Skip to content

Sketching Out A Thought Process

April 27, 2011

SO THIS HAPPENED this morning…

ADAMCRAZYPANTS: I’d say that authority and institutions are the antithesis of life itself. There is [no] logic or architecture or structure to the human dogpile, [it’s just] a dogpile.

Frederick: I couldn’t disagree with two statements more. They ignore everything you can observe with your own two eyes everyday.

As one who has dabbled in the Eristic principles of Dischordianism myself, I might gently chide Frederick for this. “The principle of disorder is just as significant as the principle of order,” “There is no tyranny in the State of Confusion,” and so on. Kidding aside, it is tricky accepting the evidence observed with one’s own two eyes every day without attempting to come to terms with it in some way. And the discussion does fit right in with the general arc this blog has taken of late.

There is a post in the “drafts” folder meant to give a little more form to several running themes of whatever it is we’ve got going on here, but that’s just it, it’s languishing in the “drafts” folder. In the meantime, here’s a quick sketch of the thought process aroused by the conversation excerpted above. Take it as an embrace of the virtue forwarded in drip’s recent comment that, “really, more people should ‘show their work’.”

what’s morality?
reject gods and divine command
is there an objective morality?
based on what?
no compelling evidence
still, intuition, nagging convictions remain

clues from nature/science/Darwin?
after all, human’s most basic/urgent drives are centered on survival
air, shelter, water, security, reproduction…
biological imperative
survival of the species and whatnot
sketch out an ethic based on subsistence
universal ideal to meet basic human needs for all

ignoring the less urgent/higher needs
or social structures that incentivize the “wrong” ones
(domination vs. nurturing)
limits the potential of altruism and solidarity
inequality* leads to the above
inequality* is the design flaw of social structures and institutions
life in a fucked-up society

“might makes right”
Social Darwinism
seems unbecoming in
that are equipped to feel empathy
maybe such creatures, (ones who emphasize altruism and solidarity,) simply aren’t biologically viable from an evolution standpoint?

are we human beings
or mere animals?

* inequality meaning the unequal value placed on time not spent directly tending to one’s own needs.

One Comment leave one →
  1. drip permalink
    April 28, 2011 5:23 PM

    That’s a big bite you took there. Two things popped into my head. I came across <a href="–_extending_the_species_–_isn%27t_the_real_reason_for_having_sex?page=entire&quot; this somewhere. Maybe there isn’t a biological/reproductive imperative. What does that do to the origin of sexual mores?

    The second was some smart guy’s (Whitehead? Russell?) response to the ridiculousness of the sun orbiting the earth: “Yes, but what would it look like, if it did?”

    We try to make order out of our perceptions, and in the end, maybe the movie has already been shot and we’re just watching it. That I got from Harry Dean Stanton.

    Good luck with the post. I’ll be watching.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: