I do however, have serious reservations about relying on the dictates of "one's own heart" to delineate what constitutes moral behaviour. As a psychologist, you well know that many people whose perceptions are distorted by trauma, drug use, etc absolutely MUST NOT rely on their gut reactions, as these are severely warped, whether deliberately or not. A solipsistic reliance on admitting no input from others, from the discoveries of science (including those of technology, God forbid!) or from the adages of religious or cultural tradition lead to the same kind of tunnel vision as does over-reliance on external edicts. It is equally narcissistic, equally grandiose , although stemming from a disproportionate suspicion of externality, as opposed to a disproportionate trust in externality.
I have searched for a reliable moral yardstick for ever, have given up, and just, as do many without realizing it I think, stumble forward doing 'good' as best I can in full knowledge that mistakes due to misperception will be made. The important thing here is to be willing to admit, quickly, when I've erred, as that restores some semblance of balance to the whole enterprise of living. One thing beyond this attempt to balance out principled behaviour I have found useful is a notion from systems theory: to act morally one must be able to make accurate predictions. That capacity requires the application of evidence-based thinking, logical manipulation of hypothetical outcomes and a highly developed imagination to produce and assess the realistic probabilities of many contingencies. Sadly, these faculties are no longer appreciated nor taught and instead we are exhorted to resort to relying on "our heart wisdom" -- whatever the blazes that means!
One defence of the idea of "following your heart." That statement is made and is accurate, only when making one rather important assumption...you must be of relatively sound mind. A healthy psyche is required, ie, you can't be sociopathic, or psychotic, or even fully narcissistic.
You don't have to have a perfect psyche by any means, even if we could know what "perfect" would be. We have to be "relatively" conscious...at least conscious of the formidable complexes that are formed due to trauma, usually in childhood, that wreak havoc on our adult lives.
Still, even if a few of these demons are alive and well embedded in the depths of the unconscious and continue to breathe their toxic fires, the innate knowing of the difference between good and evil (applied within the context of personal experience) typically has more power over these other influences.
Yes, not always...
So how do we know if we can trust the divine wisdom within? No idea.
Regarding the paragraph about "less than worst" scenario: Many many moons ago I wrote a paper against so-called progress in midwifery that saw it regulated, restricted and less beneficial, that revolved around the notion of "technolatry", a religious fanaticism that adored technology for its own sake, and put every trust and effort into using and growing its influence in every aspect of life.
I think this is a perfect time for dwarves to identify as professional basketball players and sue if they don’t make the team. People need to start demanding religious leaders perform marriages when they want to marry their donkey or parakeet. And likewise I think I’m going to identify as an invisible person and get offended if people act like they see me. Mostly all this liberal progressive thinking is nonsense but we could probably have some fun with it at their expense.
Check out the book "Mania" by Lionel Shriver. Fascinating. It describes a situation that is so ludicrous but so possible, in fact, I am surprised it hasn't happened yet...
There is a lot more group think mentality these days. It has caught on like wild fire and very obvious over the last 5+ years. Just repeat something enough times and people suck it up. There is also so much addiction whether it is all the usual vices or even the one of 'poor me'. Largely, a lot of folks have no positive guiding force. A lot of time is wasted on their phones finding out what their so-called friends are doing. I don't even think they have the awareness to know they are on the 'group think train to nowhere'.
A very thoughtful piece ! On the subject of gender / trans and other issues under the broad umbrella of “ woke “ it would “ appear “ that we are correcting back to the common sense middle / right ! Perhaps this is wishful thinking or more agenda ? I am not so sure I think there is a growing sense of folks feeling duped by all this nonsense including the Covid scam .
I wish I could see the "growing sense of folks"...I do not, yet. But of course I don't come in contact with everyone in the world!
I don't think many people who are tired of the trans issue reject entirely people just "being who they are"...if they think they are a woman, but born as a man, so what. Just leave me out of it.
The problem comes in, obviously, with legislation, medical interventions, advocation of such nonsense identifications in the school system, in the psychology professions (it is against federal law in Canada to advocate biological sex when working with someone who identifies with something that is not biological, i.e., "gender affirming care".)
Not to mention the cultural focus on all of this, with "proper" pronouns, hate crime accusations, "my right to identify with what I choose to identify with, and my right to be protected by law as such." This creates a "social contagion"...being a different sex than what you born with becomes a badge of social honor—"standing up for one's civil rights", a means to popularity, etc. All this has to sop, obviously.
The French philosopher Jacques Ellul claimed "The world's will is always a will to death, a will to suicide." When I look around at all the progress, which is resulting in ecological destruction, it seems like he was right.
You make a very important point here, and it truly lays at the foundation of the madness of the world. Freud said it too when describing the "Todestrieb", or "death drive". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive)
Yes, you are correct about usage of "we"...I do grapple with this occasionally, but usually don't think much of it. WE are all in this boat together, if any individual does not include themselves in the "we" that I describe, then they should just know I am not talking about them, "moi??" one might say, and if they don't fit the criteria, then "no, not you."
I think it is important to include everyone (with the subjective pronoun "we") because we all are, indeed, in the human race (except for maybe the lizard-people). We are all capable of being included in the group I am describing, and we should all do some introspection when reading my articles that use "we" indiscriminately. If you don't fit, then fine, replace the word "we" with the word "they"...and be done with it.
If I did not use "we," and used "they" instead, there are many who would fit in the "they" but would not believe it, and thus not consider it. It would also make very awkward reading.
I loved the candied cigarettes...what a brilliant invention...and yo yo's were wonderful too...never got into pet rocks...guess I was too old when they made their debut.
