Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 02:19:22 -0800 From: bill hard <billhard-AT-netwizards.net> Subject: Re: M-TH: emotion, identification, and "morality" At 09:39 PM 1/27/98 -0500, you wrote: >Bill Hard wrote: >>Only Yoshi and Carrol (Perhaps Boddisatva) have challenged the idea that >>abortion is in fact a moral choice. I personally believe that morality is an >>artificial construct. I choose to regard it as the emotional reaction one >>experiences through identification with various protagonists of an event. I >>would suggest that some confusion arises when these "feelings" are the >>result of projection. It is doubtful that men can completely identify with a >>woman's "predicament" in this matter. It is here that the "man" begins to >>"imagine" more than empathize. I realize these are subtle distinctions, and >>I'm no psychologist. > >I thought this was an interesting take. What we may think of as "morality" >may be (at least in part) a complex set of feelings generated by emotional >reaction through identification (or lack thereof) with some individuals or >given classes of people or even an abstraction. Would you care to develop >your ideas further, Bill? Bill Hard wrote: >Only Yoshi and Carrol (Perhaps Boddisatva) have challenged the idea that >abortion is in fact a moral choice. I personally believe that morality is an >artificial construct. I choose to regard it as the emotional reaction one >experiences through identification with various protagonists of an event. I >would suggest that some confusion arises when these "feelings" are the >result of projection. It is doubtful that men can completely identify with a >woman's "predicament" in this matter. It is here that the "man" begins to >"imagine" more than empathize. I realize these are subtle distinctions, and >I'm no psychologist. I thought this was an interesting take. What we may think of as "morality" may be (at least in part) a complex set of feelings generated by emotional reaction through identification (or lack thereof) with some individuals or given classes of people or even an abstraction. Would you care to develop your ideas further, Bill? ----- I'd like to be able to, unfortunately I'm only just beginning to grapple with all of this. That we have to understand what we Are as an Animal seems absolutely fundamental to me if we wish to "create" a world in which we feel "comfortable". (I don't mean material comforts). I'm not a scholar, just an amateur interested in the human (and animal) condition. The problem is that we may be looking at ourselves through neuroticized eyes - made neurotic by the socio-economic structures under which we pass our lives. Part of this neurosis may be the result of an internal conflict between our deeply rooted "core" of emotional-behavior traits, and the imposition of "values that may run counter to these. So, for example, we may become convinced that it is "natural" to "take advantage of an opportunity" even if it results in harming another. This may possibly be challenged by evolutionary psychology. Meanwhile, a couple of off the wallers- : There's all this fascination with the sexual peccadilloes of Clinton with lots of chuckling and tut-tutting. He's not liable to be taken down by any of this. But it's the Lying that looms important. (Just ask Nixon). Now what is this thing about lying, (and the increase of significance when it's under oath) and why does it assume such importance? After all, nobody's really hurt, right? Well a lot may have to do with the need we have to trust one another, and this in turn may be deeply implanted within us, more basic than occasional sex. It may also explain why the occasional sociopath seems so alien to most of us. --- And here is something not just for fun but also may have significance. It's about a primate. http://www.ishipress.com/sci-bono.htm bill --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005