Empathy: College students don't have as much as they used to

Fits in with that study on Millennials. Any ideas on why the measured 'empathy' is dropping? This page suggests violent media is a contributing factor. Anything else?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/uom-ecs052610.php

haha, tell me about it

haha, tell me about it, here are two other ones i just discovered recently.

http://osocio.org/

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats


haha, i knew of the second one for ages, just forgot about it until like a week ago.
if you travel back to the home page there are some other relevant/disgusting statistics.

JUST FOUND THIS REALLY GOOD SITE: SOCIAL IMAGES

http://contexts.org/socimages/

Its like a database of social responsibility related news. I hate how I come across things like this so late in the piece.

have you guys seen this?

Social dilemma

Social trap is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation in which a group of people act to obtain short-term individual gains, which in the long run leads to a loss for the group as a whole.

Sound familiar? It seems we are on the wrong end of a social trap.
Read more on:
Social Dilemmas
Tragedy of the commons
Black Swan Theory

Taleb's Ten Principles for a Black Swan Robust World

Taleb enumerates ten principles for building systems that are robust to Black Swan Events:^[10]

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small. Nothing should ever become Too Big to Fail.
2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains.
3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus.
4. Do not let someone making an "incentive" bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks.
5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity.
6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning.
7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to "restore confidence".
8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains.
9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible "expert" advice for their retirement.
10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs.

a little disenheartening

http://exiledonline.com/confessions-of-a-wall-st-nihilist-forget-about-goldman-sachs-our-entire-economy-is-built-on-fraud/

GENDERCIDE

I've never looked into this... until someone told me today about a story her friend told her about a friend who used to work as a nurse in china. Apparently nurses in Chinese hospital are (or at least were until recently? I don't have anyway of finding out wether this is past tense or present tense) made to murder, by strangulation, the second baby born to any mother. If they refuse to do this they risk loosing their job. It is all hushed up.

"in September 1997, the World Health Organization's Regional Committee for the Western Pacific issued a report claiming that "more than 50 million women were estimated to be 'missing' in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing's population control program that limits parents to one child."

culture dictates that when a girl marries she leaves her family and becomes part of her husband's family. For this reason Chinese peasants have for many centuries wanted a son to ensure there is someone to look after them in their old age -- having a boy child is the best pension a Chinese peasant can get. Baby girls are even called "maggots in the rice" ... ("The Dying Rooms Trust")

This info was taken from here:  http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html


Now if I am to understand the situation, I know its very complex, and I say this at the risk of being arbitrary and naive, but it appears to me like the thirst for money, economic development and the health of the countries GDP (AKA capitalism) is responsible for the worst genocide in human history and its happening right now and we are part of the silent hand pressing the button, displacing resources and ethics and morality and 'freedoms' from others to fill ourselves with more fast food and distraction.


6 million Jews were killed horribly in the second world war, an atrocity I struggle to comprehend.


50 fucking million baby girls that should currently be alive are 'missing' as of 1997...


there are 111 million more men in China than there are women, half that and you get about 50 million so the numbers add up...






Seriously: Fuck you Ayn Rand.

Hmmm This might be a bit of a gold mine for you Leon, actually for all of us

http://www.backspace.com/is/in/the/house/work/

http://www.backspace.com/notes/about.php

and some essays linked to from the site:


http://backspace.com/is/in/the/house/work/pg/essays.html


I particularly enojyed this one: http://backspace.com/notes/2007/08/the-conversation.php

haha

"As he says, in his analysis of the doomed Norse society on Greenland that collapsed in the early 15th century: 'The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.' If this is so, and his examples would seem to prove it, then we can isolate the values of American society that have been responsible for its greatest triumphs and know that we will cling to them no matter what. They are, in one rough mixture, capitalism, individualism, nationalism, technophilia, and humanism (as the dominance of humans over nature). There is no chance whatever, no matter how grave and obvious the threat, that as a society that we will abandon those.

hey team, here is the first one of those posts you requested

http://scsuintellectuals.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/the-moral-economy/#comment-404

its a blog about lots of things, including morality and the economy.

if anyone else can remember what else i was supposed to post, tell me and i'll post it

Status Anxiety - the film

Actually a good watch.

this is coolish, read the about page.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/about

HEY MATT!

http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/forums/list.page;jsessionid=9286FEAA2EF72EEA388C031F0B37191B

this is a cool sight and an interesting, web2.0ish way to encourage meaningful debate.

maybe a precedent for you?

