new pope

[Alexis Jacobi]

And: anytime you wanna gimme your thinkin' on the specifics of Catholic social and economic ethics, I'm ready.

My thinking? It is that Catholic social doctrine is very relevant and, if one is interested in European culture and ethics, worth looking into.

So start with the preamble on the Wiki page.

If you are interested in the influence of Catholic social doctrine in (recent) American history, look into Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker.

See also: The Spirit of the Sixties by James Farrell. This book had a large effect on how I viewed the Personalism movement in the US and the Sixties spirit.

You could gloss the headings of this more detailed encyclopedic presentation (published by the Church) on the topic, or you could read specific entries to gain a fuller sense.

If I took the time to write out a post on the topic it would be taken, more or less, from available sources. It is not a novel theory nor particular to me.

[henry quirk]

And: anytime you wanna gimme your thinkin' on the specifics of Catholic social and economic ethics, I'm ready.

My thinking? It is that Catholic social doctrine is very relevant and, if one is interested in European culture and ethics, worth looking into.

So start with the preamble on the Wiki page.

If you are interested in the influence of Catholic social doctrine in (recent) American history, look into Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker.

See also: The Spirit of the Sixties by James Farrell. This book had a large effect on how I viewed the Personalism movement in the US and the Sixties spirit.

You could gloss the headings of this more detailed encyclopedic presentation (published by the Church) on the topic, or you could read specific entries to gain a fuller sense.

If I took the time to write out a post on the topic it would be taken, more or less, from available sources. It is not a novel theory nor particular to me.

BTW: I'm getting' a 404 on the encyclopedic presentation link.

[Alexis Jacobi]

BTW: I'm getting' a 404 on the encyclopedic presentation link.

Here it is again.

[henry quirk]

BTW: I'm getting' a 404 on the encyclopedic presentation link.

Here it is again.

Got it...

[Belinda]

And: anytime you wanna gimme your thinkin' on the specifics of Catholic social and economic ethics, I'm ready.

My thinking? It is that Catholic social doctrine is very relevant and, if one is interested in European culture and ethics, worth looking into.

So start with the preamble on the Wiki page.

If you are interested in the influence of Catholic social doctrine in (recent) American history, look into Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker.

See also: The Spirit of the Sixties by James Farrell. This book had a large effect on how I viewed the Personalism movement in the US and the Sixties spirit.

You could gloss the headings of this more detailed encyclopedic presentation (published by the Church) on the topic, or you could read specific entries to gain a fuller sense.

If I took the time to write out a post on the topic it would be taken, more or less, from available sources. It is not a novel theory nor particular to me.

I found your references/links useful and interesting . Thanks. I have been trying to understand how your liking for authority melds with e.g. mutualism and the work of Dorothy Day. Perhaps you would expand that theme?

May be it's just me, but 'Authority" sounds elitist.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I found your references/links useful and interesting. Thanks. I have been trying to understand how your liking for authority melds with e.g. mutualism and the work of Dorothy Day. Perhaps you would expand that theme?

May be it's just me, but 'Authority" sounds elitist.

Peter Maurin had authority. He spoke from a specific platform of understanding of value. The religious imperative (definitely very strong — essential — in Christian belief) inflected everything he did and said.

I think you view my respect for authority as a defect because you assume I refer to unjust authority: tyranny. But that is your misunderstanding.

There will never be a time when men do not assert definitions of what is authoritative. Nor will you ever assert something (a truth-statement) that you do not feel has authoritative power.

I do not see what the issue about authority actually is. It seems quite common-sense-like to me.

Possibly what is confusing about my stance is that I recognize the righteous authority of a Peter Maurin and a Dorothy day — while I simultaneously allow, or understand, the use of power by a hegemonic director such as the US in the Postwar.

Did you ever read anything I’d written of meditations on the ancient Indian views of “natural reality” as expressed in certain Vedic texts? I.e. the Law of the Fishes?

[Gary Childress]

Poor AJ. Everyone sees his nonsense, except for himself.

Oh? Clarify what exactly you mean. Describe what you mean by nonsense.

Your seeming enamorment with intolerant traditionalist ideologies, coupled with what seems to be a general rejection of what could be called "free thinkers".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your seeming enamorment with intolerant traditionalist ideologies, coupled with what seems to be a general rejection of what could be called "free thinkers".

Doesn’t explain ‘nonsense’.

[Gary Childress]

Your seeming enamorment with intolerant traditionalist ideologies, coupled with what seems to be a general rejection of what could be called "free thinkers".

Doesn’t explain ‘nonsense’.

Maybe think about it more, then.

[Belinda]

I found your references/links useful and interesting. Thanks. I have been trying to understand how your liking for authority melds with e.g. mutualism and the work of Dorothy Day. Perhaps you would expand that theme?

May be it's just me, but 'Authority" sounds elitist.

Peter Maurin had authority. He spoke from a specific platform of understanding of value. The religious imperative (definitely very strong — essential — in Christian belief) inflected everything he did and said.

I think you view my respect for authority as a defect because you assume I refer to unjust authority: tyranny. But that is your misunderstanding.

There will never be a time when men do not assert definitions of what is authoritative. Nor will you ever assert something (a truth-statement) that you do not feel has authoritative power.

I do not see what the issue about authority actually is. It seems quite common-sense-like to me.

Possibly what is confusing about my stance is that I recognize the righteous authority of a Peter Maurin and a Dorothy day — while I simultaneously allow, or understand, the use of power by a hegemonic director such as the US in the Postwar.

Did you ever read anything I’d written of meditations on the ancient Indian views of “natural reality” as expressed in certain Vedic texts? I.e. the Law of the Fishes?

