--WebTV-Mail-1132957868-11370 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
I vote and I hold a legislator's feet to the fire. You are rejecting a system that requires your active participation. You criticize democracy for not listening and you dont talk. Your voice is the demo in democracy.If you dont participate, you aren't even the Us in your Us and Them philosophy. So all your education and understanding are about as valuable as christian prayers. That's if you don't join in the marketplace of ideas with regards to the issues that concern you.
There is something amiss here. You can go along for quite awhile concerning the "evils" of competition and hierarchies. What about the cooperation aspect? They go together. If you wont cooperate with such a user friendly system, you're copping out. You are rejecting your own power. The very power you have that you say you dont have. They do represent you. Reality check. Change the meds....... jim
--WebTV-Mail-1132957868-11370 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (209.240.198.98) by postoffice-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Mon, 24 May 1999 13:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-102-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id NAA26776; Mon, 24 May 1999 13:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id OAA30954 for virus-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 14:43:23 -0600From: "psypher" <overload@fastmail.ca>
> Whoa- Psypher, what a dark pessimistic vision.
...I'm an optimist in a pessimistic world.
> Morality is based upon WHAT WORKS and WHAT DOESNT in a contextual
> setting. Right for me, or wrong for me, right for the group, or
> wrong for the group. A balancing act of values in a flux. Social
> and individual values/morals.
...the where does a group get the authority to enforce moral conduct? What's 'right' for me may be 'wrong' for someone else and how is anyone to judge? What works for who? If one group engages in activities which work perfectly well for that group but act against the interests of another group, who decides what's right and wrong? Take Kosovo f'rinstance - the Serbs have decided on a course of action that works for them, does that make it moral? Or Tibet - China has taken a course of action that works for them, how is morality determined? If it works for me to dump toxic chemicals in the local wetland instead of paying for proper disposal, does that make it moral?
> Let us say there is a small watering hole in a tribal community. It
> is fed quite slowly, so the community has standards based upon that
> practical knowledge. The "rules" are broken when someone takes more
> than their share, rendering the rest of the tribe low on water. Now
> that is "wrong" in the context of survival for the group. Wrong IS
> sometimes what the group or the vote count determines. If you dont
> like it, you have to move to someplace where wrong is right.
...ah, but we live in a world where there's no place else to go and where there's no recourse for those deprived of water [or anything else] to seek redress.
> A polygamous society would have different sexual mores than a
> monogamous society. It is what works within a system that is good,
> for you or me or a tribe. Pragmatic cooperation within this
> competitive sphere sets the right balance of interests for the
common
> good.
...what happens then when systems interact? If any group can set its own morality based on its success then how is that group to relate to others?
Democracy (or "attempted" democracy!) has the best track record
> for this balancing act so far.
...again, sure enough it does within its social sphere, but the establishment of the sphere of priviledge for the limited forms of capitalist democracy presently existent to be enacted has limited itself to an analysis which excludes groups outside its immediate composition. Affluent nations can afford to allow their citizens some degree of liberty because they have been bribed and stupefied into complacency. Nobody wants to acknowledge their priviledge and at what cost it accrues to them because that might mean having to give it upm se we construct elaborate excuses to justify our actions despite the consequences they have in places we can't see.
> Maybe you are harsh because the "democracies" dont agree with your
> views.
...I don't condemn systems of government because they disagree with my views, any system of government that doesn't directly involve the persons for whom it claims to speak is not one that will find favour with me. I do become extremely irate when people attempt to justify their actions within a particular national/religious/dogmatic context without taking into account their personal responsibility. [the preceeding statement was a general observation and not a personal attack]
Democracy isnt pat. It is always in flux and never
> "complete". It is messy and chaotic. I dont know about you but I
keep
> in touch with local, state and national politicians. I write
> editorial letters to newspapers too. I let them know in no uncertain
> terms what I think.
...I don't do this because I don't acknowledge that those people represent either me or my interests. I do not acknowledge their right to speak or act on my behalf.
[snip]
> Look at the bright side and you might see what you can do to help,
> instead of the gloom. Have you made a donation to the Kosovar
> refugees yet? Do you value that as goodness? If so, why? Get with
> it, participate.
...I do what I can every day with every fibre of my being to make a
better world. I do that by educating myself and teaching my friends.
i do that by taking the time to listen to my friends and the people
around me to learn what they have to teach. I do it by learning how
to articulate the order of the world in which I am immersed and
engace my critical faculties.
...I don't make donations of money because I have none to donate.
> Did you go off your meds!???
...no.
-psypher
--WebTV-Mail-1132957868-11370--