|
WeAreAllKin 23 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.JonathanWaisnor
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010
Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and we should try our best to be mindful of it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat other living things, we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | -- JessicaHallett - 02 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
About nationalism: Humans derived evolutionary benefit from developing cohesive group structures that guarded resources, supported their members out of reciprocal self-interest, and allowed for specialization. Those tribes that developed very intense concern for other members were more effective at this. This same degree of empathy couldn't extend to all humans, as they were members of competing tribes. I always thought Dunbar’s number was interesting- organizations are most optimal at 150-300 persons or less, anything above that and people begin to lose track of relationships and require increasingly complex systems of laws and rules to keep them in control.
I think the most effective nationalistic systems are best at creating a slightly idealized, slightly personalized “proxy figure” that people come to empathize with. We create that figure’s identity, define the contours of the group, and then automatically apply that identity to members of our group who we don’t know personally to create a bond that wouldn’t normally exist outside of the 150-300 people in our tribe/small town/city block. Of course, there are many more identities and groups in our society that compete with the nationalist figure, religious, racial, geographic, ethnic, political. Part of the success of the American system relative to others has been slowly minimizing the effect of those other identities so that they don’t continue to cause friction, but there are still cultures in our own society who don’t really identify with the American figure and operate largely according to their own rules. At certain times, we've felt it necessary to make moral judgments about these cultures, for example during desegregation or in dealing with inner-city gangs, and regulate their rules and norms above their protests. It wasn't too long ago that the kinship bond between someone from New York and someone from South Carolina by virtue of being American was almost non-existent. I see no reason that the current kinship bond between someone from America and someone from Afghanistan by virtue of being human can't similarly evolve.
Besides, I don't know if Eben was necessarily saying we needed to eliminate kinship ties or see the nameless Afghan child in the same way as we see members of our close family, just that we owe them enough of a kinship tie not to bomb their villages with robot drones.
-- JonathanWaisnor - 02 Mar 2010 | | |
|
|
|
WeAreAllKin 22 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.MatthewZorn
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010
Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and we should try our best to be mindful of it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat other living things, we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | -- MatthewZorn 28 Feb 2010 - 23:21:18 - | |
<
< | You're kidding, right? Like this guy? Why is it in our interest to perpetuate an idea of moral difference between ourselves and other living things? The argument should be even easier than just the difference between ourselves and other people. Do you even see why dropping those distinctions might be productive for us? I'm not sure you understood what Eben was getting at, and are blaming the method without understanding the message (something I've certainly also been guilty of in the same context). -- DRussellKraft - 01 Mar 2010 | >
> | You're kidding, right? Like this guy? Why is it in our interest to perpetuate an idea of moral difference between ourselves and other living things? The argument should be even easier than just the difference between ourselves and other people. Do you even see why dropping those distinctions might be productive for us? I'm not sure you understood what Eben was getting at, and are blaming the method without understanding the message (something I've certainly also been guilty of in the same context). -- DRussellKraft - 01 Mar 2010
Well, I'm glad to see that Eben has succeeded in filling you up all up with his rules. May I inquire discreetly: why is it in our interest to not perpetuate ideas of moral differences? I understand the message, think its worthy of consideration, I just don't think it is connected to the reality any of us live in. I think humans necessarily create these relationships and distinctions because they naturally flow from human psychology.
| | |
--
MohitGourisaria - 02 Mar 2010 | |
<
< | Matt, I honestly think your argument above is elitist and an expression of insecurity (in what capacity I do not know). First, it doesn't matter whether Prof. Moglen adopts theater to make his point. The Greeks did it, Dr. King used it, and you and I rely on it everyday to produce an effect (else, we would be passionless and ineffective cows, the type you invoke in your argument). So let's not attack substance on grounds of style. Second, to understand what kinship means (and I do not claim that I do), one has to recognise one's own position in the universe in tandem with everything else that exists. The label of being American or being white (or any other classification on your continuum) is a convenient measure propagated by those who can then rule over you by shackling you to those classifications. The reason that you do not feel akin to the apple you eat is that you fail to understand how that apple has come into your hands in the first place. The reason an Afghani kid's life may be less valuable to you is that you derive your sense of self-worth (or ego) through your American citizenship, race, or your "superior" position in society. Speaking as someone who (according you your position) probably shares no kinship with you, let me state that there are more universal, and less detrimental, ways in which one can discover his relationship with other sentient beings. | >
> | Matt, I honestly think your argument above is elitist and an expression of insecurity (in what capacity I do not know).