If, instead of claiming Maurin and Dorothy Day had authority , you had explained why they seemed to you to be authoritative I may well have agreed with you, as I like mutualism as economic policy. Robert Owen , I liked him since I first read about his creation in New Lanark.
He instituted a range of radical reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the business and the moral fibre of its inhabitants, paying for these reforms from the substantial profits of the cotton-spinning business- an early form of social enterprise.

I am not alone in adding undertones of coercion and even tyranny to the word
'authority' .
There are two distinct usages for the word 'authority' . One usage needs a reference to why XYZ is an authority e.g. "Einstein is a recognised authority on physics" .The other usage is like "Putin is the authority in Russia" which connotes coercion and even tyranny.
Your reference to authority is not authoritarian, but that you find Roman Catholic social policy to be reasonable and right. You did not at first make this clear.

One needs to be very careful about how one endorses the R C Church, as it has been involved in scandals due to its authoritarian hold over its flocks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If, instead of claiming Maurin and Dorothy Day had authority, you had explained why they seemed to you to be authoritative, I may well have agreed with you, as I like mutualism as economic policy. Robert Owen, I liked him since I first read about his creation in New Lanark.

He instituted a range of radical reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the business and the moral fibre of its inhabitants, paying for these reforms from the substantial profits of the cotton-spinning business -- an early form of social enterprise.

I am not alone in adding undertones of coercion and even tyranny to the word 'authority' .

Oh, I could make some sort of case.

But the point is really that when Peter Maurin speaks, he believes his utterances have authority. And that is what gives him, in his own mind, the right to make definitive statements.

I think I begin to understand what your issue is: you feel that each person that makes some declarative statement must also, in some footnote, include for you a reasoned argument as to why their utterance (assertion, idea) is valid. The auditor or reader must give assent to the argument and then both can enter the domain of 'mutualism'.

Since you, dear Belinda, do not believe in God or any divine authority, nor for example that the Prophets were conduits of an Authority, you will never agree in the imperative outlined by anyone asserting that these messages have authority.

So, whatever Maurin believed as being *mandated* is, in your view, just one of any number of assertions that a being could make. Not necessarily true. But if enough people agree that it is true, then I gather that as a democratic subscriber, you would accept the truth as socially deigned.

One usage needs a reference to why XYZ is an authority e.g. "Einstein is a recognised authority on physics" .The other usage is like "Putin is the authority in Russia" which connotes coercion and even tyranny.

In fact you do not "believe in" any Authority of any sort.

[Belinda]

If, instead of claiming Maurin and Dorothy Day had authority, you had explained why they seemed to you to be authoritative, I may well have agreed with you, as I like mutualism as economic policy. Robert Owen, I liked him since I first read about his creation in New Lanark.

He instituted a range of radical reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the business and the moral fibre of its inhabitants, paying for these reforms from the substantial profits of the cotton-spinning business -- an early form of social enterprise.

I am not alone in adding undertones of coercion and even tyranny to the word 'authority' .

Oh, I could make some sort of case.

But the point is really that when Peter Maurin speaks, he believes his utterances have authority. And that is what gives him, in his own mind, the right to make definitive statements.

I think I begin to understand what your issue is: you feel that each person that makes some declarative statement must also, in some footnote, include for you a reasoned argument as to why their utterance (assertion, idea) is valid. The auditor or reader must give assent to the argument and then both can enter the domain of 'mutualism'.

Since you, dear Belinda, do not believe in God or any divine authority, nor for example that the Prophets were conduits of an Authority, you will never agree in the imperative outlined by anyone asserting that these messages have authority.

So, whatever Maurin believed as being *mandated* is, in your view, just one of any number of assertions that a being could make. Not necessarily true. But if enough people agree that it is true, then I gather that as a democratic subscriber, you would accept the truth as socially deigned.

One usage needs a reference to why XYZ is an authority e.g. "Einstein is a recognised authority on physics" .The other usage is like "Putin is the authority in Russia" which connotes coercion and even tyranny.

In fact you do not "believe in" any Authority of any sort.

The more the authority is definitive of truth, goodness and beauty the better. The more the authority is authoritarian the worse the authority is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You equate Authority = Tyranny.

[Impenitent]

if you wrote the book, you have author ity...

-Imp

[Belinda]

If, instead of claiming Maurin and Dorothy Day had authority, you had explained why they seemed to you to be authoritative, I may well have agreed with you, as I like mutualism as economic policy. Robert Owen, I liked him since I first read about his creation in New Lanark.

He instituted a range of radical reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the business and the moral fibre of its inhabitants, paying for these reforms from the substantial profits of the cotton-spinning business -- an early form of social enterprise.

I am not alone in adding undertones of coercion and even tyranny to the word 'authority' .

Oh, I could make some sort of case.

But the point is really that when Peter Maurin speaks, he believes his utterances have authority. And that is what gives him, in his own mind, the right to make definitive statements.

I think I begin to understand what your issue is: you feel that each person that makes some declarative statement must also, in some footnote, include for you a reasoned argument as to why their utterance (assertion, idea) is valid. The auditor or reader must give assent to the argument and then both can enter the domain of 'mutualism'.

Since you, dear Belinda, do not believe in God or any divine authority, nor for example that the Prophets were conduits of an Authority, you will never agree in the imperative outlined by anyone asserting that these messages have authority.

So, whatever Maurin believed as being *mandated* is, in your view, just one of any number of assertions that a being could make. Not necessarily true. But if enough people agree that it is true, then I gather that as a democratic subscriber, you would accept the truth as socially deigned.

One usage needs a reference to why XYZ is an authority e.g. "Einstein is a recognised authority on physics" .The other usage is like "Putin is the authority in Russia" which connotes coercion and even tyranny.

In fact you do not "believe in" any Authority of any sort.

Instructing me as to what I don't believe is not doing philosophy.