Sawfish wrote:

-----
If what you are suggesting is that one could form a satisfactory polity from like-minded people of all races/ethnicities, this is yet another possible solution.

In a sense this is happening informally when country folk relocate to the cities. People are attempting to self-segregate into cosmopolitan sophisticates and rural traditionalists.-------

Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave of people of like vision of human flourishing, and I have been at least since the 1980s, when my first child was born. I would hope and prefer that this enclave would happen to be ethnically diverse, but would not want an official policy of trying to engineer that (which is "sociological" thinking). The Benedict Option is appealing to me. Note that a component thereof is that the community would practice hospitality towards human wrecks who might find their way there seeking a refuge that they wouldn't have elsewhere. But the community must be able to require conformity to its norms.

People who think like this can learn from the Amish, though Benedict Option adherents often will not live in agricultural communities of people of like beliefs. Read David Williams's novel When the English Fall or Eric Brende's Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology. But some Benedict Option folk might live with a high degree of technology, treated, though, more as an animal to be kept in a cage or on a leash than as a monitor, spy, lover, friend, etc.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote:
>
> -----
> If what you are suggesting is that one could form
> a satisfactory polity from like-minded people of
> all races/ethnicities, this is yet another
> possible solution.
>
> In a sense this is happening informally when
> country folk relocate to the cities. People are
> attempting to self-segregate into cosmopolitan
> sophisticates and rural traditionalists.-------
>
> Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a
> considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave
> of people of like vision of human flourishing, and
> I have been at least since the 1980s, when my
> first child was born. I would hope and prefer
> that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> diverse, but would not want an official policy of
> trying to engineer that (which is "sociological"
> thinking). The Benedict Option is appealing to
> me. Note that a component thereof is that the
> community would practice hospitality towards human
> wrecks who might find their way there seeking a
> refuge that they wouldn't have elsewhere. But the
> community must be able to require conformity to
> its norms.
>
> People who think like this can learn from the
> Amish, though Benedict Option adherents often will
> not live in agricultural communities of people of
> like beliefs. Read David Williams's novel When
> the English Fall or Eric Brende's Better Off:
> Flipping the Switch on Technology. But some
> Benedict Option folk might live with a high degree
> of technology, treated, though, more as an animal
> to be kept in a cage or on a leash than as a
> monitor, spy, lover, friend, etc.

Would this work at the independent polity scale?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> Would this work at the independent polity scale?

I could imagine a loose confederation of such communities, but almost certainly, in the real world, the power of the State would be brought to bear against it. The Amish are, so far as I know, pretty much left alone, by custom, but I wonder how long that can last with a governments as aggressively woke as those we see now.

There are, so far as I know, no "Amish towns," but the various independent households look after each other -- see the books I mentioned. That seems sensible to me. There are some things (e.g. modern hospitals) that they obviously can't do by themselves.

I have hopes that homeschooling families have banded together in various ways & will continue to do so, perhaps without being much noticed. If this sort of thing appeals to you, see Roger Thomas's entertaining suspense novel sequence that begins with Under the Watchful Sky.

I can't believe that some state governments (e.g. California, Michigan, Illinois, etc.) and the feds won't meddle with homeschooling. Their mere existence is a reproach to them. I do see homeschooling as a real-life resistance movement to much of the politics of sociological consciousness; it is MUCH more friendly to poetic consciousness than the public schools and especially the public schools teachers' unions. There are Christian homeschools but also secular ones, "New Age" ones, etc. I imagine that the Nine Noble Virtues could guide the Asatru well: courage, truth, honor, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, industriousness, self-reliance, perseverance. Now I don't know what meanings beyond the obvious meanings of these words these people may attach to the words, but wow, those are words to live by, and a household and a federation of households that sincerely practice them are likely to nurture children well and to foster poetic rather than sociological consciousness. Contrast the crap a kid's likely to absorb from peers, curricula, teachers, administrators, etc. in metropolitan public schools.

I agree that in reality there is very little likelihood of having these separate communities governed by values that are at odds with the current trends of multiculturalism and diversity as the two pillars of the woke modern society.

One stands in awe of a system that ensures separate enclaves for indigenous peoples, only marginally subject to federal and state laws, but not for other such enclaves based on religion, ethnicity, shared values.

The Mormons took a shot at it, and because they were willing to give it a go in land no one else wanted all that much, they were left alone, mostly. Plus they were willing to compromise, politically.

