arndt@lymph.DEC (12/12/84)
For Rich Rosen, Gordon T. Muffin, Andy Banta and other slugs on the bottem
of the moral barrel. (Lov ya guys -:)
CLAPTRAP AND & OTHER CAUSES OF ANOMIE
"Where have all the morals come from?" "Morals, morals; got the morals?"
- Cry on Usenet by the above gang
"Is nothing humorous anymore?"
- KA
I suspect that you guys not only don't know where morals come from but you
haven't a clue where YOU came from! Asleep in the liberal arts classes again!
----------------------------
"Satire is a very old genre, as old, in fact, as man's folly and wickedness.
And it is a moral genre - its force is derived from showing the divergence of
what IS from what OUGHT TO BE. In order to show this divergence, to illuminate
and ridicule it, and so correct it, satire is dependent on a normative idea and
standard of good and evil, right and wrong, on a consensus as to the existence
and character of moral order, in society, and in the individual as inter-
dependent entities. For such a norm convincingly to exist there must be a
widely shared and generally felt belief as to the origin and destination, the
meaning and purpose of collective and individual life: this consensus is a
philosophical vision of man and a statement about his place in the universe.
The coherent configurations of both personality and culture are heavily
dependent on this social and moral formulation of reality, on a shared vision
of life that entails norms and hierarchies of value and meaning. The vision
is finally spiritual, moral, and imaginative; it produces and enacts the
structure of meaning itself. Even those who may hate a given hierarchy of
meaning usually derive their sense of psychic location from it and exist mainly
in its terms.
Our secularized and pluralistic age has been charaterized by an assault on
and gradual dismemberment of any consensus other than that of a lowest-common-
denominator agnostic materialism."
- Michael Aeschliman, writing in The University Bookman, Sum'84
p99.
--------------------------
Now I may not be the greatest humorist (or speller) in the world but I really
do think that the reason some of you don't like my sense of humor is because
as Aeschliman points out above you don't ascribe to the same value system as
I do. And visa versa.
But more importantly, I see you nits tearing down a value system without one
to replace it - result - chaos in society. Hence when I asked you to come up
with where YOU get your values from, I thought it was an important question.
Am I right that I didn't quite get an answer? I see nothing you have to offer
except a false sence of 'freedom' and 'progress' involved in doing away with
the Judaeo-Christian norms.
----------------------------
Peter L. Berger (2nd baseman for . . .??)
"Any historical society is an order, a protective structure of meaning,
errected in the face of chaos. Within this order the life of the group as
well as the life of the individual makes sense. Deprived of such order,
both group and individual are threatened with the most fundamental terror,
the terror of chaos that Emile Durkheim called ANOMIE."
"Has Nature set no bounds to wild Desire?
No Sense to guide, no Reason to enquire,
What solid Happiness, what empty Pride?
And what is best indulg'd, or best deny'd?"
- Pope fr. Sober Advice from Horace
Berger again:
"Throughout most of human history men have believed that the created order
of society, in one way or onother, corresponds to an underlying order of the
universe, a divine order that supports and justifies all human attempts at
order . . . the human faith in order as such [is] a faith closely related to
man's fundamental trust in reality. This faith is experienced not only in
the history of societies and civilizations, but in the life of each
individual . . . ."
----------------------------------
You slugs think that through 'science' or 'rationalism' you will come up with
an order for society. What you will get is an elite to TELL you what the order
is or a changing 51% sociological type of law which I think will devolve into
manipulation by an elite. Surely you are aware, though perhaps not since you
don't seem to read anything, that 'scientists' (granted only some) are
proposing moral standards? Remember the picture COMA where the good doctor
says "Society is not deciding these moral issue, therefore WE will decide."
Where there ARE no norms but only moral relativism we are on the road to the
SS recruiting office.
But this is getting too long. One last quote for now.
"It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about
ultimate questions - about the riddles of existence, or about man's task
in this world. This has often been well understood. But some great
scientists, and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The
fact that science cannot make any pronouncements about ethical principles
has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are not such principles,
while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics."
- Karl Popper,( the rock star??) , DIALECTICA 32:342
Question: Is Carl Sagan the new Hitler's point man?
Ans: Nah, it's Rich Rosen!
Keep readin' those Comic books and Tech. Journals gang,
Ken Arndt
ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) (12/13/84)
A person whose final tactics in an argument consist of the following -- 1) Allowing the works of others to do his arguing for him; and 2) Referring to his antagonists as "nits" and "slugs at the bottem [sic] of the moral barrel" -- is a person who forfeits any right to be treated civilly by anyone who cares about morals, religion, the art of discourse, or the breakdown of our civilization. Discussions employing this kind of language suggest not a concern with preserving the moral vitality of what remains of the Judaeo-Christian ethic, but the very scapegoating and animalizing objectification of one's opponents that really DID make possible the line in front of the SS recruiting office. That is, if I can refer to my opponent as a "slug" or a "nit," sooner or later I'm going to believe he is precisely that, and I will bring myself one step closer to acting on that belief, given the opportunity. Words are performative; they are not simply syllables shaped and spoken, but latent acts. Why don't you take that act somewhere else before it gets you into serious trouble? Ken Wolman Bell Communications Research (201) 740-4565 whuxi!ktw
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (12/13/84)
I resent my name being corrupted for the sake of humor. Furthermore, I don't know how you got the idea that I feel that science is the be all and end all of human knowledge and experience. This is exactly the assumption I have been opposing in net.religion. (*ahem* back to discussing the issue) > = Ken Arndt (quoting someone else) > "It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about > ultimate questions - about the riddles of existence, or about man's task > in this world. This has often been well understood. But some great > scientists, and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The > fact that science cannot make any pronouncements about ethical principles > has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are not such principles, > while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics." > - Karl Popper,( the rock star??) , DIALECTICA 32:342 This makes sense to me, but why does "the search for truth [presuppose] ethics"? PS -- I usually like your sense of humor, Ken, whether or not I agree with you. But mocking my name I do not find funny. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam 37 22'50" N / 121 59'12" W [ This is just me talking. ]
afo@pucc-k (Flidais) (12/14/84)
(Dr Ehrlich, where are you when we need you?)
Ken Arndt:
Living proof to the fact that we haven't eradicated tertiary
syphilis.
--
Laurie Sefton
{harpo,ihnp4,allegra,decvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!afo
~As he lay out the tarot, the devil and death, two old and very dear
friends of mine, appeared.~