?

Log in

No account? Create an account
novembre 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
squirrels massage

Bringing it together.

Posted on 2017.10.22 at 12:29
Tags: , ,

Most of you are liberals, and you may tend to get tired of my constant theme of the far-left and the far-right uniting, when the forces-that-be forever work against this, e.g., on TV. You may not understand. Some of you have concluded that I am a conservative, and we ended up dropping each other. Conservatives conclude I am far-left, and liberals conclude I am far-right. Christians tell me I am an atheist, and they mean to convert me. Atheists tell me I really believe in god, and they give up. I'm kinda sick of it, personally.

I have been harping about the possible conspiracy of far left and right for ages - on such issues as made-in-America", anti-GMO, fair trade, decentralisation, positive populism, etc. *I feel like a candle whistling in the wind. But, I keep on plugging away. I keep posting links that apparently get swallowed into the darkness of hell.

Here I go again...

NPR's, "On Being," is normally very boring, shallow, self-serving, and full of glib abstractions. To give them credit, it is a liberal attempt to be religious, just as, "It's Only A Game," is a liberal attempt to be jocks. (The latter can be a good programme, sometimes, but is constantly polluted with BS falsetto-macho laughing and joking, it makes me puke, lol).

However, sometimes, "On Being," produces some very good interviews. Some of them are priceless. The most recent interview is with a fellow named Jonathan Haidt, on, "The Psychology of Self-Righteousness." This sociologist was a narrow-minded liberal until he actually studied the values of conservatives, which are worth something. There are five basic values, and conservatives honour them all. Liberals, on the other hand, reject three of them, relatively speaking.

1 - Loyalty - (or ingroup) - rejected by liberals
2 - Authority - (or respect) - rejected by liberals
3 - "Sanctity" - (or purity)(?) - rejected by liberals
4 - Fairness - accepted by both
5 - Care - accepted by both

I am sure that most liberals don't really REJECT the first three. But I think that there are a lot of liberals who are in denial that they actually carry these values, while they project and blame them on conservatives. You know me, I am heavilly against groupism, which would be value #1. And I have a deep suspicion of authority, as do many far-righters. My respect for diversity allows me to be accepting of a lot of the "non-pure" crap floating around. And I am definitely all for Fair and Care!

However, being a part of a group is not always a bad thing. And authority is sometimes just, really, AUTHORITY - like, scientific authority. Too many liberals simply accept the authority of, e.g., Hillary, or Monsanto, or "Free Trade," or vaccines, or THE 'INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S' DEMONISATION OF RUSSIA, and themselves demonise those who disagree, as being, "non-critical thinkers," when they don't even recognise their own blind allegiances.

The reason why liberals so starkly reject the first three is because they are overreacting to ABUSES of the first three, which have deeply threatened the last two. That's a good thing, when it all balances out. It is a good thing that liberals are forever vigilant here - just as it is a good thing that conservatives are forever vigilant about possibly too-strong government, the erosion of states' rights, the threat to gun ownership, and so forth.

I think it is TOO EASY for centralised capital and power to abuse the first three, and that is why I am more of a liberal. I think that a lot of conservatives are in denial about how such abuse may arise from simply a conspiracy of self-interested capitalists, like themselves. The problem is that we never have solid checks in place to keep these abuses from reemerging, time after time again, in history.

On the other hand, when you look at why conservatives might be honouring the first three moral values, you might see that there is betrayed a certain psychology of defensiveness on their part. An insistence on respect and esteem, most probably based on a deep feeling of low self-esteem. That explains the need to belong to a group. To reject aliens, etc. The GROUP helps define the PERSON. On the other OTHER hand, liberals tend to deny this part of themselves, which can get infuriating! Little do they know of real struggle.

While liberals keep advancing these codes of fairness, generally only to their own economic decline, conservatives keep investing in the group/s, the status-quo, getting paid in status-quo dollars, convincing them that all their values and beliefs have been CORRECT. Unfortunately, the conservatives are wrong. Civilisation was never formed to favour the true. It was formed to favour the tragically civilised.

Groupism. Just because two or more of you gossip and throw stones, does not mean that two or more of you are true. Unfortunately, I see this assumption as becoming predominant in this country, which is dangerous.