But we'll see no reservations for the preservation of traditional European and/or early US cultural values, that's a given.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The kind of thing I have in mind is more or less being done, though, here and there, and not just in rural enclaves. For example, take the Hasidim in Brooklyn. Of course, they're no strangers to attacks from wretched losers filled with hatred.

[nypost.com]

I would encourage people who want to minimize their involvement with wokeness and all that stuff to find likeminded people and perhaps to buy property where they can live in proximity to one another. They probably don't need to "hide in plain sight," but they don't need to go out of their way to publicize what they're doing either.

If someone wereinterested in this kind of thing, I might say: Even if you don't have kids, look for states that are homeschool-friendly and that rate well on other indices of wellbeing, e.g. low crime, affordable property & cost of living, and so on. Think about your positive beliefs -- are there quite a few likeminded people in the area? And so on.

Incidentally, the 1992 movie A Stranger Among Us is pretty good despite the dubious casting of the main character, a woman police detective.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jul 21 | 07:52PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kind of thing I have in mind is more or less
> being done, though, here and there, and not just
> in rural enclaves. For example, take the Hasidim
> in Brooklyn. Of course, they're no strangers to
> attacks from wretched losers filled with hatred.
>
> [nypost.com]
> ic-couple-and-1-year-old-in-nyc-video/
>
> I would encourage people who want to minimize
> their involvement with wokeness and all that stuff
> to find likeminded people and perhaps to buy
> property where they can live in proximity to one
> another. They probably don't need to "hide in
> plain sight," but they don't need to go out of
> their way to publicize what they're doing either.
>
>
> If someone wereinterested in this kind of thing, I
> might say: Even if you don't have kids, look for
> states that are homeschool-friendly and that rate
> well on other indices of wellbeing, e.g. low
> crime, affordable property & cost of living, and
> so on. Think about your positive beliefs -- are
> there quite a few likeminded people in the area?
> And so on.

This is a good discussion because it forces a sort of "anything goes" approach to problem solving.

Working thru this informal grouping scenario, finding like-minded individuals/families, it certainly seems that religion as the central core is a natural focus, and I would expect such communities to be most often religion centered.

You will note that I have no problem with this. I have a problem with strong evangelistic practices (this is not much of a problem among the Hasidim, I've heard), but other than that, no real problems.

As we discuss this, the realization grows within me that I'm less interested in following a prescribed set of practices or beliefs than I am in how to independently analyze and evaluate EVERYTHING, including belief and/or logic systems.

So for me the biggest current problem is not so much the supposed facts of fluid transgender identity as it is the mindless reflexive belief that the phenomenon is as the adherents and supporters portray, and not subject to question.

If subjected to question and it holds up, then it's valid as stated; otherwise, it is something else.

So I'm repelled by reflexive response to phenomena that are untested, or incompletely tested. It's extremely sloppy thinking.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you pretty confident, Sawfish, that your tools for testing are adequate for all things that matter?

My own belief is that there are some tools that approach complete adequacy for certain tests. An engineer is probably acquainted with tools and tests that are are, he may say, 100% reliable for yielding the needed information about, I don't know, measuring water pressure over a spillway. But it also seems to me that the more we are concerned with specifically human concerns, the less we possess such tools or tests. Sociology may have tools for analyzing certain aspects of the behavior of large "masses" of people (e.g. consumer patterns). But the more I deal with the world as I actually experience it (the domain of imagination, of exercise of free will, the experience of love, etc.), the less likely I am to be able to resolve questions through tests. I would be repelled if someone said he was thinking of marrying a woman, but was figuring out some little tests of her character first, some experiments designed to help him figure out if she's really a good prospect.

There are levels of being -- as I've written about before -- and detached "tests" are of progressively less usefulness or even possibility as you move up the levels.

Minerals -- it's easy to imagine tests (physics, chemistry) that will approach 100% certainty

Plants may be tested according to plant biology, genetics, etc. and a pretty high degree of certainty may be attainable, but because they are alive they're not so easily tested as rocks. I believe some scientists are open to the idea that communities of plants may possess some degree of consciousness.

Animals -- here ethical considerations enter, or ought to enter, because many of the subjects not only possess life but some degree of awareness; most people would agree that it is unethical to subject, say, living cats and dogs to experiments without at least some ethical controls; and we know there is much that we cannot test because we cannot access their consciousness. We can tell that many animals possess some degree of memory, ability to communicate with others of their species, and so on, but we can only, probably clumsily, try to collect data that will let us make inferences about those faculties.