Hypersphere

http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_the-edge_archive.html

I came across this post a few years ago and I always revisit it.... Joel I think it might have a few usefull things in there for you

MARINA SEEMS TO AGREE WITH US

CLICK

hey matt, thought this might be of help to you

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

M.I.A, "Born Free" explained

He Leon, sorry if that videoclip offended you. But just in case you think its just a violent gimmick; it isn't, its a very very smart albeit controversial piece of political activism.

Its social commentary on the hegemonic state targeting a minority. Using 'gingers' is a master stroke. It exposes the normal-ness of the minority being oppressed and the the inhumane mentality of the oppressors. It has already been taken down off youtube and I'm pretty sure America is going to loose its love affair with M.I.A.

I think that this is more a dig at the Middle East condition, like its focusing upon the Palestine/Israil war. Maybe the political unrest in Pakistan at the moment? But read the lyrics of the song and she's actually completely and un-subtly ripping into the Post Modern Condition:




Whooo!
Yeah man made powers
Stood like a tower higher and higher hello
And the higher you go you feel lower, oh
I was close to the end staying undercover
Staying undercover
With a nose to the ground I found my sound

Got myself an interview tomorrow
I got myself a jacket for a dolla
.............
And the car doesn't work so I'm stuck here
Yeah I don't wanna live for tomorrow
I push my life today
I throw this in your face when I see ya
I got something to say
I throw this shit in your face when I see ya
Cause I got something to say

I was born free (born free)
I was born free (born free)
(bo-bo-born free ....)

You could try to find ways to be happier
You might end up somewhere in Ethiopia
You can think big with your idea
You ain't never gonna find utopia
Take a bite out of life make it snappier yeah
Ordinary gon super trippyer
So I check shit cause I'm lippyer
And split a cheque like slovakia

Yeah I don't wanna live for tomorrow
I push my life today
I throw this in your face when I see you
I got something to say
I throw this sh!t in your face when I see you
Cause I got something to say

I was born free (born free)
I was born free (born free)
I was born free (born free)
(bo-bo-born free ....)
Ooooh

I don't wanna talk about money, 'cause I got it
And I don't wanna talk about hoochies, 'cause I been it
And I don't wanna be that fake?, but you can do it
And imitators, yeah, speak it

Oh Lord? whoever you are, yeah come out wherever you are
Oh Lord? whoever you are, yeah come out wherever you are
And tell em!

Born free (born free)
I was born free (born free)
I was born free (born free)
(bo-bo-born free ....)


I mean even MTV, the masters of reality tv shows, misogyny and advertising rhetoric, are advocating it: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1637769/20100426/mia__4_.jhtml

http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/509318/mias-born-free-music-video-brutal-yet-important.jhtml

Read here for more info: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/apr/28/mia-bornfree-youtube

Their Little World

There are somethings in this world that I just don't really get. And one of those is fashion for kids. As I see it, it's not at all about the kids 'expressing themselves', but creating a hip new decoration for the parent.

From the site Their Little World:

Theirlittleworld.com is a brand new website that brings together all aspects of what is really important in a child’s life today. From style and trend reports each season and news on the latest events to great ideas forgetting the kids away from the television, including recipes to get them cooking in the kitchen and educational books and games. We even feature great ways to keep their areas of the house stylish with chic storage and decoration ideas.

M.I.A, "Born Free"

M.I.A, Born Free from ROMAIN-GAVRAS on Vimeo.

COMMENTRY ON SATRE

again from Self and Subjectivity, Kim Aitkins, 2005

"As pure negation, freedom undermines the idea of a determinate “human nature.”Rather,as the power of negation (or choice), human beings are free to create the meaning of their own existences;moreover,they are human beings only when they do so."[Kim Aitkins, 2005, pg 88]

“...there is no human nature because there is no God to have a conception of it....Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself....man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be.” [Satre]

"Sartre famously argues that we are “condemned to be free,”and cannot evade the responsibility for our own lives because we are only what we make of ourselves,“the rest is self-deception or cowardice”7 – or what Sartre calls “bad faith.”Sartre goes as far as claiming that although I may not be able to realize my aims in action,for example, because I am imprisoned, I am nevertheless free because I can form the intention to act and the values that motivate it.In essence,Sartre’s conception of choice is negative: I am never in the situation where I cannot choose and cannot be responsible for my choices; I can always say “no” to my captors. Simone de Beauvoir criticized Sartre for failing to appreciate the significance of the differences in power that characterize and circumscribe the lives of men and women – a point that has been central to contemporary accounts of psychological oppression." [Kim Aitkins, 2005]

I recommend reading the whole commentary on Satre, Aitkins description of Satres philosophy on existentialism is really interesting, deals with the idea of the ego and the object.

COMMENTRY ON FRANKFURT

an extract from Self and Subjectivity by Kim Atkins, 2005, pg 139 - 141
(sorry but I had to highlight it all, its ALL relevant)

"...Critical self-reflection and self-determination are inextricable from a morally valuable life: a life that can be said to be “one’s own,”and,for that reason,is worth living. Frankfurt also continues a line of thought originating in Kant’s Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals.3 There,Kant argued that persons are unlike other animals insofar as they have reason, which enables them to intervene in their desires and impulses to direct their actions.

Famously, Kant says that the role of reason is not to make us happy; reason has an altogether different purpose,which is to produce a good will.The purpose of reason, writes Kant, is morality, because it allows us to bring our actions under the directive of our rational wills.The good will is a self-legislating will:one chooses to have one’s actions directed by rational motives alone, and in this way, one is autonomous. Similarly, Frankfurt regards freedom of the will as the defining characteristic of a person. However,while he believes that rationality has a key role,his conception of volition is more complex than Kantian good will. For Frankfurt,the process whereby one comes to endorse certain values and beliefs is partly driven by emotions and desires; it is a process driven by what one cares about. Having one’s intentions and actions driven by what one cares about distinguishes a “person”from a wanton.

 Frankfurt describes the difference between wantons and persons in terms of first- order and second-order desires and volitions. First-order desires are those desires that arise spontaneously from one’s situation and are typically unreflective. First-order desires may be expressed in actions (but not necessarily),the motives of which one does not reflect on in a critically evaluative way.If there is evaluation here at all, it is characteristically instrumental and concerns only how one is to obtain what one wants in the most efficient or satisfying way. At the level of first-order desires,one does not stop to consider which,if any,of one’s desires one wants to have. Many animals besides human beings have first-order desires, but, according to Frankfurt, only human beings are capable of second-order desires.  

Second-order desires arise from reflection upon one’s first-order desires; they are desires about desires. Having reason, we have the capacity to reflect upon, scrutinize, and evaluate our first-order desires.When we reflect upon and evaluate our first-order desires, selecting those desires we want to motivate us, we develop second-order desires. 

Second-order desires often (but not necessarily) give rise to reasons upon which one acts.When this occurs, Frankfurt calls these “second-order volitions”:“Someone has a desire of the second order either when he wants simply to have a certain desire or when he wants a certain desire to be his will. In situations of the latter kind I shall call his second-order desires ‘second-order volitions’.”

Frankfurt distinguishes second-order desires from second-order volitions in this way: a second-order desire is the desire to have a certain desire. However, one may want that desire but not want to act on it. It is only if one also wants to act on that desire that it becomes a volition. To illustrate, he gives the example of a doctor investigating drug addiction. The doctor may want to experience the craving that addicts feel, so that he will understand their situation better.That is, he desires to have the desire for the drug. This is a second-order desire. However, he does not want to take the drug for which he has a desire – he does not have a first-order desire for the drug.That is, he does not want to act on the desire;he does not want his will to accord with that desire. He wants his actions determined by a different set of desires: a desire to be a good doctor,a knowledgeable researcher,and a nonaddict.Because these are the second-order desires on which he wishes to act, these desires constitute his second-order volitions. 

Being a person on Frankfurt’s terms means being the kind of entity who reflects upon their desires and aversions,and chooses (endorses or identifies with) the desires and aversions by which they will be motivated to act. Anyone who does not attempt this,according to Frankfurt, is a “wanton”:“The essential characteristic of a wanton is that he does not care about his will.”5 Wantons can have second-order desires,but unless their wills are actually structured by those desires they will not be persons because they will not have enacted their freedom. Wantons can exercise reason, but do not have freedom of the will because they exercise only instrumental reason, not critical evaluation. On this view, until one critically reflects upon one’s desires, the life one leads will not be genuinely one’s own because it will not be something for which one can be said to be genuinely responsible."

Charter for Compassion

In Reply: from http://shifthappens.wikispaces.com/message/view/home/16605075



 And:

MeinGottInHimmel writes: 

I wrote this post when I was really still quite shocked by the video. It's really not the issue of education in IT that upset me; it was the implied "...if we don't do this then the Chinese and Indians will take our jobs".
The United States already has a standard of living (for some) that is well above what is sustainable. The world has a growing population, we need to learn to be more compassionate and to share rather that perpetuate greed and xenophobia. The world political structure is also changing and power is moving where it should; to those countries with the largest populations. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If you spoke about it in election terms it would be proportional representation.
There does need to be some balancing of wealth and that will come one way or the other, violent or peaceful.
In terms of how we give kids an education that allows them to participate in a changing world. Well a broad education that is not geared towards "academia for everyone", recognition of individual abilities, fostering critical thinking and problem solving, teaching empathy and compassion rather than division and hate, and of course staying up with the technological developments (but these alone are a part of the solution, only a part).
A lot of the problems that I see are motivational problems that stem from an overly pessimistic outlook and a lack of the understanding of a need for education in both adults and children.
Have a look at this link, more of this and less of the "shift happens in my opinion.

THE CHAMPIONING OF CRITICAL THINKING

"Unfortunately, understanding does not miraculously forestall any discomforts that may arise from the status ideal. Understanding bears the same relation to many of the difficulties of politics as a weather satellite to the crises of meteorology: it cannot always prevent problems, but it can at the very least teach us a host of useful things about the best ways to approach them, thereby sharply diminishing the sense of persecution, passivity and confusion we would otherwise feel. More ambitiously, understanding may also be a first step towards an attempt to shift, or tug at, a society’s ideals, and thus to bring about a world in which it will be marginally less likely that veneration and honour will be dogmatically or unsceptically surrendered to those who are still wearing stilts." [Alain De Batton, 2004]

Here, using the analogy of the weather satellite and meteorology, De Batton aptly describes the benefits of not only educating ones self but purposefully concentrating ones attenuation towards the concept of understanding. I would like to clarify the specific sense of the word I call upon when using the word 'understanding'.  I use this word in its external sense, its meaning being closely related to peace:

Understanding n. A state of cooperative or mutually tolerant relations between people: To him, understanding and goodwill were the supreme virtues.

Its ironic that internal understanding brings (at least initially) not peace but an internal Jihad. It exposes the depravity of our "heart" and "soul", and its terrifying. To appease our conscience we dabble in trying to reconcile our personal philosophy with what we know in our 'heart of hearts' to be right, to change our way of life in the wake of the sobriety that understanding brings. Its doubly ironic that we do this most often while drunk and talking to someone else that may be just as eager to validate their way of life and their personal philosophy. We call these moments of horrible vulnerability and earnestness 'D&M's'.

Unfortunately in our day to day lives, out of our own convenience and that of our peers, we are far less lucid, far more numb and callous. 'D&M's are really nothing more than a source of embarrassment. So we self-impose what can be described as a nihilistic attitude to self development and cognitive independence and we feign ignorance to any knowledge we posses of the inner workings of societal constructs that are greater than ourselves.





In an interview I watched recently with the Band 'Foals', the front man Yannis Philippakis stated that "David Attenbourough is amazing, he's everything you want to be as a human being, idealistic and passionate but not overly wet". By 'not overly wet' I think Yannis means that David Attenbouroughs publicly communicates with a kind of dry idealism born out of scientific and verified fact and not out of selfish utterances that stroke his conscience or ego.

David Attenborough has just reached the North Pole for the first time at age 83. Although he remained relatively politically neutral  throughout his career he has made the journey to such a place because he is making a series about climate change. To an adult generation that prefers to click buttons and flick channels rather than be "the nail that sticks up" Sir Davids journey communicates a disenchanting reality to all those that encourage 'understanding'; that as much as understanding can arm us with the means to find solutions, its our actions following our point of realization or understanding that really define us as purveyors of change and progression.

Always ALWAYS such people must be seeking to realign societal superstructures and ideology's with what the world needs most and not write a new holy book or repeat the mistakes of the past.

HIPSTER RUNOFF

So I've been meaning to post this link for ages. hipsterrunoff.com is a blog I follow when ever I remember to. I'm posting the link because hipster runoff is a great resource for popular culture deconstruction. 

It makes everything and anything that people do seem trivial, laughable, naive, egotistical. If Carles (the guy who writes for the blog) got ahold of some of the things we have said and posted on our own blog we would be ripped to shreds and end up like the new Star Wars Kid Meme. It's very brutal but I like the way it exposes the motives of individuals and societies. Funnily enough a lot of the things Carles writes in his comments are veiled moral critiques, though always with a dry ambiguous wit and always over simplified.

read this

Eugene V. Debs:

Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself but because I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life. We were taught under the old ethic that man's business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago the question was asked; ''Am I my brother's keeper?'' That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother's keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death.

1908 speech

DOES GOD EXIST?

http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=1329234778

Just watched this in its entirety, amazing debate that sees Same Hariss and Rabbi David Wolpe try to blame human suffering upon science and religion respectively.

The two things that I got from it that I can clearly articulately remember is David Wolpes illustration of kids in a playground and how they treat 'the other' or the new kid as an illustration of human behavior and instinct. He then went on to say that religion seeks to transend the idea of the other.

From Sam Harris: he had some witty analogies to combat the 'positive structure' argument that religion often buddies up with (and which I agree with to an extent). But I think the most humble point that I can think of to communicate here would be this:

The most important tool that we have got and should be using is human conversation.

WHY?

I was talking to my flatmate about why we should change society and try to save our world from ecological and economic collapse at mighty mighty the other night, we had to yell, which suited me fine because I was a bit drunk and was... wanting to passionately deliver my opinions, ha. She said that to be honest she wouldn't mind if humanity crumbles, that we kill the earth and everything starts again and that maybe we should'nt do anything and just enjoy the time we have.

I responded with "Okay yeah sure, but tell that to your kids". Then she just didn't say anything for like five seconds and just shook her head, shrugged her shoulders and said "Okay yeah nah... Where do we start?"

I told her that I had no idea where to start, that the problem seems to huge... but that she could start doing what I'm doing and try to promote this attitude to her peers in the hope that they will do the same. That we should start by communicating our attitudes and opinions when ever possible, that we can't be social chameleons when it comes to what we know is right and wrong, that we must disassociate ourselves as much as possible from anything that preys on human weakness (the discussion sprung from an argument about morally adverse pop music), that we must not only stick to our opinions and be proud of them, but realize that having sound opinions and attitudes is an iterative process, that we should promote critical thinking and understanding. I said all of this less eloquently of course.

WHAT HAPPENED TO ROBINHOOD?

Isn't it weird how personality traits like saintliness, piousness, honor and bravery have been stripped from the post modern self. Isn't that strange? being all of those things seems so cool, like Robinhood! Instead we are afraid, subjugated, anarchistic and buying rad clothing and cars and houses fills the gap in ourselves that Robinhood should occupy. And don't you get the feeling that its making someone ALOT of money?

