Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
> What do you mean by "social context."

I mean that aggression or non-aggression only carry meaning if at least two people are involved.  If you're alone on a desert island, it doesn't mean anything to say you've chosen the NAP.

The relevance is that morality in a social context is a subset of morality.  Very important IMO.  Often overlooked; many people believe that "morality" means "morality in a social context."

I don't agree at all. Non-aggression, and every other "moral" conviction by which I live, is not dependent on the presence of, or even recognition by, anyone else. I am who and what I am, regardless of who else is around, or on a desert island alone.  Non-aggressive is who I am, not just what I practice.  I don't just "say" it, I live it - not for the sake of anyone else, but for my own sake. Others merely reap the benefit. :)  That is the only "social context" I can see... everyone else benefits from the fact that I have no desire to control their lives or harm them. But it wouldn't change who I am if they didn't, or didn't appreciate it.

I think this is one of the major problems in discussing non-aggression with a lot of people. They seem to think it has to be reciprocal, that it somehow requires others to be valid or even possible. I am also many other things, a 70 year old woman, etc. None of those things require the consent or even cooperation of others to be true. Neither does my basic nature or principles.

Mama, you're misunderstanding Jim. No one is saying it has to be reciprocal, but there at least has to be the existence of other people for the NAP to even make sense! It would be nonsense for someone to say they live by the NAP of others didn't exist. It would also be nonsense to say you were a vegan if animals didn't exist. The NAP only makes sense in a social context.
22
> What do you mean by "social context."

I mean that aggression or non-aggression only carry meaning if at least two people are involved.  If you're alone on a desert island, it doesn't mean anything to say you've chosen the NAP.

The relevance is that morality in a social context is a subset of morality.  Very important IMO.  Often overlooked; many people believe that "morality" means "morality in a social context."

I don't agree at all. Non-aggression, and every other "moral" conviction by which I live, is not dependent on the presence of, or even recognition by, anyone else. I am who and what I am, regardless of who else is around, or on a desert island alone.  Non-aggressive is who I am, not just what I practice.  I don't just "say" it, I live it - not for the sake of anyone else, but for my own sake. Others merely reap the benefit. :)  That is the only "social context" I can see... everyone else benefits from the fact that I have no desire to control their lives or harm them. But it wouldn't change who I am if they didn't, or didn't appreciate it.

I think this is one of the major problems in discussing non-aggression with a lot of people. They seem to think it has to be reciprocal, that it somehow requires others to be valid or even possible. I am also many other things, a 70 year old woman, etc. None of those things require the consent or even cooperation of others to be true. Neither does my basic nature or principles.
23
> What do you mean by "social context."

I mean that aggression or non-aggression only carry meaning if at least two people are involved.  If you're alone on a desert island, it doesn't mean anything to say you've chosen the NAP.

The relevance is that morality in a social context is a subset of morality.  Very important IMO.  Often overlooked; many people believe that "morality" means "morality in a social context."
24
> For me, there are only two "sides" to any discussion. Aggression/non-aggression. Everything else is filler.

That's sensible enough, but only in a social context. 

What do you mean by "social context." The non-aggression principle is an individual thing. I don't require the "context" of society to make that my core philosophy - which includes integrity, self governance and personal responsibility, as you well know. :)

If non-aggression isn't completely internalized as bedrock philosophy, a person may still be searching for answers, of course. Greg has a lot (Oh boy, a LOT) to say about how one internaizes a healthy philosophy, but it seems to be getting lost in all this blather. I do not need to understand Marx or Islam or anyone else better to internalize non-aggression in my own life. I'm sure the discussion of all that is interesting to lots of other people, but I don't see it as being essential to those who have made up their minds. Perhaps it is useful for the individual who is still trying to solidify their own philosophy and thinks Marx, et al, may have some sort of answer for them. Can't address that well, since I made up my mind about 60 years ago. :)
25
It gets even more complicated, so you'd need to study Greg's DISC system in more detail if you don't want to get lost. He's written plenty about it lately on his site.
26
> For me, there are only two "sides" to any discussion. Aggression/non-aggression. Everything else is filler.

That's sensible enough, but only in a social context.  Granted that this is about that, but IMO the best of Greg's writing is not.  I think it's important too, because how we act socially is but a subset of how we act.  Hence I grant supremacy to that, and strongly believe that the social answers should be so derived.  Indeed I think that's the missing link to all of it, which is why I think Greg's message overall is important.

27
> mandating seeing it through the lens of DISC is only a  complication

Agreed.  That's why I don't.

Mama I can't disagree with you, but all of that goes to worth, not clarity.

And after BlackOps's most recent post...on the point of clarity, I think I disagree with myself!  I doubt I have the patience to grok it out.  I'm sure they're both right, but I think I'll redouble my charge against Greg of "over-focus."  I thought I understood the first clarification well, but now I'm less certain.  One thing for sure---philosophy shouldn't work that way.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, but I'm with the others that what counts is that the cat gets skinned.
28
I don't see what caution and Marxism have to do with each other.  Are you and Mr. Swann using "Marxism" as a term of art (as with "cultural Marxism")? 

I am sympathetic to the notion of a Cautious tyranny, but I would not characterize it as Marxism. I'd say the ultimate expression of cautious tyranny would be the nanny state and the regulatory state.  I certainly believe that government schools are overrun with cautious tyranny... probably due to the fact that they are mostly run by middle aged clucking hens.

Yes, we're using "Marxism" as a cultural term. But by "Cautious" we are referring to the leadership, not the largely clueless "clucking hens" (though education as it is done now is a Cautious tyranny).

There is only ever Driven or Cautious leadership. Driven leadership consists of rewarding the behavior the boss wants, where Cautious leadership penalizes his pet peeves.

Marxism isn't the only Cautious tyranny, Islam is a more tolerant kind. Both are a futile attempt to obstruct free will. Obedience. That's all any of this is about; an eternal insane war on free will.

Cautious tyranny in a nutshell: Autonomy is chaos, and chaos is to have been eradicated.
29
blackops states that his strategy is one of education.  if you're goal is to educate folks about freedom/independence/anarchism, mandating seeing it through the lens of DISC is only a  complication that will turn your target audience off and unnecessarily complicate matters.  you've just seen that result here amongst people that are already friendly to anarchism.  the sheep's reaction will be much worse.
30
it's as clear as mud.  if that's what you call explaining it like i'm five, i must be retarded.

My comment about clarity was intended to mean for functional adults.  If you're one of those, what isn't clear?

Hmmmm, here's the deal from where I sit. The post and subsequent explanations reflect the author's opinion and thinking, nothing more actually. Now, I have read a lot of what Greg has written before and, as I said, he's terribly verbose about it. I din't see any point in reading this whole screed, but the little I did simply reinforces that conclusion.

For me, there are only two "sides" to any discussion. Aggression/non-aggression. Everything else is filler. Then I have to ask, after serious contortions and wasted time trying to understand the long winded opinion... what the hell does one do with it? Doesn't change a damned thing.  I have much better and more amusing things to spend my time on. :)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10