Humans -- the ethical dimension becomes even more important, so that offenses against human dignity, and the infliction of suffering, trouble most people who read about Unit 731, for example -- although perhaps some of that was "good science" that the Imperial scientists undertook.

But at any rate most people who think about it will grant that we cannot have anything like the certainty about humans as humans that we can have about a specimen of tungsten. To be sure, we can treat products of the human body with tests that have a high degree of certainty, e.g. test for blood in a stool sample. But the more specifically human an element is, the less we can test it scientifically.

OK, then I would go further and throw out the possibility that there could, theoretically, be one or more levels of being higher than the human; in which case our ability to test them might approach zero; or, at least, the tests might be radically unlike the kind of tests I've discussed so far. The corollary of this is that one might have to "risk" a great deal indeed -- from the point of view of "testing." But I would say many of us do this all the time. My wife is out of my sight quite a bit of the time. I trust her -- and have trusted her since before we were married -- with a very great deal of my happiness. From a "testing" point of view I may have been rash after all.

In fact, sociological consciousness admits this. In the interests of minimizing emotional pain, it fosters e.g. no-strings-attached sex, prenuptial contracts, no-fault divorce, and so on. Sociological consciousness would "demystify" sexual activity, facilitating a minimal-risk sexual milieu.




"And because lawlessness will increase, the love of many will grow cold."

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to a
> considerable degree, not absolutely) to an enclave
> of people of like vision of human flourishing, ... I would hope and prefer
> that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> diverse, ...

Americans of European stock (not quite all) and Europeans tend to look differently on multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans have grown up with diversity, living on a land originally populated by American Indians, and then by more and more immigrants from Europe, and elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad circumstances, by a large African populace, and therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been used to homogenous countries since prehistoric times, which is their ethnic and cultural heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by political encroachment, only in the last few decades. Europeans have lost a great deal, and their history is intentionally being erased, just now. It is an ongoing genocide, which tends to flutter past American minds unnoticed.

So Americans are generally more accepting of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. While Europeans are not. We have different perspectives.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you pretty confident, Sawfish, that your tools
> for testing are adequate for all things that
> matter?

Nope.

But I *am* confident that it's the best I'll be able to do. Of those tools, they are both based in experience, and to a degree on vetted (as best I can) sources.

I've found that many/most situations that require a relatively immediate response, and this entails a judgement of some form. In situations where I'm uncertain, if the situation demands immediate response, I always go with my own judgement. I also try to defer judgments when possible, and when any resultant response has significant repercussions.

But if forced by circumstance, I trust my own response. It's the best I've got, and it has gotten me this far with a fair degree of success.

>
> My own belief is that there are some tools that
> approach complete adequacy for certain tests. An
> engineer is probably acquainted with tools and
> tests that are are, he may say, 100% reliable for
> yielding the needed information about, I don't
> know, measuring water pressure over a spillway.

Yes.

> But it also seems to me that the more we are
> concerned with specifically human concerns, the
> less we possess such tools or tests.

Yes.

And yet circumstances of daily interaction demand that one makes a judgment of some kind before proceeding, else the course of action could be decided by a coin toss.

One of the most important and formulative realizations I've ever had was about 40 years ago, when it dawned on me that the common social sentiments about suspending my judgment ("Who are we to judge?"), were trying to shame me into inaction. They literally were counseling me to forego my best evolved trait--the ability to inductively move forward thru life's pitfalls, and adopt the direction of others whose motive I did not truly know.

This evolved personal judgment is what kept my hairy forebears from trying to "pet the nice kitty" in the instances of encountering a sabre-tooth.

Works the same in South Central LA, too, if I may be so bold as to suggest it.


> Sociology
> may have tools for analyzing certain aspects of
> the behavior of large "masses" of people (e.g.
> consumer patterns). But the more I deal with the
> world as I actually experience it (the domain of
> imagination, of exercise of free will, the
> experience of love, etc.), the less likely I am to
> be able to resolve questions through tests. I
> would be repelled if someone said he was thinking
> of marrying a woman, but was figuring out some
> little tests of her character first, some
> experiments designed to help him figure out if
> she's really a good prospect.

..and yet this would have been of real value with my first wife... ;^)

>
> There are levels of being -- as I've written about
> before -- and detached "tests" are of
> progressively less usefulness or even possibility
> as you move up the levels.

Yes.

