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

[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"

 

[sameandnot]

from 2 comes "the many"... but, we must say, that the "many" is never actually infinite. from two, actually, comes the limitation of "ways of looking", to that of a finite set. agreed? there is only an infinite possibility, within the 1. the 1, allows infinite possibilities to manifest as any # of particulars, within its all-encompassing-ness. see? the 1 is actually the infinite. for the infinite possibilites are within it. 1 is within every other #. and every # depends on 1 for its existence. all #'s get their reality from the 1.

this is very interesting.

transcendance of the 1 is what?... 0.

zero truly contains all possibilities and all realities, it appears... no?

this is kind of a fun play with #'s, but really, duality is conflict in a bottle, illusion in a can, etc.

peas.

 

[Anttech]

peas.

from a chicken? or is the other way round ?

 

[sameandnot]

from a chicken? or is the other way round ?

yup.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

WOW!

Since capitalism is the dominant social institution in the world and there has never been a genuine socialist society,how can you say that socialism is the cause of poverty and homelessnes?

The mind boggles.

What you are describing is institutionalism. And it can take on many forms.

Not that I am advocating socialism. I am just pointing out the fallacy of your argument.

This is why I chose enlightenment. Enlightened people would not delude themselves.

 

[Huckleberry]

Peace.. Everything else follows.

Enlightment is nice, but I think peace is more nobel, once the world and Mankind is at peace with its self, common enlightment will prevail..

I think the other way around. I believe that peace won't last long without already having achieved enlightenment of a philosophical nature. Same with the other virtues.

Enlightenment seems like a lofty goal. I would start with a more basic building block like humility. To me humility seems like the essence of all other moral virtues.