Do you ever review your values?

[Bella Fortuna]

I was thinking about something similar last week. A guy came up to me in the street and started telling me all sorts of things about what he was doing. I forget the details, but it was things like, "I have to go to the Post Office to pick up..." etc. He seemed a little agitated, and I think I would be fair in saying he had mental health issues, but he was obviously completely harmless. He was talking to me for at least five minutes, but I didn't say a word to him. I wasn't sure what to say, and I also didn't want to get tangled into a conversation that I couldn't easily get out of.

I've been thinking about this too as it has recently come to light that my next-door neighbour - a very sweet retired nurse who's been a quiet and kind neighbour - seems to have some increasing mental health issues involving paranoia and delusions of persecution by other neighbours. She's told me with complete seriousness some exceedingly wild and highly unlikely stories and has gone so far as to have her house rigged up with cameras and motion-lights, as well as having the police out on several occasions. The funny thing is, she even prefaces what she says with, "I know this sounds far-fetched..." but what she's saying is simply too ludicrous to be true. In any case, it's challenged me as far as how to interact with her.

[hiyymer]

Big softy pinko liberal here calling!

Maybe I'm wrong though! Time to be judgemental, exclusive, ...etc..etc.. maybe?

Do you ever think you might be dead wrong in the way you look at the world!?

I would love to review them, but I can't find them. I used to think I had some and even that they changed. I probably just made them up because I wanted to be right and on top. Now I'm old and it doesn't matter.

[apophenia]

Do you ever think you might be dead wrong in the way you look at the world!?

I think there's some confusion here. (Damn picky philosophers.) There seem to be three things considered as one: values, politics, social theory.

I don't really have a social theory. And although I trend left of center, I'm not hesitant to jump party lines. (And here in America, we only recognize the existence of two political parties, unlike elsewhere in the world. My past observations on third party politics are: a) forming a third party is just an admission that you "can't play well with others," and b) People form independent parties because nobody normal would cotton to their fucking bizarre ideas.)

As to values, sure. I'm way too arrogant to think I'm wrong about anything, but that's different from values. I think part of getting older is becoming all the things you swore you'd never be. When I was young, I admired orthodoxy, and the simplicity of absolutes, and while I may not have adopted any orthodox positions, I felt that was likely the best way to be. I once had a relationship with a person whose spirituality was a strange mix of unconventional Christianity, mysticism, and new age woo. I admired them, but looked somewhat askance at the spiritual pluralism. Nowadays, I'm the one who is all over the map, being atheist, Taoist, anti-realist and Shakta. It isn't so much that I re-evaluate my views, as, every so often I look up and realize how far I've wandered away from them. Forgetting is the biggest enemy of the moral life; not the purposeful forgetting of denial, but the inevitable forgetting that occurs as we are distracted by, and forced to attend to the mundane demands of our lives. Every so often, we remember and have to rededicate ourselves and figure out all over again how we are going to ensure that we are the selves that we want to be. And then we forget again. And remember. And forget.

Course, there's a strong undercurrent of randomness and arbitrariness in me. My friend tells me I'm a caring person, but I don't see it. The one thing besides reincarnation that turned me off to Mahayana Buddhism was the emphasis on compassion. My heart just doesn't understand the concept. The three jewels of Taoism are humility, moderation and compassion. I'm missing one or more of the jewels. There is an ethical dilemma which asks, if there are five patients in an emergency room, and you can save four of them by sacrificing the fifth for his organs, would that be moral? I'm like, "K. Got the scalpel. Let's go, time's a wasting."

[Rum]

Do you ever think you might be dead wrong in the way you look at the world!?

I think there's some confusion here. (Damn picky philosophers.) There seem to be three things considered as one: values, politics, social theory.

I don't really have a social theory. And although I trend left of center, I'm not hesitant to jump party lines. (And here in America, we only recognize the existence of two political parties, unlike elsewhere in the world. My past observations on third party politics are: a) forming a third party is just an admission that you "can't play well with others," and b) People form independent parties because nobody normal would cotton to their fucking bizarre ideas.)

As to values, sure. I'm way too arrogant to think I'm wrong about anything, but that's different from values. I think part of getting older is becoming all the things you swore you'd never be. When I was young, I admired orthodoxy, and the simplicity of absolutes, and while I may not have adopted any orthodox positions, I felt that was likely the best way to be. I once had a relationship with a person whose spirituality was a strange mix of unconventional Christianity, mysticism, and new age woo. I admired them, but looked somewhat askance at the spiritual pluralism. Nowadays, I'm the one who is all over the map, being atheist, Taoist, anti-realist and Shakta. It isn't so much that I re-evaluate my views, as, every so often I look up and realize how far I've wandered away from them. Forgetting is the biggest enemy of the moral life; not the purposeful forgetting of denial, but the inevitable forgetting that occurs as we are distracted by, and forced to attend to the mundane demands of our lives. Every so often, we remember and have to rededicate ourselves and figure out all over again how we are going to ensure that we are the selves that we want to be. And then we forget again. And remember. And forget.