OK, now, let's lead into the, "On Being," interview. Haidt did say one thing I, "take issue with"... He said that that moral decisions are made based on, "intuitions".

That sounds like a good, true, even absolutist thing. I don't think so. As I have said before, moral decisions are most often made from feelings of JEALOUSY - which is what supposed is used to build ultimate fairness. Jealousy arises not in a perfect, relaxed world, but in a world full of inequity and perversion, and resource depletion. There is seldom a time, in our human race, when the progressors and aggressors amongst us have not been plagued by stress and time demands, lowering them into limbic, reptilian psychologies of jealousy and the like.

I think, and we all know, that the, "intuitions," of so many conservatives are to make choices based on how they can make more wealth for themselves, which includes referencing their privileged groups, etc. To them, Christian charity hardly counts unless it is publicized in one way or another, for example. Day-to-day, they do this by referencing exclusive morality, which references back to the group/s. That includes using language which is irrelevant and irreverent to their subjects.

I don't let left or right off the hook. So. THIS guy was a liberal who now has a lot of 'bad' things to say about liberals, which is refreshing. Because I see liberal denialism constantly. I also like it when flaming conservatives come out and say that liberals aren't so bad - except that this so often happens when some stooge is trying to support the status quo system of economic and geo-politics, like George Bush recently.

All that being said, I still think that most of my religious friends will like to keep an eye on, "On Being." I hope my flaming liberal friends will open their minds enough to check out some of the really meaty convos about existence, morality, physics, etc. NOW - check out Haidt and The Psychology of Self-Righteousness...

First, Wiki: Moral foundations theory

The Psychology of Self-Righteousness

See more from ON BEING!

Comments:


meowmensteen
meowmensteen at 2017-10-22 21:41 (UTC) (Lien)
Dude, I just like the fact that you have your own opinions rather than the ones you're supposed to have to be considered a liberal or right-wing. It really irks me when I take on a view that goes against what I'm supposed to because I'm a liberal, and people want to accuse me of not being one. You know sometimes I shop at Walmart. Sometimes I get the cheapest meat. Besides being a liberal, I'm also a low wage worker. Using my money morally is expensive. I've got a kid to feed and clothe. The organic clothes at the family owned boutiques are too expensive. I can buy enough clothes for a whole season at Walmart or Target for the price on one shirt in one of those shops.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2017-10-22 22:22 (UTC) (Lien)
Thanks! I REALLY appreciate your comment, cuz it is lonely out here in political hyperspace. Having lived in liberal Madison for a long time, which is not too far from SF or Seattle, I know exactly what you are talking about.

I was at Walmart just yesterday. I have found that the cheapest and best chicken breasts for my dog are there. I'm not going to find that by going downtown to the remaining hardware store. For the record, the Sheryl Crow manager spotted me and smiled, oyyy. idk... Anyway, now a days, the thing to worry about is the reality of Amazon and Google who are no longer just online businesses, they are taking over the planet.

Do what you can. That's all I do. That's all we need to do. Why? Because we come first. That's all. It's like, you cannot consider what to do about world hunger unless you get a good night's sleep, right?!

wanderipity
wanderipity at 2017-10-23 00:51 (UTC) (Lien)
Do you recommend any books or articles I should read about political views (left wing, right wing, conservatives, democrats etc)? There's so much I need to learn.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2017-10-23 01:42 (UTC) (Lien)

r

Hey - I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your comment.

I am careful NOT to propagandise anyone this way or that!

But I think that a great book to read might be, Ralph Nader's, "Unstoppable." I haven't even read this book, but I know what is going on. You can access so much more from my tags. Views are also at
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj-user="o_c_c_u_p_y">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Hey - I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your comment.

I am careful NOT to propagandise anyone this way or that!

But I think that a great book to read might be, Ralph Nader's, "Unstoppable." I haven't even read this book, but I know what is going on. You can access so much more from my tags. Views are also at <lj-user="o_c_c_u_p_y"> Thank you so much for even caring in this direction!

Weird how LJ keeps reinterpreting stuff uselessly...


Edited at 2017-10-23 01:57 (UTC)
Previous Entry  Next Entry