I just can't seem to fit into society
I hold no hope for this dim simplicity
Of law and order
By whose rules?
I see no rhyme and no reason
I hold no hope for this holy treason
Of love and so soft
By whose standards?
By my standards
The song has a time metric of 11/8,
hence the title of the song.
An interesting comment to my post, The
Law (No, Not THAT One), offered by Voluntaryist June 27, 2017 at 10:23 AM. Let’s jump right in:
Are "old & good" two
ideals by which to judge?
We must judge by some “ideal.” As “old” suggests predictability in the law
(a tremendously good characteristic, if you ask me), I guess it depends on your
definition of “good.” Do you offer a better “ideal”?
Is "because we've always done
it that way" a valid argument?
Did I make that argument?
It really depends on your definition of “good.”
How is "good" defined?
That’s the question, isn’t it. As long as two or more humans are destined to
interact, someone (or something) must define it. It’s kind of tough to agree to disagree on
something like this.
Isn't it done by consensus?
Not in the Germanic Middle Ages; every
individual noble could veto the king.
But, of course, he only had legitimacy in this if he could lean on old
and good law and if his peers generally agreed…so…yes. Kind of circular, I know; things get messy
when dealing with humans in the real world.
Do the majority ever hold a
"bad" as a "good" and evolve ethically? I think so.
Yes, it has happened.
At least according to my ideal, my standard. Maybe not to theirs.
If we accept a current
"good" as valid, in spite of its irrationality, are we independent
thinkers?
Who is to judge the rationality of “good”? Who is to say that one’s independent thinking
is more independent than another’s? What
standard? What ideal?
If not, is that immoral?
Based on what standard?
What ideal?
Is it moral to renounce conscience
in favor of custom or consensus?
Maybe no renouncing is involved. Who says an individual’s conscience is “moral”? Based on what standard?
Is that what the optimal human
does?
“The optimal human”? Is this a lab experiment?
Really, it depends on a chosen standard. Who is to say who (or what) is “the optimal
human”? Is it appropriate to describe as
“the optimal human” one who acts in an immoral (based on what standard?) manner
as long as he is following his conscience?
Or is it slavish obedience to
authority?
Not if it is reasonably consistent with one’s standard. When interacting with humans, “reasonably
consistent” is pretty good.
And common practice, but inhuman
all the same?
I wouldn’t describe following common practice as “inhuman.” In fact, it is very human; most people do it,
sway with the wind. The key questions (and
I know I sound like a broken record):
What is the standard? Who decides?
Conclusion
Two thoughts come to mind: first, when dealing with humans,
perfect is not an option; second, you can’t replace something with nothing.
Dreamers of all types have failed to understand these;
schemers of all types know all too well that there is an infinite supply of
dreamers. The world is littered with the
dead bodies of the beneficiaries of the schemers’ schemes – to include many of
the aforementioned dreamers.
Which leads to a third thought: every dreamer’s dream starts
out with a promise for a more peaceful and just world. None have ended this way.
"What is the standard? Who decides?" I pick my standards. You pick yours. Hopefully all will do the same, as individuals, not as mindless slaves to conformity. But the latter is normal, and I judge it as inhuman, by MY standards, of course. No other standards can be trusted. I have to "think it out" for myself. I arrived at this decision at 8 when struggling with the concept of a god. My whole life, I'm 74, has been a confirmation that I was correct from the standpoint of psychological health, epistemological validity, and practicality. Following the crowd is not healthy, mentally or existentially.
ReplyDeleteNone of the foregoing leads to a war of the minds, a constant feud of all against all. Why? Because our minds work fundamentally the same. This allows for objective standards, i.e., logical proofs based on observation open to all. This systematic approach is relatively new to humanity, only about 2 millennia old, and still being perfected, but it will be the deciding factor in our species survival. Without an objective approach our species is lost.
"...perfect is not an option..."? Perfect is a relative term. It presupposes an absolute (objective, fundamental?) standard. Otherwise the word is meaningless. We can aspire to perfection, but we make mistakes. Mistakes are not a problem, unless there is no way to correct them, no standard.
On replacing "something" with "nothing" I assume your meant replacing consensus (something) with conscience (nothing). Correct? Is that an attempt to denigrate or subjugate the mind to an abstract concept of the collective mind? I am all for communication and cooperation deriving standards, solving problems, and two minds are often more powerful than one, but it all comes down to the each of us understanding for ourselves. To do less, to follow others out of laziness, or lack of self esteem, or fear of any kind, is not being fully human, not being our optimal self, not being practical. One cannot dodge responsibility for thinking. The primary choice to not think still puts the responsibility for the consequences on the individual, e.g., "I was just following orders" does not excuse a moral lapse.
“"What is the standard? Who decides?" I pick my standards. You pick yours.”
DeleteI liked having sex orgies in my front yard. My neighbors, many with young children who often play ball in the street, didn’t like my standards. After I lost a few teeth, received a broken nose and had a loaded shotgun in my face, I decided to change my standard. Not voluntarily, obviously; not by my own objective value scale.
“None of the foregoing leads to a war of the minds, a constant feud of all against all. Why? Because our minds work fundamentally the same.”
Yeah, I thought the same thing – until seven of them came at me with baseball bats.
In all seriousness, this statement of yours is stupid. You say you are 74? Obviously, you don’t have children, grandchildren and don’t even get out much.
“We can aspire to perfection, but we make mistakes.”
There are many neighborhoods in which I will not walk – and it isn’t because the residents “make mistakes.”
“On replacing "something" with "nothing" I assume your meant replacing consensus (something) with conscience (nothing).”
I mean there will always be something more than contractual relationships required to create and maintain a civil society; I use, broadly, the terms culture and custom. My statement goes double regarding “objectivism” – as long as humans are human, this philosophy will never provide man’s defense against annihilation.
“To do less, to follow others out of laziness, or lack of self esteem, or fear of any kind, is not being fully human, not being our optimal self, not being practical.”
I didn’t stop the orgy parties in my front yard out of lack of self-esteem – I am proud of my naked body. I did it out of fear. This has kept me alive, which, after all, is a pre-requisite of “being fully human.”
voluntaryist
DeleteI apologize for using the word "stupid." You are obviously thoughtful, albeit I do not understand some of your views.
Perhaps I should just say that I do not understand at all what you meant by your statement.
voluntaryist
DeleteNon-conformism has never been and never will be the standard. This is almost a tautology (how do you have a deviation without a norm?) If you are 74 then you have had plenty of time to see that most people take comfort in the herd. Modern propaganda would not be effective if this was not so and religions would not live past their early progenitors.
>To do less, to follow others out of laziness, or lack of self esteem, or fear of any kind, is not being fully human...
The exact opposite is the case. Its human, all too human. To live as you describe is to be a superhuman, or an "overman" per Nietzsche's term. If you really are the differentiated man that you claim to be then you would recognize your uniqueness and not project it onto the masses.
>One cannot dodge responsibility for thinking. The primary choice to not think still puts the responsibility for the consequences on the individual, e.g., "I was just following orders" does not excuse a moral lapse.
This is true, but again, its from the perspective of a differentiated man. What you describe is what Nietzsche called "Master Morality," to be contrasted with the "Slave Morality" of the masses for whom "good intentions" and "following orders" are sufficient justifications.
Most people will not (and cannot) become self-actualized..... that is until we engineer an entire race of Supermen to travel the stars and become Gods.
voluntaryist, aggression is subjective.
DeleteTake Walter Block. He says that slant drilling for oil is OK and not aggression. Yet slant drilling will get you shot dead in Texas, and was a major contributing factor to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Where is your objectivity now?
So, because people sometimes disagree on property rights, that "proves" objectivity doesn't exist? What would prove it does? If no disagreement ever existed? I guess we define objectivity differently. Universal consensus does not prove an idea, not is it automatically objectivity.
DeleteValue is subjective. This is true not only in economics but in every type of human relationship. I hope you do not disagree with this, because if you do then I will make a very objective statement: I am right, you are wrong.
Delete“So, because people sometimes disagree on property rights, that "proves" objectivity doesn't exist?”
As you have said, your objective standard exists in your mind, my objective standard exists in my mind; we may not agree. So, even if I grant that there is a “true” objectivity, what good is this “true” objectivity when considering anything involving human interaction?
In other words, what good is this true objective standard if we don’t agree on it because, given that we are human and value is subjective, we are incapable of agreeing on it?
Moving on…just because we agree on a definition does not mean we will agree on application. Let’s consider the definition of punishment: a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. (This, of course, assumes that we objectively agree on the definition and application of “offense” or “fault,” which I do not grant – at least for the application.)
What do we do with this when it comes to the world that humans occupy – not the dictionary, but the real world; not the definition, but application? In other words: what is the proper punishment for a theft? Assault? Murder?
If you think the answer to these can come via objectivism, you have no understanding of the human condition.
Computers are objective – yet they are based on rules given to them by subjective humans. So until objective computers are born from objective computers that are not born from subjective humans (for how many generations, I don’t know), your objective world will not exist because it cannot exist.
And I assure you – if that world of computers programming computers ever comes to exist, you will not want to live in it. I’ve seen too many versions of that movie.
I'm sorry... I'm sure this is a typically thought-provoking BM post.
ReplyDelete...But I still can't get past you listen to Primus..! XD
Hard to imagine all of that can simultaneously be going on in the old noggin'!
DeleteThe first song of theirs I ever heard was Tommy the Cat. Still the most unbelievable bass guitar work I have ever heard.
I second Dave.
DeleteFrizzle Fry was 10/10.
TOO MANY PUPPIES!