I think I recognize fewer levels than you, thus simplifying my problem in dealing with people.

I think that there is, for me, and "inner circle" of close friends and family. For the close friends to join the circle, they may have responded to some situations almost as informal tests.

E.g., when I bought my first house, a former college room-mate with whom I was close, proactively suggested that he help me fix it it, ostensibly for re-sale and profit. He was a licensed general contractor at the time, and he did all of the hard stuff. He also accepted no professional fee--it was cost of materials, alone.

This moved him into the inner circle by some kind of a test, but informally, because he had generously done me a HUGE favor without me asking. I then sought to reciprocate as best I could and he was only one step from being a family member, so far as I was concerned.

Too, so family members can (and have) fallen out of the circle.

>
> Minerals -- it's easy to imagine tests (physics,
> chemistry) that will approach 100% certainty

Yes.

The trick, if there is one, is to be comfortable with the idea that in certain areas you can approach 100%, and that this is a reasonable expectancy, but for human interaction you have only your best judgment, if you are willing to use it.

I am, and at this stage of life, I am appalled that there was ever a time when I did not, and worse--that there are those who never do, deferring instead to the judgment of "kindly strangers".

>
> Plants may be tested according to plant biology,
> genetics, etc. and a pretty high degree of
> certainty may be attainable, but because they are
> alive they're not so easily tested as rocks. I
> believe some scientists are open to the idea that
> communities of plants may possess some degree of
> consciousness.

Maybe, but I currently don't much care.

I *could*, but I'd need to know *why*.

>
> Animals -- here ethical considerations enter, or
> ought to enter, because many of the subjects not
> only possess life but some degree of awareness;
> most people would agree

..and yet is general consensus really any valid threshold for a course of action?

Now, I'd agree with the idea of protections, but I'd see it as a personal judgment (mine) that I happen to share with many others, but it is by no means governed by any higher authority than accepted consensus that evolved to a set of legal limitations.

> that it is unethical to
> subject, say, living cats and dogs to experiments
> without at least some ethical controls; and we
> know there is much that we cannot test because we
> cannot access their consciousness. We can tell
> that many animals possess some degree of memory,
> ability to communicate with others of their
> species, and so on, but we can only, probably
> clumsily, try to collect data that will let us
> make inferences about those faculties.

Yes. I agree with this progression of living organisms as complex entities.

>
> Humans -- the ethical dimension becomes even more
> important, so that offenses against human dignity,
> and the infliction of suffering, trouble most
> people who read about Unit 731, for example --
> although perhaps some of that was "good science"
> that the Imperial scientists undertook.

Always a favorite hypothetical situation of mine!

Suppose a cure for cancer was implied, based on the experimentation. Do were use this tainted science, or not?

Me, I'd say use it, without further thought or comment.

>
> But at any rate most people who think about it
> will grant that we cannot have anything like the
> certainty about humans as humans that we can have
> about a specimen of tungsten. To be sure, we can
> treat products of the human body with tests that
> have a high degree of certainty, e.g. test for
> blood in a stool sample. But the more
> specifically human an element is, the less we can
> test it scientifically.
>
> OK, then I would go further and throw out the
> possibility that there could, theoretically, be
> one or more levels of being higher than the human;
> in which case our ability to test them might
> approach zero; or, at least, the tests might be
> radically unlike the kind of tests I've discussed
> so far.

Yes.

This is an excellent hypothetical situation.

> The corollary of this is that one might
> have to "risk" a great deal indeed -- from the
> point of view of "testing." But I would say many
> of us do this all the time. My wife is out of my
> sight quite a bit of the time. I trust her -- and
> have trusted her since before we were married --
> with a very great deal of my happiness. From a
> "testing" point of view I may have been rash after
> all.

Again, I would not confuse the scientific method with evolved human judgment as applied to human interactions.

They do not belong to the same domain, when we are discussion social interactions in a definitive sense. And this is because we, the evaluators, are too close to the human aspects (feelings, emotions, other such intangibles that have evolved as mechanisms to advance/preserve your bloodline as it pertains to an active particle of the species).

>
> In fact, sociological consciousness admits this.
> In the interests of minimizing emotional pain,

"No pain, no gain!"

Seriously, life without pain or the potential for it, is unrecognizably Utopian for me.

> it
> fosters e.g. no-strings-attached sex, prenuptial
> contracts, no-fault divorce, and so on.
> Sociological consciousness would "demystify"
> sexual activity, facilitating a minimal-risk
> sexual milieu.

