#E55: Bob G.'s 1E in Re: #E43: Chris Cheatham's Assignment 1B (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Bob G. <beelzebob7@hotmail.com>


Chris Cheatham wrote:
>     A question that I have about the paper is when Bob talks about
>traditional behavior and how it sets the rights and wrongs within a 
>culture, how can this be so?

Bob G. interjects:
Well, I fancy the notion that whoever was on top to create such in the first 
place would make it so.  Having just studied Friedrich Nietzsche's first 
chapter in his Geneology of Morals, his view seems to be that the warrior 
nobles created language woe way back in pre-history, thus having the power, 
named such an incidental existence as "good."  Everything they did was 
linguistically rationalized as such, as there was no one to give approval.  
Then came along things like "essence" and trying to separate the raw, 
original action from the doing of the deed--to conceptualize, seemingly.  
Why is this or that good?  Hence, the non-creator was bad.  My point being, 
with the control of linguistics, as the languages of all educators we are 
subjected to soon thereafter arrival on this planet approve of and dictate, 
does it seem we have much choice or weight to throw around about changing 
it?  Lexicography, or the creation of and approval of words, is a very 
potent field.  But, to take it a step further, it may bring more clarity (or 
confusion) to ask whether the majority is out there seeking the newest 
vocabulary/concepts to induct as staples of utility.  I am under the 
impression that very similar origins of the conventional connotations of 
morality as only understood by the subordinate in language exist, and the 
majority waits for the new dictionary to dust before even cracking it.  
Instead we get new "trendy" as you say word-variables like "smurf," "god" 
and "cool" to keep us quiet (loud).  Whether or not the actual "leaders" you 
refer to are indeed the leaders I refer to is of particular controversy.  
There does seem to be an attempt, anyhow, to assert extant "natural" or 
unwritten laws--so firmly that such may seem "instinctual." At least, that's 
what they tell you, no?

Chris Cheatam wrote:
It sounds to me that these traditional behaviors are way too trendy and come 
and go with the leaders of the time and the activities of the time.  During 
different periods of time different things are acceptable. Would there be a 
more concrete set of human behaviors that are set in stone throughout the 
times?  A set of rules that is right or wrong no matter who is in charge or 
the things happening during that period of time. Where would these rules 
come from and how would people know to obey them.  Is it something that is 
human instinct, or must we be taught that a behavior is right or wrong?  How 
could these sets of basic rules, if instinctual, be applied to the 
educational system, if this system is man made and was not
>made on the grounds of instinct?

Bob G. continues:
So assuming the Nietszche idea IS, than what is to be said of the terrain of 
pre- or ante-morality?  Why worry about whether natural law is necessary to 
realize when it is so difficult to bring a person to their discovery?  
Though I find your questions legitimate and worthy of asking, I still wonder 
how can genuine discussion even begin without the contextual knowledge of 
the origins of our conscienable morality?  Would a drastic change (say, 
towards non-compulsory education--possibly the only attractive and forgotten 
Platonic ethic, in my view) truly be "right" or "wrong?"  Or would 
non-compulsory education ethic make much difference in the way things are if 
legislated?  It seems we had that even in the beginning and look where it 
got us--a basically Platonic academic (that's where the latter word came 
from even) system, though required.  If education moves to computers, might 
amoral education be mandatory to get anywhere, assuming one would even 
maintain that choice?  I guess I look forward to the rest of the class.  The 
"trends" you mention have never come so fast as now (the end of the 
post-modern empire, hopefully).
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com