Peter Kropotkin wrote: from prior post: I think I have a solution....
you may be able to see the problem......
I have been accused of not bringing my solutions to the ground.....
I am weaving theories in the air and not being aware of the
I am not engaging in a particular context, a particular set of
conflicting goods.....in other words, say gun control or abortion,
what are my "solutions" given the current reality of modern day America?
It is suggested that I bring this "general description" assessment of "values"
down to earth and explain how my "values" is worked out in the "real" world.....
No, my point is less about examining particular solutions in particular contexts, and more about examining the extent to which any proposed solutions are embedded in the lives that we live. More so than in the abstract arguments embedded in "general descriptions" of human interactions.
And here it only makes sense to bring the arguments themselves down out of the clouds.
Instead, in my view, this is where you stay:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: the problem as I see it isn't about "working" out my values in the real world....
the problem is discovering what my values are.....
for example, if I act without any recourse to my values, my actions are
mindless, "ad hoc" (ad hoc means "for this", "for this situation" it is used
to describe something that has been formed or used for a specical and immediate
purpose without prior planning... ad hoc means temporary, improvised, makeshift)
and we cannot hold ourselves to such actions as gun control or abortions using
ad hoc thinking.... we must engage in such thinking with something more permanent,
something that is useful today and tomorrow..........
in thinking about abortions or gun control, I must base my actions about
such matters based upon the values I hold.... if I call myself "pro-life"
and hold that all life is sacred, then my actions in regards to abortions
becomes quite clear....if I instead belief in a woman's right to choose,
then my actions become also quite clear....the actions we take
are dictated by the values we hold...….
the values you accept dictates the actions you take.....
it is really that simple...…
So, back again I then go to this: How on earth does this "general description" "world of words" assessment deal with the points I raise in my signature threads?
From my frame of mind, we discover our values in and through the actual trajectory of our lives. Those on both sides of the gun control and abortion debates can make your argument above.
But, then, as well, if they have become objectivists as a result of the same existential trajectory, they insist that all rational people must be either pro-life or pro-choice. Pro-citizens or pro-government.
They can't accept that their own value judgments are existential contraptions rooted in dasein. That their own values are derived from a world of contingency, chance and change. A world where values are always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.
Instead, they stick to a frame of mind like this one:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: it isn't enough to engage in some discussion about what to do about
gun control or abortion, we must hold to some values before we can even
hold a discussion about any actions we are to engage in......
to take the discussion of values out of the clouds must mean we first
engage in the discussion about our values and then and only then can
we discuss the conflicting goods of abortion or gun control.....
to act without any understanding of values is to act "ad hoc"
makeshift and improvised with no thought to time, past, present or
future...… whereas values give us some manner to act past, present
and future.....it is by values that we can begin to discuss those actions
we are to take on the ground...… some understanding of values
means that sometimes a meeting of the minds on specific actions
like abortion or gun control, cannot be achieved... if you are inflexible
and dam and determined that abortion is flouting god's laws, then
there is really no room for engagement between two opposing viewpoints...
there can be no agreement between opposing and conflicting viewpoints.....
Once again, in my view, there is nothing different between a liberal objectivist noting this and a conservative objectivist noting it in turn. It's just that it is their understanding of values that leads all truly rational men and women to choose to act as they do "down on the ground".
Peter Kropotkin wrote: in my long life, I have seen two sides dig in on the question of values
and no possibility of rapprochement or reconciliation existed....it happens....
is this the case in modern America today? the two sides of the left and right
have dug in and have different values about such idea's as abortion and
gun control and education and voter rights and with such digging in, no
possibility of reconciliation exists.... now what?
In other words, doesn't this basically describe the moral objectivists on both sides?
Now what? Well, in my view, the "best of all possible worlds" still revolves around "moderation, negotiation and compromise" given a political format embodied in "democracy and the rule of law".
Only, unlike the objectivists, I am still down in my "hole" even here --- "fractured and fragmented" given the manner in which I have come to understand "I" at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
But that's where folks like you and Wendy don't want to be. Or, rather, so it seems to me. You are able to connect the dots between value formation, value judgments and political actions such that you feel considerably more at one with the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do".
Trust me: I've been there myself. With God and with No God. I know how comforting and consoling it is to feel "grounded" in a sense that, even if politically the other side prevails, we know that we are on the right side morally.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: all I can say is we must engage in an understanding
of our values before we can engage in any actions.....
the truth is really simple in this regards....
the values you accept dictate the actions you take...….
