[iDC] (no subject) - ethics

[mlahey at artic.edu]

Wow Davin!

Bravo.  It's not making you sound like a ninny, in any case.  It's amazing how
sorry for ourselves we can be over things that would be beyond imagination in
contrast to our normal problems if we found ourselves to be, say, an AIDS widow
in Uganda.  

A minor example, my neighbor flipped her wig the other day and rounded up a
bunch of supporters in our building, rang my doorbell and lost her temper
completely because my husband's shoes, sitting outside our door, smelt bad.  

Often times, any experience which is less than perfect is met with social
blockade; for example someone who is being asked to eat a grade of honey
several grades below the one to which they are accustomed.

My theory is that self-pity is principally of strategic use, for keeping the
practice of ethics in the realm of speculation and argument as Davin points
out.  This and that wasn't good enough for me; I wasn't treated like the star I
am, you're going to lose my approval and I'm taking my followers with me.  Self
pity holds people hostage to our needs.  Heck, we hold ourselves hostage.  If
we truly believe that receiving less than some projected standard shames us or
diminishes us socially, then of course, it will, since we are creating the
society we live in.

I'm not saying that in some cases this doesn't have some very real effects; for
example parents and friends have the power to isolate and socially cripple
someone if these don't achieve a certain level of material "perfection".  In
fact this is one way the system is propagated.  In one sense, one could
perceive the pursuit of endlessly higher levels of pampering as evidence of the
level of psychological and emotional crippling carried out on that particular
individual.



Malian.


Quoting davin heckman <davinheckman at gmail.com>:

> I really am enjoying the discussion that has been taking place here.
> I want to interject one small point.
> 
> Mark wrote:
> "[Though, I have suggested here in the past ways to turn the
> collective intelligence here into a "problem solving" resource. If
> open source can solve technical problems, why can't "we," solve social
> ones?]"
> 
> I think part of the problem with ethics is that the answer is simple
> and pretty plain.  You've got a situation with a third of the world
> living in shit.  Maybe a billion living really well.  And everyone
> else standing on the heads of the people living in shit, striving to
> pull themselves up into the blessed top tier.  As far as I know, most
> people agree that there exists in the world a great disparity of
> wealth.
> 
> In simpler times, we might have said, "Eh!  That's not fair.  Some
> people suffer and starve while other people eat so much that they have
> to have liposuction or run on a treadmill or puke so that they can eat
> more" (only back then they did not have liposuction and treadmills).
> Now, we are the ones running on the treadmills, getting liposuction,
> and puking up our excess calories so we can look hot.  And suddenly,
> ethics is really complicated.  We debate the meanings of "hunger" and
> "fairness" and "fullness" and doubt the existence of ethics.  I think
> that "collective intelligence" cannot really help us solve our social
> problems, because collective intelligence is committed to solving the
> problem of ethics.  Our well-deserved pangs of conscience and the
> consequent feelings of self-loathing are what our society aims to
> fix...  with medicine, with philosophy, with propaganda.  (Ethical
> action is truly subversive).
> 
> I cannot really say where the idea of the golden rule came from.
> Maybe it's an invention.  But if it is, it seems like a really great
> invention....  better than a computer.  If people said, "Hmmm....  I
> have a 10,000 square foot house and 4 cars....  maybe I should turn my
> house into a shelter and try living in 1000 square feet," the world
> would be that much better.  Especially for the 20 people that are
> living in your house.
> 
> The problem isn't ethics or philosophy.  The problem is a lack of
> will.  The problem is that we are cowards that hide behind gilded
> intellectual apologies and postmodern indulgences.  At least in the
> United States, the idea of sacrifice and asceticism is heretical.
> Middle-class Americans are scared to death of suffering, even the
> suffering that comes from knowing that someone else is suffering in
> your place.  We don't need a new ethical program.  We just need to
> stop lying to ourselves and accept the fact that the decisions we make
> have consequences for other people.
> 
> I know it is a high horse to climb up on.  And I know it makes me
> sound like a ninny...  But I deserve to feel guilty about every second
> that is not spent on making the world better.  There really isn't any
> excuse, when the world gives you every opportunity, to fail to return
> the favor.
> 
> Davin
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
> 
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
> 
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
> 
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
> 
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
> 
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>