I do not disagree, the above argument is an expression of someone who has come from relative elitism and I am very insecure about so many things. But what am I to do about it? I'll never not come from elitism. So pardon me while I ignore what I perceive to be an insulting throw away, sip on my Dom Perignon, and respond to your more substantive thoughts.
First, it doesn't matter whether Prof. Moglen adopts theater to make his point. The Greeks did it, Dr. King used it, and you and I rely on it everyday to produce an effect (else, we would be passionless and ineffective cows, the type you invoke in your argument). So let's not attack substance on grounds of style.
Everyone uses theater, the most effective orators in history used theater, so we should ignore it here? You are all really such a lovely audience. Theater is inextricably tied to substance. The ability to see and recognize theater (especially when it is using to cover for an unpersuasive argument), is, in my mind one of the key aspects of being an attorney. Picture yourself as a poker player in Las Vegas. You don't think the ability to read people at the table is critical to revealing the substance of their cards?
Second, to understand what kinship means (and I do not claim that I do), one has to recognise one's own position in the universe in tandem with everything else that exists. The label of being American or being white (or any other classification on your continuum) is a convenient measure propagated by those who can then rule over you by shackling you to those classifications.
I'm glad to see you are working here for the benefit of Mr. Moglen. I agree, there are many overrated aspects of my classification as an American and citizenship in general. But have we ever considered the merits of citizenship?
The reason that you do not feel akin to the apple you eat is that you fail to understand how that apple has come into your hands in the first place. The reason an Afghani kid's life may be less valuable to you is that you derive your sense of self-worth (or ego) through your American citizenship, race, or your "superior" position in society.
You are making pretty bold claims about someone who you probably do not even know in the slightest. I'll leave open the possibility that I vastly underestimate your power to decipher me and my sense of self-worth based on a pile of text on a website and our various inane interactions. The reason an Afghani kid's life may be less valuable to me is that I do not have any idea what a day in the life of an Afghani child is like. (To be honest, the Afghani's kid's life isn't less valuable to me.)
But, I'll willfully concede to your larger point. Maybe I am trying to hide myself behind a wall of illusion, but I'm doing the best that I can. I'm getting better. Its just hard having been here for so many years. Many years from now, I hope that's not the case.
Speaking as someone who (according you your position) probably shares no kinship with you, let me state that there are more universal, and less detrimental, ways in which one can discover his relationship with other sentient beings.
Let me end any further distortion of my argument here: I am not arguing that humans are not kin. I just do not see kin as a black and white, binary thing. I see a continuum or degrees of kinship. I see the potential usefulness of these distinctions in the real world, and I am trying keep an open mind in the face of Eben's intellectual assault. Scottish clans had wonderful benefits for their members for centuries. Do moral distinctions necessarily exist? Perhaps. I'm not sure. But from my understanding of history, these perverted notions of kinship have existed in practically every historical era and were useful constructions, at least in some way, for the reality in which people faced. I have not seen convincing evidence that the world would be a better place devoid of kin distinctions--after all, the grass could just be greener on the other side. The real issue for all of us to consider is whether obliterating kinship distinctions will offer us any repose our thoughts and make us feel any different at the end of the day. For me, I currently think no, because it is quite divorced from my understanding of human nature and the reality I live in and any reality I have been familiar with. To echo Nona "the human condition seeks [some sort of] constructed social identification." | | | | |
>
> | But, there is definite usefulness to the presentation of the idea. The truth, to me, lies somewhere in between what Eben is saying and what is the common perception. I admire Eben's ability to stake out extreme positions effectively (substantively or stylistically) on such issues in order to help send our minds wandering. It does not really matter if he is wrong, because he often needs to stake out "wrong" positions (through theater, perhaps) to get things where they belong, get our heads out from hiding in the sand. And it is because I am trying to keep an open mind that I am hesitant to follow Eben here, now. But, I see that his viewpoint has more than a little help from its friends, which I think is good. Is Joseph Stack's victim closer than an Afghani child to me in kin? Maybe. Maybe not. If the answer is no, it has nothing to do with mitochondrial DNA.
