Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality
And the other is that I can't count.
Clearly I'm having a bad brain day. (01)
--
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality (02)
> I think it was the lab coat man that put me off track.;-)
> He's an authority figure, which isn't quite the same as the herd instinct
> pattern in my view.
> > > > but then it fails to explain why 'democracies' have failed to bring into
> being
> > > > stricter employment laws to prevent such practices - assuming the
majority
> do
> > > > really prevail in such societies. [...]
> > > > That it is some sort of mass habit?
>
> This is herd instinct, and it genuinely might be the reason why the pattern
> doesn't heal.
> On the assumption that the majority support the pattern.
>
> Things get darker if you assume that the majority don't favour the pattern.
> How then does it fail to heal? Then you have to start looking at the roles of
> authority figures and wondering about their integrity, or whether the
political
> process just defeats things even if well intentioned folks have a significant
> majority.
>
> 'Moralität ist Heerden-Instinkt in Einzelnen.' Morality is the herd-instinct
in
> the individual.
> Die fröhliche Wissenschaft ( (1882)) bk. 3, sect. 116
> Nietzsche.
>
> By a strange coincidence, I have been reading the chapter on Imperfect
Societies
> in Plato's Republic today.
> In his ranking, democracy falls just about tyranny in the hierarchy of society
> types he gives - with tyranny being the worst of the five. But his argument
> seems weak in that most of what he suggests as being bad about democracy
> actually look like quite good things to me. Talk about historical relativism.
>
> And as fuel for your essays I would like to add two other things. One is a
quote
> from Gary Alexander's eGaia
> (http://sustainability.open.ac.uk/gary/pages/egaia.htm) book, that to my mind
> defines capitalism above and beyond mere trade exchange.
> "Instead of being constrained and controlled by the needs of humanity,
> much less the natural world, our modern globalised monetary system has
> taken on a life of its own. Flows of money have become relatively isolated
> from physical constraints. In 1995, only 2 or 3% of money flows were to
> do with trade or investment. The rest were speculative - buying and selling
> currencies."
>
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Armstrong" <eric.armstrong@sun.com>
> To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality
>
>
> > The reasoning off only with respect to "intent". The majority
> > doesn't intend the consequences, but getting them seems to be
> > built into the system.
> >
> > This whole line of thought has led to an essay titled "what's
> > wrong with capitalism?" It plunged into my brain this morning.
> > I'll try to get something on paper soon.
> >
> > But the question you ask raises a corrolary issue, "what's
> > wrong with democracy?"
> >
> > (The titles are intended to be read ambiguously, as in "So
> > what's wrong with a little capitalism?" (it's a good thing)
> > in addition to "how do we fix this?".)
> >
> >
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow. That has to be the worst piece of reasoning I've ever published.
> > > I'll try again later.
> > >
> > > "I cite having a bad headache by way of mitigation, your honour."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk>
> > > To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: Corporate Morality
> > >
> > > > I did intend 'corporate morality'.
> > > > Certainly the herd instinct theory does seem to explain matters in that
> area,
> > > > but then it fails to explain why 'democracies' have failed to bring into
> being
> > > > stricter employment laws to prevent such practices - assuming the
majority
> do
> > > > really prevail in such societies. Does this mean that the majority
> actually
> > > > enjoy inflicting this sort of psychological torture?
> > > > That it is some sort of mass habit?
> > > > Scary.
> > > >
> > > > For those wondering about the background to this discussion, we were
> > > discussing
> > > > the content of www.faceintel.com
> >
>
> (03)