Philosophy Now Forum

Hi, SpheresOfBalance

I'm sure it is not just a matter of terminology, as to what is "The Central Question" that you are concerned about. Demerest & Schoof chose that as the title of their book, and I have no control over that. You are raising what you consider to be a more fundamental question.

Just as you were writing down your contribution to this Forum, I was writing this:

People sometimes ask themselves, "Why am I here?"
Wise oracles, such as the authors of that book, may respond:
You are here to create as much value as you can create. That is why the Universe needs you. That is why intelligent life is found in the Universe.

Ethics - as I understand it - is all about adding value.
( Everything a business does ought to be adding value - for business ought to be ethical. This is why they have Business Ethics courses in most schools of business, and in university Colleges of Business.)

And individuals ought to be busy adding value in their personal lives.

It all fits together ...as logical as the solution of a Sudoku puzzle.

prof wrote:People sometimes ask themselves, "Why am I here?"
Wise oracles, such as the authors of that book, may respond:
You are here to create as much value as you can create. That is why the Universe needs you. That is why intelligent life is found in the Universe.

One person's value -> another person's curse

Whose curse do you have in mind? Name the party who considers this a curse for him or her.



Why, to you, is the ability to add value "a curse"?? Are you a pessimist?

prof wrote:Hi, SpheresOfBalance

I'm sure it is not just a matter of terminology, as to what is "The Central Question" that you are concerned about. Demerest & Schoof chose that as the title of their book, and I have no control over that. You are raising what you consider to be a more fundamental question.

Just as you were writing down your contribution to this Forum, I was writing this:
You could not possibly know this, but if so, what's the point in mentioning?

People sometimes ask themselves, "Why am I here?"
Wise oracles, such as the authors of that book, may respond:
You are here to create as much value as you can create. That is why the Universe needs you. That is why intelligent life is found in the Universe.

Ethics - as I understand it - is all about adding value.
( Everything a business does ought to be adding value - for business ought to be ethical. This is why they have Business Ethics courses in most schools of business, and in university Colleges of Business.)

And individuals ought to be busy adding value in their personal lives.

It all fits together ...as logical as the solution of a Sudoku puzzle.

I see that your position as you question, is still from the I or me. I do not do this. I try and always ask, when the subject concerns everyone, from the we and us.

so...

It's not why am "I" here, it's why are "we" here? It's not what "I" can do, but what "we" can do.

So let me demonstrate one that may exist and ask the question, as they then answer themselves:

Why am "I" here? TO KILL (Son of Sam, soldier, police officer, etc)!!
Why am "I" here? TO CONTROL ALL THE WORLDS FOOD SUPPLY THROUGH SEEDS THAT YIELD NO SEED SO YOU HAVE TO BUY THROUGH ME (Monsanto).

I'm saying that always putting oneself as the central concern, when asking big questions, that encompass us all, allows one to serve oneself, more readily. Hear it now the other way.

Why are "we" here? TO Kill (seems logically unsound, as it's readily apparent, that the one asking the question, is seen as a victim, instantly.

Why are "we" here? TO CONTROL... (again it seems logically unsound, as the one positing, immediately see his control by another.

Now you may think that I'm splitting hairs, but I say to you that the reason people start with the self, is because they only see/care about the self, while all along it has been an untrue perspective, that they lie to themselves about so that they can be better/above/have more than all the rest, while in fact, we all are, the we, the us, we are one organism, once viewed from the proper perspective. That perspective is out in space, unfortunately only few know of that which I speak; astronauts. Once there, it's very apparent that it is not the I or me that is important, but rather the we and us as we are in fact, only one organism. And the quicker we acknowledge this, the quicker we achieve that which you "CLAIM" to be the crux of your matter. Thus addressing the question of the whole of it, causes all to be included, if all is included then answers are for all. We have to stop asking what I can do, as this leads to all kinds of conflicting answers, and is why we are in the current shape that we're in, it's what we're always done, and wanting to continue is so much going nowhere. "All" of "us," have to come to terms with the "we" of it "all," or our conflicts, born of the "I," shall surely do "us" in. The universal question of the truth of our existence is all encompassing, and places the one organism, on the third metamorphic, from the star, we call sun.

"I" don't know, maybe "I'm" just ahead of "my" time? Maybe "people" shall eventually come to understand how important it is to automatically see things from the "we" perspective. Hopefully before the conflict of all the "I's," seal the "organism's" doom.

prof wrote:Whose curse do you have in mind? Name the party who considers this a curse for him or her.



Why, to you, is the ability to add value "a curse"?? Are you a pessimist?

ever heard of finite resources? inflation (as I mentioned in another thread)? finite time?

