Thread: Anchors

Jockeys asked an important question in my music censorship thread which could easily be glossed over, so I thought I would let him ask it again:

where's the line for extremism? i know people who DO think the dixie chicks shouldn't be sold in stores. I know people who think that Skrewdriver should be on the radio (and it sometimes is, if you have satellite).

You advocate the morality of opposing extremism, yet all I can see is an arbitrary line in the sand that you've drawn. It represents your comfort level with certain ideologies. Nothing more. It's certainly not a guideline that can be used meaningfully.

So how do you come about your belief system? In this ever changing world and the ever changing mores and ethics of society what is it that anchors you? Or do you just float along like so much flotsam and jetsam in the sea of life?
I want to know how you come to the beliefs that you have, I am not looking for a debate on the right and wrong way of things but a logical discussion on what really makes sense to each of us! If something doesn't ring true please question it but don't trample the beliefs of anyone here!


so what anchors you?

It occurs to me, as jockeys suggested, even if he didn't mean to,that everything is arbitrary unless we have a grounding, point of perspective, or anchor of sorts

I am hoping my question is not too hard or too personal.

Mark,

I think this is a very good question. Interestingly, the answer is purely incidental. Unfortunately, the nature of the answer is extremely important. I believe the subjectivity of the answer to this very question is the fuel for most sociopolitical fires on the planet. What you are asking is how each individual decides what is right and wrong and how committed are we to those decisions. The confrontational manner in which you couch the question itself tells us your answer. You wrote, "...do you just float along like so much flotsam and jetsam in the sea of life?" Whether I "float along" or not is immaterial. What you are looking for is what drives our dedication to our morals. Precisely what Jockeys so astutely calls "collectivism."

In a room where 100 of the like minded and no one opposed has gathered, they can stand firmly on their collective soapbox and shout their beliefs at the top of their lungs. They would essentially be "the choir." If one person devoutly dedicated to the other side of the issue finds himself in the room, he has to decide whether or not to stand against the choir. He has to weigh his dedication to what he believes to be right and wrong. Is he so convinced his right and wrong are so important that he will make a stand against one hundred opposed loudmouths? Hmmm 100:1 are pretty rough odds yet people will still try to sway the others. This is the stuff of which martyrs are made.

Me personally? I believe in the Golden Rule and live and let live. I would rather get along with you as you are by letting you proceed unfettered in your beliefs. Just please don't stop me from proceeding unfettered in mine. If you don't think people should have an abortion, don't have one. If you don't think folks should buy alcoholic beverages on Sunday, don't buy them. But there are those who feel so strongly that their right and wrong is more accurate and more important than the other rights and wrongs that they will interfere with all those opposed. And that is where we part company.

Kinky Friedman wrote:

Well, a redneck nerd in a bowling shirt was a-guzzlin lone star beer
Talking religion and-uh politics for all the world to hear.
they oughta send you back to russia, boy, or new york city one
You just want to doodle a christian girl and you killed gods only son.

I said, has it occurred to you, you nerd, that thats not very nice,
We jews believe it was santa claus that killed jesus christ.
you know, you dont look jewish, he said, near as I could figger
I had you lamped for a slightly anemic, well-dressed country Bleep.

No, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore,
They dont turn the other cheek the way they done before.
He started in to shoutin and a-spittin on the floor,
lord, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore.

He says, i aint a racist but aristitle onassis is one greek we dont need
And them Bleep, jews and sigma nus, all they ever do is breed.
And wops n micks n slopes n spics n spooks are on my list
And theres one little hebe from the heart of texas is there anyone I missed ?

Well, I hits him with everything I had right square between the eyes.
I says, Im gonna gitcha, you son of a bitch ya, for spoutin that pack of lies.
If theres one thing I cant abide, its an ethnocentric racist;
Now you take back that thing you said bout aristitle onassis.

No, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore,
We dont turn the other cheek the way we done before.
You could hear that honky holler as he hit that hardwood floor
lord, they sho aint makin jews like jesus anymore!
All right!

No, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore,
We dont turn the other cheek the way they done before.
You hear that honky holler as he hit that hardwood floor
Lord, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore.

Everybody!
They aint makin jews like jesus anymore,
They aint makin carpenters who know what nails are for.
Well, the whole damn place was singin as I strolled right out the door
lord, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore!