MORAL CONFUSION IN THE NAME OF 'SCIENCE'

Its quite hard to let science enter the moral sphere, the idea of 'thought police', restriction and answer-ability scare people. But how are we ever going to bring potency to humanity's moral Jihad if we do not introduce some sort of universalism and reject the answer-less Post Modern rationale. Otherwise all of this moral bullshit is nothing but sand running through fingers; impotent, cowardly, hypothetical and incomplete. 

I think that the biggest flaw in this guys idea is that he does not present moral values as a formula, in that he does not identify that universal truths must be as dynamic and ever changing as the eras of human civilization, otherwise science would just be re-writing the bible and in another 2000 years half of these truths will be just as un-applicable to modern day life as the bible is now. 

His illustration of the Dali Lama and ted Bundy is ingenious though, because it clearly illustrates the need to: 

a) take into account the freedoms of others and not just your own 
b) to nurture life over anything else 
c) always promote the penultimate aim of abolishing misery 

as necessary and decisive indicators that there should in fact be a right and wrong, a relevant and an irrelevant. Otherwise society has the rationalization of a suicidal person.

Conversation following above TED talk

Here's the transcript. Ive highlighted the most relevant (to major) bits.

me: hey man hows it goin

matt gleeson: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5343

just watching this

Sent at 10:37 AM on Monday

me: hmmm

intersting

its a damn interesting way of looking at morality

matt gleeson: I agreed witheverything that guy said basically

Sent at 11:02 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: Its quite hard to let science enter the moral sphere, the idea of 'thought police' and restrictions and answerability scare people

me: ah yes

but if there is really 'right' answers, then does it matter?

our current legal system is based on some sort of moral code

Sent at 11:05 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: our minds arent though

I don't believe in universal answers

but I do believe in thier approximations, in universal answers attatched to an era and a culture and a place

Sent at 11:08 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: It is clear that the idea of hunting an animal for game has changed. Right now I view it as abhorent, but back in the day when game animals were still abundant I think I would have been quite keen to try it myself.

me: what else would you do with your spare time?

matt gleeson: haha, exactly. answers to moral questions need to include their inevitable redundancy in thier formula.

Sent at 11:11 AM on Monday

me: but if we don't physically change, ie: over a millenia we're still the same humans, then wouldnt there be 'correct' ways to act?

ways that are optimum?

he had a good example with food too

matt gleeson: The problem with science is that including this dynamism, this unpredictable vairable is like an itch, a scratch on the roof of the mouth. and it inspires doubt and frustration

Sent at 11:12 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: nah man i think you forget what my game illustration was trying to say: that the environment is ever changing, so so should our moral code in order to minimize misery and encourage optimum physical and mental evoloution and knowlege etc

Sent at 11:15 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: structures without dynamic flexibility, will crumble as tree roots and surrounding structures grow and mutate. Without the ability to reshape themselves to their environment abstract structures like a universal moral code will never have any potentcy

Sent at 11:19 AM on Monday

me: How can you do that then? I cant even comprehend solutions to that

matt gleeson: so like i guess im sying: there can be universal truths, but they to be constantly re written, they can not be rote learned and serve you for your whole life

well otherwise science is doing exactly what religion does, refferences all of these rules made 2000 years ago in a world that doesnt really resemble ours now

and since our environment and the complexity of our culture has changed, so to should the bible you know?