It does, but all this is, is recognition of "common knowledge" as ascendant over personal judgment.

And yep, that's what it has devolved to.

>
>
>
>
> "And because lawlessness will increase, the love
> of many will grow cold."

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yes, I'm attracted to the idea of withdrawal (to
> a
> > considerable degree, not absolutely) to an
> enclave
> > of people of like vision of human flourishing,
> ... I would hope and prefer
> > that this enclave would happen to be ethnically
> > diverse, ...
>
> Americans of European stock (not quite all) and
> Europeans tend to look differently on
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans
> have grown up with diversity, living on a land
> originally populated by American Indians, and then
> by more and more immigrants from Europe, and
> elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad
> circumstances, by a large African populace, and
> therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything
> else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been
> used to homogenous countries since prehistoric
> times, which is their ethnic and cultural
> heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous
> mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by
> political encroachment, only in the last few
> decades. Europeans have lost a great deal, and
> their history is intentionally being erased, just
> now. It is an ongoing genocide, which tends to
> flutter past American minds unnoticed.
>
> So Americans are generally more accepting of
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. While
> Europeans are not. We have different perspectives.

Yes, and from my formative youth (1950s-60s) it has been common socio-political policy to inculcate tolerance and this can be at war with one's natural preferred associations.

The observed fact of "black cafeteria tables" at mixed schools, where non-whites cluster *by preference* with others who look like them should inform everyone paying attention that this desire to associate with one's phenotype is ingrained not only in Caucasians, but in black Americans, too.

I'd extrapolate further as a working model, yet to be thoroughly tested, that all distinct phenotypes are like this, but the degree of preferred association--and hence exclusion--may vary among phenotypes.

And if there's validity in this, then the implication that most/all of the black support of integrated schools in the 50s-60s-70s was not because they particularly wanted inclusion in a multi-racial society--one great big happy family, as it were--but simply to have access to what they were told (and accurately at the time) was better quality infrastructure--schools, hotels, etc.

So it was simply based on material gain, and not any great desire for social inclusion.

Shocking!!! ;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good and honest observation, Sawfish. I think only a few of Americans would be so honest in this delicate matter.

I went to junior high school for a year, in Kentucky in 1980, and during lunch-break all the kids gathered in the gym hall, or else had the choice of going to the school library (we were locked into the school all day, not allowed to go out any time; bussed to school in the yellow busses in the morning, and bussed home in the afternoon). In the gymnastic hall the boys played basketball, always the blacks on one side and the whites on the other side, no exceptions; blacks against whites.

I was also threatened to life by a small testy black in the biology classroom, glaring and breasting himself about how he could kill me with the microscope, hefting it in his hand. It is an understatement to say, that this group didn't distinguish themselves as being overly bright in classes.

Knygatin Wrote:

> Americans of European stock (not quite all) and
> Europeans tend to look differently on
> multiculturalism and ethnic diversity. Americans
> have grown up with diversity, living on a land
> originally populated by American Indians, and then
> by more and more immigrants from Europe, and
> elsewhere, and unfortunately, from sad
> circumstances, by a large African populace, and
> therefore find it difficult to comprehend anything
> else than a multicultural mix. Europeans have been
> used to homogenous countries since prehistoric
> times, which is their ethnic and cultural
> heritage, but have been forced to accept humongous
> mass-immigration and absurd multiculturalism, by
> political encroachment, only in the last few
> decades.

Knygatin, I suppose American cities have been, as you say, characterized by a multicultural mix for many, many years. A great many of our politicians, professors, etc. come from these cities -- the elites who govern us. On the other hand, the United States are also, almost all of them (I don't know about states such as Delaware and Connecticut) abundantly provided with small towns, many of which are not simply "bedroom communities" that are satellites of metro areas, but that are real towns with their own histories. These towns often are largely populated by people descended from earlier town residents, and the original ones might have been mostly from one European area.

I have a lot of sympathy for people in these towns who didn't ask that Lutheran Social Services, Catholic Social Services, or whatever agency bring new Americans to settle in them. This has really been hard for some small towns, as you'll be able to tell from this article:

[www.mprnews.org]

People in small towns may feel that they don't have a lot to offer to keep their children in the area -- restaurants, theaters, sports arenas, whatever -- but they do have a community in which (as I often read in student papers years ago) "everybody knows everybody and everybody will say hi," etc. That changes when people of radically different origins are brought in, obliging schools to provide instruction in the students' languages and so on.