No, we aint makin jews like jesus anymore,
We dont turn the other cheek the way they done before.
Well, the whole damn place was singin as I strolled right out the door
lord, they aint makin jews like jesus anymore!

Originally Posted by JMS

It occurs to me, as jockeys suggested, even if he didn't mean to,that everything is arbitrary unless we have a grounding, point of perspective, or anchor of sorts

no, I meant to. here are my thoughts:

there really aren't any absolute grounding points. and very few absolutes. most of the absolutes in the universe are not helpful to man. (like -273.14C, for instance)

there certainly aren't any moral absolutes. each society and, to a degree, each generation of each society, makes up rules as they go along to increase their odds of survival. if the rules don't work, they sometimes get changed. some societies don't change their rules to better ones and fall apart or are wiped out by better societies that had better rules.

it's evolution... of ideas. faster, infinitely more flexible than good old fashioned genetic adaptation. ideas change at the speed of thought. ideas are not limited by anything but the imagination. this cycle of evolution is constantly accelerating. the ideas of each society manifest in their rules. how well the society holds together, and is able to advance, is a measure of fitness and the fittest societies survive longer. strong societies destroy or absorb weaker ones, gaining a measure of ideological randomness via absorption. random mutation comes in the form of idealists, dreamers and lunatics.

it has always intrigued me to watch this behavior in humans, and see it evolve and take shape. it happens so quickly, i can observe it during my lifetime. really, all i see is something akin to Conway's Game of Life (essentially, a fast acting, micro-scale genetic simulator) Conway's Game of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
only being played out on a vastly more complicated set of physical rules and an infinitely bigger board.

there are only physical absolutes. there are no moral absolutes because morality is a human construct... an abstraction for good behavior needed to increase the fitness of a given society.

Originally Posted by icedog

Mark,

The confrontational manner in which you couch the question itself tells us your answer. You wrote, "...do you just float along like so much flotsam and jetsam in the sea of life?"

Funny you should find my question confrontational and that you seem to know where I stand on this as I hardly know where I stand. I fit quite nicely into the flotsam and jetsam group and find that I agree with jockeys but with a twist that I find hard to put into words.

funny how many people think they know what or how I think without me saying a word. Quite odd.

Originally Posted by jockeys

here are my thoughts:

there really aren't any absolute grounding points. and very few absolutes. most of the absolutes in the universe are not helpful to man. (like -273.14C, for instance)

there certainly aren't any moral absolutes. each society and, to a degree, each generation of each society, makes up rules as they go along to increase their odds of survival.

You make very good thought out arguments for this side of the debate, and since you prefaced this as being your thoughts, there is really no room to argue it (sound and consistent, and ultimately preference for a school of thought can't be meaningfully challenged). This question of anchors gets at the material/metaphysical debate very quickly and inescapably.

The only way that there are meaningful "anchors" or moral absolutes is if you enter the metaphysical side of the debate. (there can be moral absolutes in a metaphysical explanation, but that doesn't mean that societies will not create moralities that could deviate from the absolutes.) You must distance yourself from materialism and biological reductionism to have true moral grounds for anything... but if you get too far into free will your anchors dissolve also. It's a very tricky thing!

del1r1um--> well said, sir. you indeed cannot have moral absolutes without a metaphysical "anchor" eg. a higher authority. those that have a penchant for such beliefs will have their anchor, albeit maybe a different anchor than another person's, depending on philosophicial/religious preference. for those that do not see any compelling reason to acknowledge a higher power, there can be no moral absolutes, at least while maintaning any semblance of rationality.

This is a very good question indeed, Mark. it is a question on which many great minds have laboured over the centuries.

Cultural Anthropology can reveal everything we need to know about ourselves to answer the question, but interpretations vary and when you label them 'beliefs' people get all twitchy and personal. The agenda to defend them overrides any meaningful discussion.

What I pursue is a suspension of disbelief. There's a lot of ideas out there. I look for evidence and stand behind the credible. That includes ethical behaviour. Contradictions occur. That's okay. Light can be both a wave and a particle at the same time. I can live with that. I'm open to change.

Originally Posted by jockeys

... random mutation comes in the form of idealists, dreamers and lunatics...

too true

X

I got my anchor from my uncle. It is about 12" x 24", aluminum I think. needs a new rope, but there you have it.