I have absolutely no idea how the hell you would be able to sell tothe public this dynamic model of ever changing moral truths

me: lol

matt gleeson: you could'nt I dont think

me: while the bible is archaic, my opionion is that there are definately some core values that are still very relevant

matt gleeson: ofcorse

me: even though they are dressed in olde english and all that

matt gleeson: because there are core part of ourselves and our society that have not and will not change

me: though the problem is that there are still people that follow literal or odd intrepertations

that core bit, then, is the key

Sent at 11:23 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: yeah but does the core hold enough weight or clout or authority over the more abstract and ever changing part of ourselves and our society?

if not then do we have to try and creep into the more abstract and symbolic parts of ourselves?

me: if we have the clarity to apply it to ourselves, in whatever situation or time, then I think core values have worth

Sent at 11:26 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: I think we do, our decion making, our rational, our internal wars have to be re-conditioned so that we don't just always take the easy option, that we don't always do simply what is best for ourselves, that we don't pursue the expansion of our own freedoms through the sacrifice of others freedoms

Sent at 11:27 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: yeah man, so it all comes down to the encouragement of critical thinking

Sent at 11:28 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: otherwise we are weak, we are at the mercy outside forces and our mind ceases to be our own you know, simply becasue we choose not to make it our own but to surrender to persuasion and ease and anger and desire and all vices

me: what about what that speaker was talking about then: that, as in science, there are some that are 'smarter/better' than others. Do we all have the facilities to be as critical thinkers as others can?

matt gleeson: no we don't, ha

me: i think thats where a dogma like the bible has power

matt gleeson: we are trapped by the body of stupid

me: haha

someone else can find the answers and tell me about it in a way i can understand

Sent at 11:31 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: we are and its gutting, i used to be okay with that because it made me feel good to be less ignorant than people surrounding me, and I felt like keeping my little realisations to myself, until I realised that we are on a trajectory to economic an denvironmental collapse

and then I started becoming really fucking opinionated and outspoken

me: lol

matt gleeson: haha, this research project has been greats, its formalised so many thing for me

me: nice

its opened a lot of things for me that I had never considered before

matt gleeson: yeah man, but above all its made me feel guilty and sad, even more pessimistic than I was, haha

but it doesn't mean that im gonigto let that creep into the body of work I produce in my career

me: i prefer to try for optimisim, and see the good in people

the situation may be fucked, but were all still here

matt gleeson: yeah but its like I want my work to be my penance for giving up

Sent at 11:36 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: I know deep down that I am optimistic, but i feel embarrassed about feeling optimistic, like this discourse with life is going to go like a movie, where I overcome adversity and win in the end you know, I feel liek a bit of a sucker for feeling optimistic

me: just to wrap up, promoting critical thinking is that aim, but there's the flaw that people are lazy, stupid, unintersted, (just being people)

hah lol

so where does that leave us

matt gleeson: haha yeah so basically we have to wage a war against the shortcomings of the human mind

me: im finding it intensitely difficult to be objective to everything around me.

Sent at 11:39 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: ha, im just simply not, I know I'm part of the problem, a subject of my environment, but that doesn't mean I can't hold the opinions that i do, and this is simply becasue I'm open to the idea of effort and change

Sent at 11:41 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: so like im taking ghandis quote and changing it to "we must gradually move towards embodying the change we want to see in society"

me: mmmm that makes it a bit easier

maybe, inwardly be the change you want to see, and outwardly move towards it

i just cant help but think its like taking the easy way out and not being the full change you want to see

but at the same time, I cant be fucked

the human condition is defined by lazyness

laziness

anyways, i think i might go on and do some work. I was thinking, mind if I post this log into the blog? at the very least it would show that we are in touch

Sent at 11:46 AM on Monday

matt gleeson: nah i mean if we do want to become martyrs for our cause then it means that we ostracize ourselves and render ourselves inhuman

me: haha, sounds like a weak escuse!

excuse

okay well acutally thats an interesting point

work within our shortcomings to better understand them

matt gleeson: i mean I fully realize that succumbing to our vices is something that we need some times, and if we try to quash that out of society then we will start a war

me: i think i just like to try as hard as i can to overcome them, because they're so damn strong that no matter how much I try, Ill always sucumb some part

matt gleeson: we are allowed to be weak some times, but not post modern, not directionless

ha

me: lol

matt gleeson: yeah and i think that trying makes all the difference

me: alrighty im gonna take off. mind if I post this log into the blog?

matt gleeson: nah man this would be good

im posting the ted speech up right now

me: sweet

Sent at 11:51 AM on Monday