As for Europe -- my opinion, for what it's worth, is that the countries heavily invested in colonial activity (e.g. France) probably did have an ethical obligation to welcome commonwealth-type immigrants to their cities. France had already repudiated a "state religion," so perhaps they have no right to gripe if Islamic immigrants are not in love with French secularism, rationalism, hedonism, and keep to their ways in their communities. If the native-born French resent that, that's just too bad. That doesn't mean those communities should be allowed to persecute Jews, burn cars, and do all that other Islamic-radical stuff. I don't quite understand why countries with little or no colonial activity might feel they ought to welcome lots of immigrants from Islamic countries. Sweden is the most secular nation in the world, as I understand, so they too have no right to moan if Islamic immigrants, accustomed to religion, keep up their Muslim ways, but I'm not sure I understand why Malmo needed to become famous for harboring gangs of Muslims who hate Jews. But my thinking is probably simplistic.

Sawfish wrote:

----Suppose a cure for cancer was implied, based on the experimentation. Do were use this tainted science, or not?

Me, I'd say use it, without further thought or comment.----

I think we discussed this type of situation before, and I agreed with you. The assumption is that the knowledge is information "on paper." The knowledge is there (in this scenario). The ethical principle of doing good to others exerts its own imperative. Withholding the knowledge just because it had been ill-gotten would seem to me to fail an ethical test.

On the other hand, among the recent Covid vaccines was one (J&J) that didn't simply use knowledge derived from ethically questionable sources, but material derived from an ethically questionable source. There were alternatives. I got the Pfizer vaccine, could have got the Moderna. I would hesitate about the J&J.


I wanted to complete a thought in my earlier message about how ethical considerations become more prominent the higher up the levels of being we go, and spell out that, the higher up we go as testers, the more we ourselves are put to the test.

There is little if any inherent ethical pressure on me if I am doing spectrographic analyses of oxidized mineral specimens. (Extrinsic ethical factors would be. e.g., if the specimens are acquired by mining that involved abuse of workers, or paying a noticeably corrupt regime for the minerals.) We the people considering tests using live animals are ourselves being tested, and this is much more the case when human subjects -- we will assume they are volunteers -- are involved. At this point -- tests involving people -- the moral testing of the experimenters is very high. And, of course, they have to be very smart.

Now, theoretically, the moral caliber of the human(s) involved would be as great or even greater when it comes to the knowledge of beings at a higher level of being (let's say, hypothetically, angels). Thus Christian tradition advises humans not to be too preoccupied with angels, and, though God is not a "being," one unit in a category of other beings, certainly "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." And, of course, they would need to be very wise.

In fact, the vocabulary I've been using, about ethics and morality, would suggest only an aspect of what might be needed, which could include "faith," here understood different than as by Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce (was it one of those guys) as "the capacity for believing what you know is not true." Faith, I take it, suggests the endowing upon the person of a capacity that's as much of a distinctive as, say, consciousness is from life when we are discussing levels of being... I'm not sure this a good way of putting it. But let this do for this posting.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:32PM by Dale Nelson.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sweden is the
> most secular nation in the world, as I understand,
> so they too have no right to moan if Islamic
> immigrants, accustomed to religion, keep up their
> Muslim ways, but I'm not sure I understand why
> Malmo needed to become famous for harboring gangs
> of Muslims who hate Jews. ...

If you are of European stock, you should probably be more concerned about the elderly and young Swedes, being robbed, beaten, and humiliated, and the thousands of Swedish girls being raped each year (highest rape rate statistic numbers per capita in the World, except for a couple of countries in Africa).

I've contributed almost nothing to this conversation because of my possibly heretical opinion (to all sides I know) that race and nationality hardly matter compared to the individual mind, a sentiment I keep finding (whether or not it actually exists) within the strongly individualistic CAS' fiction, with its stories of poets, low-lives, and sorcerers who are alienated by their fellow countrymen. But I've been reading on with empathy, because I feel this country is gutting itself with these new ideologies of "fairness" and "representation", removing the vital organs of culture and replacing them with artificial "feel-good" constructs that might feel more at home in a dystopian novel.

I'm especially interested in Sawfish's attempts at understanding and adapting to the inevitable.

Sawfish, you mentioned having a Japanese wife and a half-Japanese daughter. Would this, in some sense, make you a heretic to any ideals of cultural preservation and national identity?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jul 21 | 02:08PM by Hespire.