Course, there's a strong undercurrent of randomness and arbitrariness in me. My friend tells me I'm a caring person, but I don't see it. The one thing besides reincarnation that turned me off to Mahayana Buddhism was the emphasis on compassion. My heart just doesn't understand the concept. The three jewels of Taoism are humility, moderation and compassion. I'm missing one or more of the jewels. There is an ethical dilemma which asks, if there are five patients in an emergency room, and you can save four of them by sacrificing the fifth for his organs, would that be moral? I'm like, "K. Got the scalpel. Let's go, time's a wasting."

Well you are right about the 'confusion', but I was making a broader point really, based on the observation that people rarely change their minds about what one might broadly call their 'world view' in my experience as a result of forum discussions. I know I didn't make that point but it was behind my thinking. There is also a background you won't be aware of which is that in the past I have been an advocate of a non-moderated (or member moderated) forum when we have had discussions about governance here. These have been heated at times.

As a result of discussions here as well as those mentioned above I find my view has changed over recent months.

[Gonzo]

Yes. I am very self critical and am constantly trying to readjust my values/ views based on new information and ideas from other people. I defend my personal opinions, but I also know my own limitations.

[apophenia]

Well you are right about the 'confusion', but I was making a broader point really, based on the observation that people rarely change their minds about what one might broadly call their 'world view' in my experience as a result of forum discussions. I know I didn't make that point but it was behind my thinking. There is also a background you won't be aware of which is that in the past I have been an advocate of a non-moderated (or member moderated) forum when we have had discussions about governance here. These have been heated at times.

As a result of discussions here as well as those mentioned above I find my view has changed over recent months.

I was vaguely aware of that subtext but you've got to see things from my point of view. I saw the opportunity to derail another thread and make it all about me and I had to oblige.

Truly though, I think Plato had it right, Philosopher Kings all the way, even if it requires a Golden Lie to get there. (And I'm not saying that just because I'm a philosopher.) In a more serious vein, forms of social organization are always a series of trade-offs. Efficiency vs. Volatility, a monarchy is efficient, it also trends toward instability over the long haul. Egalitarianism or competence? The average man is, well, average -- why would we want the average to rule? I haven't concerned myself with anarchy, and truth be told, I don't think there are or can be such things. What is narrowly termed anarchy is just those forms of social organization which don't include stabilized discourses for the enabling of political mechanics (politics being the business of redistributing resources). Some social groups see no need to re-allocate resources, so they don't develop discourses for achieving that end. Other social groups spend a large part of their resources just maintaining such discourses (e.g. government, religion, and the police state). But there are spontaneous discourses which arise and organize themselves just by virtue of economic inequities (the family is an example, wherein a baby is born without resources and requiring the parents dedication of resources to them to ensure their survival; on the back of this dependency is created a discourse in which culture, language, education and values are transferred to the child in exchange for being parented). Digression, you asked somewhere along the line about elected or appointed mods -- I'm firmly for appointed, a) competence should supersede popularity, and b) related to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the competent are better judges of competency in others than the average person (and boards that neither start with or incidentally acquire competent leaders, fail; thus successful boards usually are founded on competent leadership (from which follows a chain of competency by appointment, but not by election)). I guess in general I eschew the idea of anarchy as a form of social organization lacking stable discourses, as stable discourses allow social groups to leverage their numbers, and it's the "human" thing to do. And once you have stable discourses, you end up with power imbalances (I'm spitballing, just let me roll with it -- we can edit this out in post-production). And I guess once you have power imbalances, redistribution of power and resources becomes an issue again, leading to political discourses. Aside from the last few sentences of dreck, which I haven't thought out, I'd say the formation of power structures, groups with group dynamics, and the blossoming of discourses is inevitable -- the larger the social group, the more complex the discourses and the more "stabilized" they become (power feeds into stabilization of discourses, the more power, the bigger the drive to stabilize a discourse around it.) Anyway, before I break into glossolalia, I agree with previous posters regarding self-moderated forums, the values of the group often have a life of their own and are driven by values which often diverge from those desirable of a ruling group (e.g. ostracism, popularity, power games, the politics of deceit, sex games, pushing buttons etc.), but also, it's power imbalances which rectify behavior, and leaders are good things (leaders both lead and follow, they must be out front of the group, but stay sufficiently in tune with where the group wants to go), power enables standards and courage, egalitarianism can lead to apathy and disenfranchisement. (okay, I've hit the glossolalia tipping point. Time to shut up until my thoughts return to coherence....)

[Thinking Aloud]

I've reviewed values from time to time. Rejecting god was one point in life where I had to abandon a lot of nonsensical values I'd held. I've also had other values challenged in recent times - unconscious ones, I suppose, and it's been interesting reassessing them.

[hiyymer]

Well you are right about the 'confusion', but I was making a broader point really, based on the observation that people rarely change their minds about what one might broadly call their 'world view' in my experience as a result of forum discussions.

But in my experience people changing "world view" is not an extremely rare phenomenon. But you are probably right that it is extremely rare on chat boards. I guess that's because a "world view" doesn't come under attack from other people's beliefs and ideas. It usually comes under attack because it stops working for the individual holding it.

