> Psypher,
> Lighten up!
...okay.
It was only a quip! And ME at the top of the pyramid? I
> dont think so.
...I do.
>Position of priveledge?
...you're educated, literate, with ready access to high technology, residing in the nation which serves as this globes sociopolitical, commercial and managerial nexus. You have ample leisure time, are relatively free from the opressive actions of the corporation and state and are encouraged to indulge your natural proclivities without restriction or restraint.
>Wealth? NOT!
...you have sovereignty over the disposal of your resources. You have
"disopsable income". You have instant access through a global
telecommunications net to the latest developments of humyn
technology. You are able to spend a significant proportion of your
time in pursuit of activities which fulfil and enhance your worldview
and appreciation for life.
...there are no restraints on the potential diversity and structure
of your diet, your exposure to information, your ability to expand
and make use of your position - you are wealthy, you are in a
position of incredible priviledge and power.
Just another
> explorer like you
...and I too, despite the fact that I live on under $7500 Canadian a year, despite the fact that I often go a day or two without substantial food and despite the fact that I'm deliberately and systematically excluded from the decision making process of the commercial/state complex which controls access to and distribution of resources in the global common, I am in a position of vast, almost incalculable wealth and priviledge.
, only with a lot more years and a lot less
> schooling AND a sponge for a brain. Give it to me, baby!
...what is it you're looking for? Books? Online resources? Radio? Television? Music? Places to go?
> Policy and responsibility? I have a libertarian viewpoint.
...of course you do. You have the experience of liberty. Wonderful, isn't it. How much liberty can you have before you start taking away the liberty of someone else?
I
> disagree with the PC from "liberals" and "moral correctness" from
> the "conservatives".
...so anything that challenges your comfortable contentment with your lot then?
I would be considered amoral by absolutist
> standards.
...by what standards would you be considered moral?
As with all the talk of "truth" being contextual, and
> embedded in a frame of reference, that is how I approach morality.
...what's your frame of reference then?
> "Thou shalts"......... can be amended with "except for......."
> continuously. Absolutists have fits with this concept.
...and moral relativism of this sort is a form of apologetics for laziness and wilful ignorance.
> We may be saying the same thing and I dont know it.
...I'm not sure what you're saying.
Some of you
> virians are brilliant AND educated. As others have said, your
> conversation is quite complex. Anyone dropping in would think they
> landed on another planet. I happen to love it.
...I'd be happier if people suddenly had the experience of landing on THIS planet... :)
> My "quip" was meant to illicit a response, with the humor in mind.
> I would prefer the middle ground for social policy, of course.
...isn't "policy" a form of "thou shalt"?
-psypher