Gyroscopic Investing

In brief: We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They foreswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

Campbell and Manning describe how this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized. It is the very presence of such administrative bodies, within a culture that is highly egalitarian and diverse (i.e., many college campuses) that gives rise to intense efforts to identify oneself as a fragile and aggrieved victim.
[...]
The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.
[...]
Remember that the moral concepts each side invokes are not free-floating ideas; they are reflections of social organization. Microaggression complaints and other specimens of victimhood occur in atomized and diverse settings that are fairly egalitarian except for the presence of strong and stable authority.

It would also be fruitful to examine whether the subjects students are studying correlates with their enthusiasm for this kind of activism. My hypothesis would be that students are far more likely to sign on to this kind of social status-seeking hysteria when they begin to realize that their choice of major has placed them on the express escalator towards downward social mobility.

As the horrible realization forms that today’s economy has little need for (and places a correspondingly low value on) certain majors, students desperately cast about for some means to justify their existence and bolster their social status and self-esteem. Social activist enthusiasms, especially when in the immediate local area and are producible from any ‘microaggression’ that comes to hand, offer an almost effortlessly convenient solution.

Pointedstick wrote: A highly relevant comment:

It would also be fruitful to examine whether the subjects students are studying correlates with their enthusiasm for this kind of activism. My hypothesis would be that students are far more likely to sign on to this kind of social status-seeking hysteria when they begin to realize that their choice of major has placed them on the express escalator towards downward social mobility.

As the horrible realization forms that today’s economy has little need for (and places a correspondingly low value on) certain majors, students desperately cast about for some means to justify their existence and bolster their social status and self-esteem. Social activist enthusiasms, especially when in the immediate local area and are producible from any ‘microaggression’ that comes to hand, offer an almost effortlessly convenient solution.

Mountaineer wrote: When people have no commonly held objective source of truth, chaos ensues;

Fred wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: When people have no commonly held objective source of truth, chaos ensues;

That sounds like a subtle attempt to inject religion into the thread so I should probably ignore it but I can't help myself. Do you think all the chaos in the middle east is because they do not have a commonly held objective source of truth?

Mountaineer wrote:

Fred wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: When people have no commonly held objective source of truth, chaos ensues;

That sounds like a subtle attempt to inject religion into the thread so I should probably ignore it but I can't help myself. Do you think all the chaos in the middle east is because they do not have a commonly held objective source of truth?

Yes to your question.

... M

Fred wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Fred wrote: That sounds like a subtle attempt to inject religion into the thread so I should probably ignore it but I can't help myself. Do you think all the chaos in the middle east is because they do not have a commonly held objective source of truth?

Yes to your question.

... M

I'm going to guess  that you don't think just any commonly held objective source of truth will do.

Mountaineer wrote:

Fred wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Yes to your question.

... M

I'm going to guess  that you don't think just any commonly held objective source of truth will do.

Actually, I do think ANY commonly held objective source will do as long as it is held by the bulk of the culture.  The problem is that when a "culture" holds a diversity of beliefs, chaos ensues.  I think this plays out today with what is commonly called "postmodernism" where each individual's beliefs are held as equally valid.  That is what I think devolves into self-righteousness or whatever term you wish to call it.  In religious terms, it is hetrodox vs. orthodox, shia vs. shite, hindu vs. muslim, reformed vs. lutheran, atheist vs. believer, protestant vs. Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman catholic, etc., etc.  Our Western culture has fought religious wars over different beliefs, as has the Eastern culture of the various sects of Muslims, Hindus, etc.  That is why I said if cultures do not hold (at least in a significant majority) to a commonly held objective external source of truth, chaos ensues.  At least it seems that is the way it has and is playing out.

How do you see it?  I very well may have blinders on and other more "root" causes could be in play.

... M

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Fred wrote: I'm going to guess  that you don't think just any commonly held objective source of truth will do.

Actually, I do think ANY commonly held objective source will do as long as it is held by the bulk of the culture.  The problem is that when a "culture" holds a diversity of beliefs, chaos ensues.  I think this plays out today with what is commonly called "postmodernism" where each individual's beliefs are held as equally valid.  That is what I think devolves into self-righteousness or whatever term you wish to call it.  In religious terms, it is hetrodox vs. orthodox, shia vs. shite, hindu vs. muslim, reformed vs. lutheran, atheist vs. believer, protestant vs. Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox vs. Roman catholic, etc., etc.  Our Western culture has fought religious wars over different beliefs, as has the Eastern culture of the various sects of Muslims, Hindus, etc.  That is why I said if cultures do not hold (at least in a significant majority) to a commonly held objective external source of truth, chaos ensues.  At least it seems that is the way it has and is playing out.

