I say give everyone access and you will have more cream, you say give everyone access and everyone will be reduced to the lowest common denominator...

BIG difference, no matter how you try and spin it, I believe equal oppertuntiy will yeild difference results, a bit like my thinking compared to yours.

 

[ron damon]

what? I say give everyone access and you will have more cream, you say give everyone access and everyone will be reduced to the lowest common denominator...

BIG difference, no matter how you try and spin it, I believe equal oppertuntiy will yeild difference results, a bit like my thinking compared to yours.

Fair enough. Let me then state explicitly what I have only depicted earlier: the concept of "equality" thought of as a simple particular, ie, "every bright person should be able to pursue higher education", is of course something no sensible person would oppose.

However, when removed from the conceptual and immersed into the current of life, given our institutions and culture, it often translates into something less than what would have been attainable had that ideal not been explicitly formulated and enacted as a matter of state policy.

 

[Anttech]

However, when removed from the conceptual and immersed into the current of life, given our institutions and culture, it often translates into something less than what would have been attainable had that ideal not been explicitly formulated and enacted as a matter of state policy.

Since you are speaking factually and not hypothetically you can of course back this up with examples, right? Probably not...

 

[sameandnot]

can there be unified, mutually respecting, harmonic co-habitation/co-exitence, when there is duality of ideology/of thought. know duality, as that which is two-side. the two sides do not necessarily need to be in conflict with each other, because they are really One. and that is where, what you call, "respect" comes in. same with "equality", and that is also how the grounds for "liberty" are cultivated. no? duality is really a unity, rather, a wholeness of mutually dependant existences. Therefore, they are One, who think they are two.

so, fundamentally, non-dual understanding is the basis, upon which your world "of variation" can exist. this is understanding that, literally, transcends duality. as, you can see, duality is contained within the unity, so the unity is transcendant of the duality. this understanding is not of an ideology. it is not found in the adherance to dualistic belief structures, such as: (this is right and this is wrong, or this is good and this is bad, or we are proud or we are not proud, or even in the concept of "you" and "me") they are all the same, you see? are not "you" and "me" distinctions of the most fundamental divisive and dualistic delusions of all. It is really One. our divisive perception has caused how much war, famine, conflict, dis-ease, etc.? duality is cyclical. what goes up, must come down. so long as you identify with the duality, you are confined to ride the rollercoaster of fear, pain, pleasure and comfort. none of these states is permanent, but having them breeds the problems that all humans feel, and affects the lives of all humans. we are all involved. Really the 2 is 1. from 1 came 2, and with 2, came the multiplicity and complexity of All Problems. see? it is really simple.

 

[Anttech]

Execpt there are infinite ways of looking at problems, not 2. I aggree one should recpect anothers ideas, as Artistole said.. "The mark of an educated mind is to entertain an idea without accepting it"