Nothing could be less simple in my view. Why? Because it involves taking all of the factors at play here -- genetic, memetic, historical, cultural, interpersonal, individual -- and thinking that if only we truly do understand the creation of our own values we can come to act them out "morally".
Which, given the points raised in my signature threads, is not at all the way things play out in the real world.
Instead, from my frame of mind, the enormous complexities at play in the real world is the last thing the liberal and conservative objectivists are interested in examining.
Instead we get stuff like this:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: the conflicting goods or conflicting values that exists in America
cannot be solved by violence or separating the country...
we must engage in some dialogue between the two sides.....
more then likely it will be the left that brings about the peace because
the left is about dialogue, consensus building, tolerance.....
so it would seem to me, that any solution must come from the left.....
but and this is important, it cannot come from the left forsaking their values
any more then it can come from the right forsaking their values...
to abandoned our values is to abandoned what makes us human
as I have engaged in an understanding of what it means to be human
and the negative and positive discussion of what it means to be human
cannot be dismissed.....are we to rise above to become more human,
or are we to lower ourselves to become human/animal?
that is the basic distinction between the left and the right...
do we rise to become human, more human or do we lower ourselves
to become more instinctual, more animal?
our engagement with values is one way we can rise to become human,
all too human...… we cannot become too engaged with actions until
we have worked out our values for "the values you accept, dictate
the actions you take"
so before we begin discussions between the left and right and before
we decide on any actions, we must be clear about what our values are....
we must be, within ourselves, clear about what values are we to engage with
and what those values mean?
More or less the manner in which many conservatives would assess the situation. Only it's the liberals and their values fucking everything up.
Again, the only time these "general descriptions" give way to actual discussions of policy relating to particular contexts involving particular conflicting goods, is when the objectivists trade political prejudices. Then each side accuses the other of being woefully obtuse when it comes to understanding the true nature of "values".
This part:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: so as in any journey, we must begin within ourselves...……
so, what the values that are going to drive your actions?
so, ask yourself, in regards to say, gun control, what actions should I take?
and the answer comes from the values we choose....
but then one might ask, why those values and not another?
values are simply another way of asking ourselves what is important?
I value justice, I value freedom...I accept those values as values worth
holding on to......and one might again ask, why those values and not other values?
because I think that human beings do better with those values instead of
the security values.. but Kropotkin, why?
And Kropotkin tells them why. Then Wendy tells them why, instead, her own values must prevail.
Peter Kropotkin wrote: and that is how we go down the rabbit hole..... doubting every single
choice and decision we make... it is kinda like the dog chasing its tail....
No, that is where I am now. Down in my "hole" "fractured and fragmented". I might champion "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the best of all possible worlds, but I am still no less imploded, no less splintered in my reaction to issues like abortion and gun control.
What I am unable to do [anymore] is to think myself into viewing all of this as you do:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: yes, we could doubt ourselves until the cows come home, but at some point,
you think to yourselve, I am comfortable with certain values..and I will stick
with them....
You say that...
Peter Kropotkin wrote: ...the world isn't black and white,
or right or wrong or good or evil..... it is various shades of gray....
and the choices we make need to reflect that gray in our lives....
But that's not how you sound when you are castigating IQ45 for building his wall, or for backing the NRA or for pandering to the pro-life folks.
Here it is more the stuff of the "one of us" vs. "one of them" folks. And that is precisely what I no longer have access to myself.
But then up you go:
Peter Kropotkin wrote: sometimes, we have to just pick an area and run... it may not
be logical or rational or philosophical, but it is, what it is....
we humans live in that messy gray area where sometimes logic
and rational thought and philosophical thought isn't going to
solve our questions....
love for example... it is messy and exists in that gray area
where logic and rational thought and philosophical thought
isn't going to help one to understand love...
and yet, love maybe one of the most important aspects of being human...
and yet we cannot define it, we cannot measure it, we cannot
time it or weigh it or number it.... it just is...…..and to
measure it or weigh it or be scientific about love isn't going to
help one find out what love is or solve our questions about love....
you just have to go through it.... leap as it were into love...…
you cannot be logical or rational or philosophical about love...…
and you can't be logical or rational or philosophical about certain parts
of our human lives...….
In other words, as I see it, thinking yourself into a frame of mind that provides whatever it takes to sustain at least some measure of comfort and consolation when you look out at a world bursting at the seams with very, very real human pain and suffering.
I get that part. I really do. I'm just not able to accomplish it myself anymore.