How do you see it?  I very well may have blinders on and other more "root" causes could be in play.

... M

Ok, so a community that was composed primarily of Scientologists would be a good place to live?

Mountaineer wrote:
If you are a Scientologist.  The issue is "diversity" of beliefs.  Devolves into anarchy - chaos - when the beliefs are widely different.  Thoughts?

... M

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:
If you are a Scientologist.  The issue is "diversity" of beliefs.  Devolves into anarchy - chaos - when the beliefs are widely different.  Thoughts?

... M

First of all, "anarchy" != "chaos". That equivalence is government propaganda, reaching way back to when disbelievers in the "divine right of kings" were called "anarchists".

To get back to the main point, I believe the only behavior (not even a belief as such) required for living together in harmony is a very simple one, common to all major religions and philosophical systems.

It's called the Golden Rule.

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:
If you are a Scientologist.  The issue is "diversity" of beliefs.  Devolves into anarchy - chaos - when the beliefs are widely different.  Thoughts?

... M

First of all, "anarchy" != "chaos". That equivalence is government propaganda, reaching way back to when disbelievers in the "divine right of kings" were called "anarchists".

To get back to the main point, I believe the only behavior (not even a belief as such) required for living together in harmony is a very simple one, common to all major religions and philosophical systems.

It's called the Golden Rule.

OK.  But isn't that a commonly held belief with some sort of external sourced commonly held belief?

... M

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: First of all, "anarchy" != "chaos". That equivalence is government propaganda, reaching way back to when disbelievers in the "divine right of kings" were called "anarchists".

To get back to the main point, I believe the only behavior (not even a belief as such) required for living together in harmony is a very simple one, common to all major religions and philosophical systems.

It's called the Golden Rule.

OK.  But isn't that a commonly held belief with some sort of external sourced commonly held belief?

... M

I'm not sure what you are asking.
My point was that as long as people follow the Golden Rule, they can live in harmony even if their belief systems are different.

Explaining that yoga has a fraught history, the representative continued.

“Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced and what practices from what cultures (which are often sacred spiritual practices) they are being taken from,” the e-mail read. “Many of these cultures are cultures that have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy, and we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves and while practicing yoga.”

The upshot: no more down dog.

Scharf said she understood, but tried to emphasize that her class was “just stretching.”

Xan wrote: The supposed "appropriation" of yoga is obviously bunk, but I really would prefer if they would offer "stretching classes" rather than "yoga classes", so that I would know they're not espousing some kind of Hindu mysticism.

moda0306 wrote: We should start a stretching thread... I've been doing it before bed lately and it's about the most relaxing thing I've ever experienced.  15 minutes and I feel like jello floating on a cloud.

Mountaineer wrote:   Cultures, over time, tend to descend into a self-righteousness based mess before recovering to interdependency. 

Maddy wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:   Cultures, over time, tend to descend into a self-righteousness based mess before recovering to interdependency. 

Based upon the evolution of culture during the 20th and 21st centuries, one could easily conclude that the disintegration of society is a one-way street from which there is no possibility of return short of a catastrophic "reset."  I would be curious to hear, from those with a better grasp on history than I, whether there are any historical examples of cultures moving in a more or less orderly way from a state of social disintegration, rampant narcissism, and moral relativism toward a state of cohesivensss, interdependence, and shared values--and what factors paved the way for that transition.  Or does the law of entropy somehow require that catastrophic reset?

Maddy wrote: Based upon the evolution of culture during the 20th and 21st centuries, one could easily conclude that the disintegration of society is a one-way street from which there is no possibility of return short of a catastrophic "reset."  I would be curious to hear, from those with a better grasp on history than I, whether there are any historical examples of cultures moving in a more or less orderly way from a state of social disintegration, rampant narcissism, and moral relativism toward a state of cohesivensss, interdependence, and shared values--and what factors paved the way for that transition.  Or does the law of entropy somehow require that catastrophic reset?

MachineGhost wrote:

Maddy wrote: Based upon the evolution of culture during the 20th and 21st centuries, one could easily conclude that the disintegration of society is a one-way street from which there is no possibility of return short of a catastrophic "reset."  I would be curious to hear, from those with a better grasp on history than I, whether there are any historical examples of cultures moving in a more or less orderly way from a state of social disintegration, rampant narcissism, and moral relativism toward a state of cohesivensss, interdependence, and shared values--and what factors paved the way for that transition.  Or does the law of entropy somehow require that catastrophic reset?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

This is our greatest triumph as a species.

Mountaineer wrote: That was the majority opinion .... until WWI came along.  That may have been when the myth of coexist actually died - long before the love generation or the bumper sticker tried to resurrect the myth.  As Cher says, and the beat goes on....., and the beat goes on.