| | |
01 Mar 2010 - 02:53:20 - KayKim? - | | | Once again, I have to know if you're kidding. I actually assume so in this case. If so, what's your point? -- DRussellKraft - 01 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
Maybe I'm kidding, maybe I'm not. The point is all about relativity. Every judgement we make is in relative to our cultural values and what we perceive as "happiness" or "justice." But these concepts are not universal, and, we should be wary to make judgements about other people's happiness when we cannot be them. And, if you ever do want to bring these people happiness, you better understand it.
| | | Daniel Gilbert makes a similar argument illustrating the nonsense of the Rawlsian Veil in a book called Stumbling on Happiness. He looks at adult conjoined twins and asks whether if they could separate, would they? From our vantage point, we would think this life were terrible. Indeed, non-conjoined twins thought that a conjoined condition was absolutely miserable. Yet, the conjoined twins answered that they would not separate if they could. I remember a similar event in my own experience when I once saw a person who was paralyzed from the waist down who said it was "the best thing in his life that had ever happened to him." It is all relative--including the concepts of happiness and justice.
I put to you that from our vantage point, we would also think this conjoined life would be lots of other things, many of which aren't subjective. That is to say that from any vantage point, those twins will for example be in different rooms less frequently than they would ceterus paribus as nonconjoined people. In general, make any change and ceterus also wouldn't be paribus. But that's irrelevant. The exercise of the veil is to show that a) There are alternate possible futures, and that b) we probably don't live in the "best" of all possible worlds, even by our own normative lights. It's an attempt to make you ask what we might change to make it better, still by your own subjective conception. -- DRussellKraft - 01 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
I have nothing more to say, but that's OK.
| | | But the "Rawlsian Veil" requires some sort of evaluation on happiness and justice. But "all claims of happiness are claims from someone's point of view — from the perspective of a single human being whose unique collection of past experiences serves as a context, a lens, a background for her evaluation of her current experience. As much as the scientist might wish for it, there isn't a view from nowhere." (Gilbert) Nowhere, being the place we would need to be behind the veil of ignorance.