I do however, have serious reservations about relying on the dictates of "one's own heart" to delineate what constitutes moral behaviour. As a psychologist, you well know that many people whose perceptions are distorted by trauma, drug use, etc absolutely MUST NOT rely on their gut reactions, as these are severely warped, whether deliberately or not. A solipsistic reliance on admitting no input from others, from the discoveries of science (including those of technology, God forbid!) or from the adages of religious or cultural tradition lead to the same kind of tunnel vision as does over-reliance on external edicts. It is equally narcissistic, equally grandiose , although stemming from a disproportionate suspicion of externality, as opposed to a disproportionate trust in externality.
I have searched for a reliable moral yardstick for ever, have given up, and just, as do many without realizing it I think, stumble forward doing 'good' as best I can in full knowledge that mistakes due to misperception will be made. The important thing here is to be willing to admit, quickly, when I've erred, as that restores some semblance of balance to the whole enterprise of living. One thing beyond this attempt to balance out principled behaviour I have found useful is a notion from systems theory: to act morally one must be able to make accurate predictions. That capacity requires the application of evidence-based thinking, logical manipulation of hypothetical outcomes and a highly developed imagination to produce and assess the realistic probabilities of many contingencies. Sadly, these faculties are no longer appreciated nor taught and instead we are exhorted to resort to relying on "our heart wisdom" -- whatever the blazes that means!
Very well put, thank you.
One defence of the idea of "following your heart." That statement is made and is accurate, only when making one rather important assumption...you must be of relatively sound mind. A healthy psyche is required, ie, you can't be sociopathic, or psychotic, or even fully narcissistic.
You don't have to have a perfect psyche by any means, even if we could know what "perfect" would be. We have to be "relatively" conscious...at least conscious of the formidable complexes that are formed due to trauma, usually in childhood, that wreak havoc on our adult lives.
Still, even if a few of these demons are alive and well embedded in the depths of the unconscious and continue to breathe their toxic fires, the innate knowing of the difference between good and evil (applied within the context of personal experience) typically has more power over these other influences.
Yes, not always...
So how do we know if we can trust the divine wisdom within? No idea.
Regarding the paragraph about "less than worst" scenario: Many many moons ago I wrote a paper against so-called progress in midwifery that saw it regulated, restricted and less beneficial, that revolved around the notion of "technolatry", a religious fanaticism that adored technology for its own sake, and put every trust and effort into using and growing its influence in every aspect of life.
I think this is a perfect time for dwarves to identify as professional basketball players and sue if they don’t make the team. People need to start demanding religious leaders perform marriages when they want to marry their donkey or parakeet. And likewise I think I’m going to identify as an invisible person and get offended if people act like they see me. Mostly all this liberal progressive thinking is nonsense but we could probably have some fun with it at their expense.
Check out the book "Mania" by Lionel Shriver. Fascinating. It describes a situation that is so ludicrous but so possible, in fact, I am surprised it hasn't happened yet...
https://amzn.to/43bobmb
(Sorry for the Amazon link, creature of habit)
Sounds like a good read, thanks!
There is a lot more group think mentality these days. It has caught on like wild fire and very obvious over the last 5+ years. Just repeat something enough times and people suck it up. There is also so much addiction whether it is all the usual vices or even the one of 'poor me'. Largely, a lot of folks have no positive guiding force. A lot of time is wasted on their phones finding out what their so-called friends are doing. I don't even think they have the awareness to know they are on the 'group think train to nowhere'.
Very good points...
Pretty close to Dugan and the 4th way.
Just put that book on my wish list...
A very thoughtful piece ! On the subject of gender / trans and other issues under the broad umbrella of “ woke “ it would “ appear “ that we are correcting back to the common sense middle / right ! Perhaps this is wishful thinking or more agenda ? I am not so sure I think there is a growing sense of folks feeling duped by all this nonsense including the Covid scam .
I wish I could see the "growing sense of folks"...I do not, yet. But of course I don't come in contact with everyone in the world!
I don't think many people who are tired of the trans issue reject entirely people just "being who they are"...if they think they are a woman, but born as a man, so what. Just leave me out of it.
The problem comes in, obviously, with legislation, medical interventions, advocation of such nonsense identifications in the school system, in the psychology professions (it is against federal law in Canada to advocate biological sex when working with someone who identifies with something that is not biological, i.e., "gender affirming care".)
Not to mention the cultural focus on all of this, with "proper" pronouns, hate crime accusations, "my right to identify with what I choose to identify with, and my right to be protected by law as such." This creates a "social contagion"...being a different sex than what you born with becomes a badge of social honor—"standing up for one's civil rights", a means to popularity, etc. All this has to sop, obviously.
The French philosopher Jacques Ellul claimed "The world's will is always a will to death, a will to suicide." When I look around at all the progress, which is resulting in ecological destruction, it seems like he was right.
You make a very important point here, and it truly lays at the foundation of the madness of the world. Freud said it too when describing the "Todestrieb", or "death drive". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive)
Yes, you are correct about usage of "we"...I do grapple with this occasionally, but usually don't think much of it. WE are all in this boat together, if any individual does not include themselves in the "we" that I describe, then they should just know I am not talking about them, "moi??" one might say, and if they don't fit the criteria, then "no, not you."
I think it is important to include everyone (with the subjective pronoun "we") because we all are, indeed, in the human race (except for maybe the lizard-people). We are all capable of being included in the group I am describing, and we should all do some introspection when reading my articles that use "we" indiscriminately. If you don't fit, then fine, replace the word "we" with the word "they"...and be done with it.
If I did not use "we," and used "they" instead, there are many who would fit in the "they" but would not believe it, and thus not consider it. It would also make very awkward reading.
Are you still a member of the human race?
that what?
I loved the candied cigarettes...what a brilliant invention...and yo yo's were wonderful too...never got into pet rocks...guess I was too old when they made their debut.