Whatever one person does and may to that person be a blessing, it may very well affect others negatively. Therefore, we have a finite world, and politics is the subject dealing with the rights of individuals to the consumption of resources (not just raw material, but resource in the broad sense, including time, workload, social resources, psychological resources, technological resources and so on).

No, I'm not a pessimist. I just love to show people they are wrong are haven't taken things into account. I'm highly an optimist, but I am an optimist in my own right, I think there are many problems in the world, and they can all be solved, if we just use our heads right, and when I meet people like you, I like to show them how they are not using their heads right, but letting their optimism become a consumptive way of thinking and living, instead of a means to an end, as it should be.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

prof wrote: Hi, SpheresOfBalance

I'm sure it is not just a matter of terminology, as to what is "The Central Question" that you are concerned about. Demerest & Schoof chose that as the title of their book, and I have no control over that. You are raising what you consider to be a more fundamental question.

People sometimes ask themselves, "Why am I here?"
... the authors of that book, may respond: You are here to create as much value as you can reate. That is why the Universe needs you. That is why intelligent life is found in the Universe.

Ethics ... is all about adding value.
( Everything a business does ought to be adding value - for business ought to be ethical. ...

And individuals ought to be busy adding value in their personal lives.

It all fits (logically) together.

.... it's very apparent that it is not the I or me that is important, but rather the we and us as we are in fact, only one organism...
...understand how important it is to automatically see things from the "we" perspective. Hopefully before the conflict of all the "I's," seal the "organism's" doom..(emphasis added)

You would really love living in North Korea !
Or maybe you are from there??

While, in a sense, I agree that we ought to see things from the "we" perspective, the point I am making is that we should always consider the individual to be supreme above the State. [Hegel thought otherwise; his thinking caught on and became the conventional wisdom in his Vaterland (his heimat.) Hitler tapped into that ethos, that prevailing tzeitgeist. It didn't work out so well for Germany.]
We ought to see things from many perspectives. Some, though, are more valuable than others.

Something very close to your view (all one organism) was pushed by Mao Tse Tung in China, but lately, fortunately for them, they have gotten away from it. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the human species was "one organism." It doesn't seem to allow for individuality and spontaneity. It rules out individual autonomy. It does not value liberty highly. I value liberty, while akin as well to the other values of the ethical progressive populists.

You will find in the Unified Theory of Ethics one of the personae saying: "Instead of asking, 'What's in it for me?', ask 'What's in it for us.'" So you see we can find common ground. For I wrote that series of four little booklets ...or they wrote me. They contain several sections on Social Ethics.

Still I care very much about each person's having individuality. The Intrinsic Value realm is Diversity-Within-Unity. Each of us - when emotionally-intelligent - should unconditionally love himself (as a precious treasure of value), and then go on from there to reach out to embrace the rest of the species as his family - and hopefully have a strong feeling of solidarity with his 'brothers and sisters.'

Do not misunderstand: I am NOT advocating egoism. There is a lot of truth in the Buddhist ethic recommending 'kill the ego'. It is also a concept of Vedanta, and Jainism.

I could say a lot more on this but I'll leave it there.

Comments?

I would think, Proff, that better than "all one organism", and better than whatever you are proposing, I would think the best is really an "from all angles organism", that is, you have a single unified organism of humanity and its extensions, but there is no central authority, there is just a central "framework-maker". Think of it a bit like roads, instead of All-Roads-Lead-to-Rome, and instead of All-Roads-Go-Wherever-The-Fuck-They-Want, you have All-Roads-Connect-With-Each-Other, meaning that the roads create the opportunity, and the aim is to increase this opportunity, for decisions to echo from wherever to wherever in the road-network, or, in another sense, to wherever in humanity. In an ideals sense you get kind-of a Grid Network. And at each crossroad there's a system for giving the greatest quality and efficiency forwarding of the single decision of a single human being. Somewhere in the grid network there would be a framework-maker, but he wouldn't be the centrality of the "organism", and instead he would be like everybody else, doing a job based on the echoes, the feedbacks of other grids, and as such other grids also work, when they carry out decisions, they receive feedback as to enhance their decision from other grids.

prof wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

prof wrote: Hi, SpheresOfBalance

I'm sure it is not just a matter of terminology, as to what is "The Central Question" that you are concerned about. Demerest & Schoof chose that as the title of their book, and I have no control over that. You are raising what you consider to be a more fundamental question.

People sometimes ask themselves, "Why am I here?"
... the authors of that book, may respond: You are here to create as much value as you can reate. That is why the Universe needs you. That is why intelligent life is found in the Universe.

Ethics ... is all about adding value.
( Everything a business does ought to be adding value - for business ought to be ethical. ...