-- MatthewZorn - 01 Mar 2010 |
|
|
WeAreAllKin 21 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.MohitGourisaria
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010
Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and we should try our best to be mindful of it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat other living things, we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | You're kidding, right? Like this guy? Why is it in our interest to perpetuate an idea of moral difference between ourselves and other living things? The argument should be even easier than just the difference between ourselves and other people. Do you even see why dropping those distinctions might be productive for us? I'm not sure you understood what Eben was getting at, and are blaming the method without understanding the message (something I've certainly also been guilty of in the same context). -- DRussellKraft - 01 Mar 2010 | |
<
< | -- MohitGourisaria - 02 Mar 2010 | >
> |
--
MohitGourisaria - 02 Mar 2010 | | | | |
<
< | Matt, I honestly think your argument above is elitist and an expression of insecurity (in what capacity I do not know). First, it doesn't matter whether Prof. Moglen adopts theater to make his point. The Greeks did it, Dr. King used it, and you and I rely on it everyday to produce an effect (else, we would be passionless and ineffective cows, the type you invoke in your argument). So let's not attack substance on grounds of style. Second, to understand what kinship means (and I do not claim that I do), one has to recognise one's own position in the universe in tandem with everything else that exists. The label of being American or being white (or any other classification on your continuum) is a convenient measure propagated by those who can then rule over you by shackling you to those classifications. The reason that you do not feel akin to the apple you eat is that you fail to understand how that apple has come into your hands in the first place. The reason an Afghani kid's life may be less valuable to you is that you derive your sense of self-worth (or ego) through your American citizenship, race, or your "superior" position in society. Speaking as someone who (according you your position) probably shares no kinship with you, let me state that there are more universal, and less detrimental, ways in which one can discover his relationship with other sentient beings. | >
> | Matt, I honestly think your argument above is elitist and an expression of insecurity (in what capacity I do not know). First, it doesn't matter whether Prof. Moglen adopts theater to make his point. The Greeks did it, Dr. King used it, and you and I rely on it everyday to produce an effect (else, we would be passionless and ineffective cows, the type you invoke in your argument). So let's not attack substance on grounds of style. Second, to understand what kinship means (and I do not claim that I do), one has to recognise one's own position in the universe in tandem with everything else that exists. The label of being American or being white (or any other classification on your continuum) is a convenient measure propagated by those who can then rule over you by shackling you to those classifications. The reason that you do not feel akin to the apple you eat is that you fail to understand how that apple has come into your hands in the first place. The reason an Afghani kid's life may be less valuable to you is that you derive your sense of self-worth (or ego) through your American citizenship, race, or your "superior" position in society. Speaking as someone who (according you your position) probably shares no kinship with you, let me state that there are more universal, and less detrimental, ways in which one can discover his relationship with other sentient beings. | | |
|
|
|
WeAreAllKin 20 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010 | |
>
> | Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and we should try our best to be mindful of it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat other living things, we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | Post publishing note 2: This class is extremely important to me and my criticisms are made in light of my obligation to be an active force in my legal education. | | |
Discussion moved from above: | |
<
< |
Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and sometimes we all (including myself) pass it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat "other living things" we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :).
Nona: I disagree with your version of the facts (we can all edit, all the time - in fact I noticed you wanted a block quote and gave your comment the tag it needed to get there). That said, If my remarks gave unnecessary offence they were poorly crafted, and I never intended to scare anyone into silence. In fact I hope there will be some substantive response to what I've said because I am quite passionate about the ideas I've expressed. -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
Actually, I had no intention of block quoting. I don't even know what the intended effect of a block quote is. I just don't know how to use this Internets and tube stuff and copied and pasted your text to add a color. Now I know what a tag is too. I will remove it now. You mis-interpret me. I wasn't suggesting that you scare anyone into silence, but that some of the language on this wiki does. I was, however, explaining that I would edit out things that I feel (subjective, I know, but I am self-declared Queen!) are mean. I know we can all edit and that my power is just as limited as yours, but the responsibility for the Talk pages does belong to its creator (me) and so I am using that false power to make a point and to protect anyone who wants to comment from feeling that they might have someone jump down her throat... |
|
|
WeAreAllKin 19 - 02 Mar 2010 - Main.DRussellKraft
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="EbenSalon" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 25 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and sometimes we all (including myself) pass it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat "other living things" we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :).
Nona: I disagree with your version of the facts (we can all edit, all the time - in fact I noticed you wanted a block quote and gave your comment the tag it needed to get there). That said, If my remarks gave unnecessary offence they were poorly crafted, and I never intended to scare anyone into silence. In fact I hope there will be some substantive response to what I've said because I am quite passionate about the ideas I've expressed. -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
Actually, I had no intention of block quoting. I don't even know what the intended effect of a block quote is. I just don't know how to use this Internets and tube stuff and copied and pasted your text to add a color. Now I know what a tag is too. I will remove it now. You mis-interpret me. I wasn't suggesting that you scare anyone into silence, but that some of the language on this wiki does. I was, however, explaining that I would edit out things that I feel (subjective, I know, but I am self-declared Queen!) are mean. I know we can all edit and that my power is just as limited as yours, but the responsibility for the Talk pages does belong to its creator (me) and so I am using that false power to make a point and to protect anyone who wants to comment from feeling that they might have someone jump down her throat... | | | Post publishing note 2: This class is extremely important to me and my criticisms are made in light of my obligation to be an active force in my legal education.
