where hypotheses come to die (madman101) wrote,
where hypotheses come to die
madman101

Bringing it together.


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!
Tags: #1, being together, politics - left / right
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 4 comments