Moral lesson? The idea is that if we bypass the ideological constructs surrounding human needs and are able to connect on the level of needs by extending compassion rather than by resorting to moralistic judgement, which is only alienating and apt to escalation, conflict resolves
-
-
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd
No, studies show that using empathy & compassion on oppressors is self defeating, especially when a threat is present. The humanizing thing only works the other way. Oppressed people are compelled to empathize & be compassionate to oppressors it doesn’t help.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungneocon @bAbAHAdAd
In an *already* equal & free world, the strategy describe here would largely work, but it offers no guidance on how to achieve that world and is indeed counter productive to that end.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungneocon @bAbAHAdAd
also ideology isn’t a ‘veil’ behind which some true authentic kernal of self exists. Humans may be more than the sum of their social, ideological & effectual relations, but they are not prior to or separable from them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungneocon
I disagree. Ideology is not prior to information nor to consciousness. Personality may be the summation of social, ideological, & effectual relations but personality does not encompass the self.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd
I mean then self is just some absent signifier posited to exist prior to something it possibly couldn’t—socialization, language, culture, human action, contexts & relations. Now *that’s* moralism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungneocon
That's not moralism. I don't understand how you can characterize an ontological claim as a moral claim. There's no connection.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd
Actually there is, because the self concept isn’t really coherent, it’s an aesthetic and stylistic imposition masquerading as an ontological claim.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungneocon
"Self concept"? The concept of the self is not the self. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. Ontologically, I consider information as prior. From your arguments, I surmise that you're ontologically a materialist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd
At the level of a realist monism, the difference between information & materialism is basically moot—which is why there are scientific materialists who subscribe to informational physics’. That said, that has very little do with my view on the self. ^__^
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Informational physics? You mean digital physics? Digital ontology and informational ontology define information differently, if I'm not mistaken. Matter and mind are products of information according to informational ontology.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.