I was pretty riled up after class today. Of course, part of the problem is that Eben is one of the most knowledgeable people I have met. Arguing with him feels like taking a paintball gun to a tank (it is difficult to use a metaphor because I know Eben can immediately break it down to its precise historical meaning and quickly strip away the basis of an ill-informed comparison). In general, this is good because it requires us to do our homework, and to choose our words carefully and precisely. Still, it leaves me knowing that my argument will always be vulnerable to some historical reality I have never contended with or the misuse of a word that wasn't even central to my point in the first place. | | |
-- DevinMcDougall - 01 Mar 2010 | |
<
< | CONFLICT original 16: | | | | |
<
< | CONFLICT version 17: | >
> | Devin, I don't know if you're referring to something you read on the TWiki, but I recall MikeAbend discussing this in a previous topic. I just spent a while trying to find it for you, but couldn't. I thought it was in the PawningOurLicenses topic, but didn't find it in the history. Maybe you'll have more success!
-- JessicaHallett - 02 Mar 2010 | | | | |
>
> | | | | | |
>
> |
Discussion moved from above: | | | | |
<
< | Devin, I don't know if you're referring to something you read on the TWiki, but I recall MikeAbend? discussing this in a previous topic. I just spent a while trying to find it for you, but couldn't. I thought it was in the PawningOurLicenses topic, but didn't find it in the history. Maybe you'll have more success!
CONFLICT version new: | | | | |
<
< |
CONFLICT end | >
> | Since I started this Talk page and I get to edit everyone's stuff pretty soon, I have some sort of power over what goes on here. As such, I am going to pretend that whoever else comments will listen to what I say. I find it offensive and counter-productive to our conversation when we malign another person's comments by acting so incredulous as to be demeaning. There is a fine line between when criticism stops being constructive and sometimes we all (including myself) pass it. Eben is the benevolent monarch and he knows what he is doing, even though I question the effectiveness of some of the language he uses with his scary red text. If we are bemoaning the lack of empathy in the way we treat "other living things" we should at least be mindful of the fact that those other living things have feelings. We undermine the very purpose of this class when we scare people into silence, which is why some people never take a stab at joining the conversation. I Will edit your mean comments away. I AM THE MONARCH OF MY TALK PAGES AND MY TALK PAGES ARE FRIENDLY TALK PAGES :). | | | | |
<
< | -- JessicaHallett - 02 Mar 2010
| >
> | Nona: I disagree with your version of the facts (we can all edit, all the time - in fact I noticed you wanted a block quote and gave your comment the tag it needed to get there). That said, If my remarks gave unnecessary offence they were poorly crafted, and I never intended to scare anyone into silence. In fact I hope there will be some substantive response to what I've said because I am quite passionate about the ideas I've expressed. -- DRussellKraft - 02 Mar 2010
Actually, I had no intention of block quoting. I don't even know what the intended effect of a block quote is. I just don't know how to use this Internets and tube stuff and copied and pasted your text to add a color. Now I know what a tag is too. I will remove it now. You mis-interpret me. I wasn't suggesting that you scare anyone into silence, but that some of the language on this wiki does. I was, however, explaining that I would edit out things that I feel (subjective, I know, but I am self-declared Queen!) are mean. I know we can all edit and that my power is just as limited as yours, but the responsibility for the Talk pages does belong to its creator (me) and so I am using that false power to make a point and to protect anyone who wants to comment from feeling that they might have someone jump down her throat... |
|
|