And individuals ought to be busy adding value in their personal lives.

It all fits (logically) together.

.... it's very apparent that it is not the I or me that is important, but rather the we and us as we are in fact, only one organism...
...understand how important it is to automatically see things from the "we" perspective. Hopefully before the conflict of all the "I's," seal the "organism's" doom..(emphasis added)

You would really love living in North Korea !
Or maybe you are from there??

While, in a sense, I agree that we ought to see things from the "we" perspective, the point I am making is that we should always consider the individual to be supreme above the State. [Hegel thought otherwise; his thinking caught on and became the conventional wisdom in his Vaterland (his heimat.) Hitler tapped into that ethos, that prevailing tzeitgeist. It didn't work out so well for Germany.]
We ought to see things from many perspectives. Some, though, are more valuable than others.

Something very close to your view (all one organism) was pushed by Mao Tse Tung in China, but lately, fortunately for them, they have gotten away from it. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the human species was "one organism." It doesn't seem to allow for individuality and spontaneity. It rules out individual autonomy. It does not value liberty highly. I value liberty, while akin as well to the other values of the ethical progressive populists.

You will find in the Unified Theory of Ethics one of the personae saying: "Instead of asking, 'What's in it for me?', ask 'What's in it for us.'" So you see we can find common ground. For I wrote that series of four little booklets ...or they wrote me. They contain several sections on Social Ethics.

Still I care very much about each person's having individuality. The Intrinsic Value realm is Diversity-Within-Unity. Each of us - when emotionally-intelligent - should unconditionally love himself (as a precious treasure of value), and then go on from there to reach out to embrace the rest of the species as his family - and hopefully have a strong feeling of solidarity with his 'brothers and sisters.'

Do not misunderstand: I am NOT advocating egoism. There is a lot of truth in the Buddhist ethic recommending 'kill the ego'. It is also a concept of Vedanta, and Jainism.

I could say a lot more on this but I'll leave it there.

Comments?

While it is true, that some of archaic times, believed they knew of the we/us, instead, serving themselves, it has no bearing on the true idea of the we, the one organism.

Above you allude to ones control in the forcing of something, I speak of the force, contained in the acknowledgement by all, of the truth of something, alluding to it's yield of (us) control, naturally contained within this universality. There is no I in Planet Earth, this symbiotic organism!

I'd like to return to the original theme of this thread.

I and my colleagues in the value-science field strongly believe that most people can learn the Good and choose the Good - as a way of life.

prof wrote:I'd like to return to the original theme of this thread.

I and my colleagues in the value-science field strongly believe that most people can learn the Good and choose the Good - as a way of life.

How do you define good? What do you see as good? I see that good is ambiguous, at best. TVoT makes a valid point, there is no necessary accounting for good.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

prof wrote:I'd like to return to the original theme of this thread.

I and my colleagues in the value-science field strongly believe that most people can learn the Good and choose the Good - as a way of life.

How do you define good? What do you see as good? I see that good is ambiguous, at best. ...

See the second section of viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10509
Where a specific good is defined, to avoid ambiguity.
For this Forum, I am concerned with moral goodness. If you would take the time to read the selections by M. C. Katz, which you can Google, or my other posts here, you would get a better idea of the new paradigm for Ethics being proposed for consideration. It is tentative and subject to improvement by a good mind such as yours. We are all one species, one human family. It takes enlightenment to see that; and you are closer to it than many others here. You slightly overdo the unity though: We are not an ant colony, nor a bee colony, nor one single organism. We are unique individuals, and should be treated as such.

I admire your inquiring mind, Spheres of Balance. Keep on investigating....

prof wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

prof wrote:I'd like to return to the original theme of this thread.

I and my colleagues in the value-science field strongly believe that most people can learn the Good and choose the Good - as a way of life.

How do you define good? What do you see as good? I see that good is ambiguous, at best. ...

See the second section of viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10509
Where a specific good is defined, to avoid ambiguity.
For this Forum, I am concerned with moral goodness. If you would take the time to read the selections by M. C. Katz, which you can Google, or my other posts here, you would get a better idea of the new paradigm for Ethics being proposed for consideration. It is tentative and subject to improvement by a good mind such as yours. We are all one species, one human family. It takes enlightenment to see that; and you are closer to it than many others here. You slightly overdo the unity though: We are not an ant colony, nor a bee colony, nor one single organism. We are unique individuals, and should be treated as such.

I admire your inquiring mind, Spheres of Balance. Keep on investigating....

You sound like a level headed and kind person, especially since you have payed me a complement after I've given you such a hard way to go. But you misunderstand my meaning. The singular organism, of which I speak is the whole of the planet earth, the symbiotic biosphere, comprised of all the multitudes of constituents, known as life, both plant and animal, as ecosystems of biodiversity that has taken billions of years to reach it's current pinnacle, that one particular species takes for granted, destroying it all, purely for a glittering prize, like some sort of lower life-form that can't see the life, for the self. I see that it believes that it does things for itself, all the while destroying itself, unknowingly; I see that it's killing itself to live. And that the only hope of it's survival, is this recognition of the we/us, of this singular organism. That it's time to flush the singular I/me from the way we think and express things, before we cross that terminal event horizon.

I'm not saying that your idea that ethics are paramount is wrong, quite the contrary. I'm just saying that to speak of it from the perspective of we/us is the only way to really affect the required change, that the perspective of I/me is one of the main reasons why we find ourselves on the precipice of no return.

Greetings, Spheres of Balance

Now that I see where you're coming from, I totally agree.

A little bit about my background: In 1955, I elected, as an undergraduate in a major university, to take a course in Ecology. In 1967, while working as an Instructor in Philosophy, I was one of three delegates from my school chosen to attend an Ecology Conference held on a site on the banks of the Connecticut River, at a lodge on some pristine land where plants grew wild. It was a most beautiful setting !

Later, when I became Midwest Director of the World Future Society, I brought in speakers on Environmentalism to address our meetings and forums. So as a result you can tell that I recognized rather early that members of our species were abusing our planetary home, and that it would eventually come back to bite us. Now that we experience all these more-frequent droughts, floods, typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, wildfires and cyclones it may be penetrating the brains of some people who were unconscious before as to the connection, to the web of life, to the synergistic interdependent biosphere.

Thanks for your fine contribution.

With regard to the we/us policies and principles you stress and recommend though, I would remind you, if you would review the original post of this thread that it, early on, has passages, such as the following:

"...working for the common good. We know that we stand together or we fall together. We flourish when we have harmonious relationships, truly caring persons joyfully cooperating to build a better world for all."

And: "We will work for, and advocate for, social-mobility and for increasing opportunity for people to better themselves, improve their lot. ...Educated people push for a quality life for all.

They may, for example, form mutual-aid societies and mutual-support groups. They coalesce in local organizations to get a worthwhile project done …such as to reduce pollution, or waste.... This is Applied Ethics at its best."

My point is that throughout the Unified Theory of Ethics the we/us attitude is given emphasis. Read the essays. Links were provided. You may enjoy the experience; you may like what you see.

prof wrote:Greetings, Spheres of Balance

Now that I see where you're coming from, I totally agree.

A little bit about my background: In 1955, I elected, as an undergraduate in a major university, to take a course in Ecology. In 1967, while working as an Instructor in Philosophy, I was one of three delegates from my school chosen to attend an Ecology Conference held on a site on the banks of the Connecticut River, at a lodge on some pristine land where plants grew wild. It was a most beautiful setting !

Later, when I became Midwest Director of the World Future Society, I brought in speakers on Environmentalism to address our meetings and forums. So as a result you can tell that I recognized rather early that members of our species were abusing our planetary home, and that it would eventually come back to bite us. Now that we experience all these more-frequent droughts, floods, typhoons, tsunamis, hurricanes, wildfires and cyclones it may be penetrating the brains of some people who were unconscious before as to the connection, to the web of life, to the synergistic interdependent biosphere.

Thanks for your fine contribution.

With regard to the we/us policies and principles you stress and recommend though, I would remind you, if you would review the original post of this thread that it, early on, has passages, such as the following:

"...working for the common good. We know that we stand together or we fall together. We flourish when we have harmonious relationships, truly caring persons joyfully cooperating to build a better world for all."

And: "We will work for, and advocate for, social-mobility and for increasing opportunity for people to better themselves, improve their lot. ...Educated people push for a quality life for all.

They may, for example, form mutual-aid societies and mutual-support groups. They coalesce in local organizations to get a worthwhile project done …such as to reduce pollution, or waste.... This is Applied Ethics at its best."

My point is that throughout the Unified Theory of Ethics the we/us attitude is given emphasis. Read the essays. Links were provided. You may enjoy the experience; you may like what you see.

Yes this sounds good, I shall take the time to read it further. At this point I have read some of it, but I started skimming when I got to the variables, thinking that something was missing in order for a reader to do the math. I meant to return to sort it out, but got side tracked. Sorry I hadn't completed it prior to posting my views, apparently it would have saved us both some time, it seems I don't have enough of it, maybe this is why.

Thanks for the time it took to re-post some of the passages. Hopefully I'll have it completed prior to your next visit.

PEACE, my friend!