[hiyymer]

(okay, I've hit the glossolalia tipping point. Time to shut up until my thoughts return to coherence....)

Drowning in reasons.

[Pappa]

People's views tend to evolve all the time without them really noticing. We tend to think we're the same person from one year to the next but a lot about our personalities and views can evolve along the way.

[apophenia]

Well you are right about the 'confusion', but I was making a broader point really, based on the observation that people rarely change their minds about what one might broadly call their 'world view' in my experience as a result of forum discussions.

I think there's another point here. As one who has spent many years in therapy, gleaning insights into the workings of my soul, often the values implied by a person's actions are at odds with their consciously held values. We all want to claim the good virtues, no matter how many dead bodies we have to climb tooth and nail over to get to them. It is this hidden layer of values implicit in our actions which changes more often than the angels of our better nature. This past year, I was becoming bored, so I returned to the likes of the Talk Origins website, for repeated festivals watching creationist nonsense being torn to pieces. There is an uncommon pleasure in seeing the Gordian knot of some bit of woo masterfully undone with just a tap. It's addictive -- as all pleasures have the potential to be. Yet I find myself on a skeptics board, in a fashion bearing a little resemblance to what occurred here, having people go after my character, my motives, and my logic -- but not in a sensitive, deep way -- these skeptics seem less interested in finding the truth than scoring "skeptic points" and defrocking the heretic for questioning their dogmas. And I'm no better, as I've felt the same tug in my life; for some, at times, skepticism becomes nothing more than the intellectual equivalent of crack cocaine. And skepticism and science end up being distorted from being useful tools for examining the world into religious values that cannot be doubted. This is why I focus on discourses and the place of non-rational and social processes, as I think they characterize the dynamics and the implicit values more honestly than surface protestations of belief. We all know the abuser who feels they love their victim; humans aren't particularly good at picking out the hidden truths in their behavior, and we are all following a spiral whose initial arc was determined in childhood, when emotion and authority really were king. We may change the trajectory slightly, but the overall arc of the spiral is largely fixed (except for, perhaps, world changers, such as Thinking Aloud mentions, but then again, that change is usually a reasonably expected outcome of the underlying values -- a person who deeply values honesty is much more likely to question poorly justified religious beliefs than one who doesn't). I myself see this in my own behavior. I care a lot about truth and fairness -- superficially -- but does that translate into equal time spent reading both atheists and theologians? Here's a big clue, ten times as many inches of my bookshelf are devoted to atheist's writings compared to that of theists (of whom, the only two off-hand are Wood's "Mysticism" and the collected works of St. John of the Cross; I mean to get around to Swinburne, Tillich and Plantinga, but that road is paved with the same good intentions that lead to Ole' Mr. Beezlebub's doorstep.) In sum, I think there's this large mythos that we are rational creatures, and that we act by reasoning from intellectually held positions. The truth, appears, quite the reverse of this, and this is but a fairy tale we tell ourselves so that we can feel good, and sleep peacefully at night.

[Hermit]

I was making a broader point really, based on the observation that people rarely change their minds about what one might broadly call their 'world view' in my experience as a result of forum discussions.

Yes, that rarely happens, but I am pleased to announce that I have majorly changed my view on censorship in regard to "hate laws" fairly recently. It took place during a discussion in this forum, and the posts that caused my about-turn were chiefly authored by Coito ergo sum.

I actually like the moments in which I recognise that I was wrong about something. It has been a sign of progress ever since I read a sentence by K.R.Popper near the end of one of his epistemological writings that went something like this: "We must make our mistakes as quickly as possible." Unfortunately, I can't find either the source or the actual wording now, but I do remember quite vividly how it caused a sea change in my thinking at the time.

[nellikin]

I constantly 'review' my 'values'. The past few years have really changed my outlook on life. I question the 'right' or 'wrong' of things that I used to take for granted - in my world, view, my relationships, my view of myself. Earlier this year I read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia", which had me questioning my stance of rejecting any war, regardless of who it's against. He could never understand how pacifists can reject fighting fascism, even if it is the very evil the abhor. And then there are people here who make me think too. For example a nom vet who raises wolf cubs and recycles leather lounges into clothing, using lint as a filler. Not turning my values upside down, but certainly get me to think about things from another perspective. I love it - it I can't approach my own life, world-view and values with rationality, how can I expect it of others?

[Pappa]

Hehehehehe hehe hehehehehehehehe hehe hehe hehe hehehehe...

hehehehe hehe hehehehehehehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehe....

You said "nom vet"... hehe hehe hehe...

hehehe hehe hehe hehehe hehehe hehe hehe hehe hehe....

[charlou]

There is an ethical dilemma which asks, if there are five patients in an emergency room, and you can save four of them by sacrificing the fifth for his organs, would that be moral? I'm like, "K. Got the scalpel. Let's go, time's a wasting."

If so, I imagine you'd be brilliant in a crisis, actually.

Fuck. What does that say about me?

Extending on the dilemma ... If the person you wanted to sacrifice to save the others was a loved one of mine: apophenia

If the the fifth was a loved one of yours, would you still be in there with your scalpel?