To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Andy Dunn's Blog » EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Andy Dunn's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/andydunn
Bio: (More)

All Dunn Blogs

Recent Dunn Content

Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

By Andy Dunn at Aug 20, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+

Much thanks for the response Peeperkorn. I'm afraid I'm only getting a glimpse of what you're conveying about values, though; I'd need the specific example. My academic knowledge on the moral dualism subject is limited--I've read about it sporadically and thought about it more than a bit.

Now, I'm going to jump in over my head and see how badly I drown. It seems that related to the moral dualism discussion is the following supposition (which may be obvious or may be fallacy): it is only abstractions which seem to fall into dualistic categories, whereas concrete objects and time-space specific events don't--i.e., there's no opposite of a tree or a baseball game. While attributes of concrete things and events can be categorized according to a relative duality (left-right, hot-cold, light-dark), there's no absolute to this except in the (abstract) of the Kelvin scale extremes. That said, I'm not sure of the exact relevance of this to my argument that the concept of ultimate Good and Evil is dangerous, stupid, and ubiquitous in our culture. I'm not saying that abstract concepts don't have concrete application or that they are inferior to real world descriptors. I guess I'm just saying that forcing dualistically absolute abstractions onto human morality (actions)--or even worse onto human beings (objects)--just won't work. There's a gulf between the abstract conceptualizing of idealized polar extremes and biology, or even geology. I'd planned on touching on this in my critique of fundamentalism, although focusing more in that blog on the symbolic nature of words and language and how fundamentalists don't get the basics. Hopefully, I'll get to that sometime.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (5)

Person

By Cra008, Peeperkorn at Aug 21, 2004 10:29 AM
Don't worry what my position is. I hope to provoke thought. I appear to make a case for this or that. You can respond to what's evident to you. If what I meant is elsewise, it oughtn't vex you. I'll sharpen up. I should go to sleep now.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

By Cra008, Peeperkorn at Aug 21, 2004 09:57 AM
The "we can agree" sentence doesn't help the argument from my perspective. It might seem to, if you were one of the arguers. They open with Freedom and Life opposed. They expand to Innocence/Guilt and Justice, touching on Fairness. In another context the dilemma values and tie-breakers could interchange. "I'm wondering in regard to the abortion debate..." No, I'm not. I'm saying many lives have been saved or lost, with no more sound reasoning than I've aped. The internal consistency reminds me of a shell game. You'll see consistency focusing on one value, chaos when you seek coherent relations between them. I would hope to show: you placed value X in relation to value Y in order to prove such-and-such decision was moral. Later, you violated that relationship to prove something else. Any comment on the first ruling? If some rhetor uses Justice to tie-break a moral dilemma posited as Respect for Freedom vs. Respect for Life, can we carry this forward to the next dilemma? The war in Iraq perhaps? It's unlikely on several levels. The first being that moral consistency is inconvenient. Which explains why Chomsky is so hated.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

By Wheres, Dude at Aug 21, 2004 06:25 AM
Peeperkorn, could you clarify something for me. You gave this excerpt from a pro-choicer: P.C.: We can agree on something then. Our abortion debate isn't just about valuing life over freedom or vice versa. As far as the abortion debate goes could you explain how this helps the argument? They are still being internally consistent with their position of protecting innocent human life, no? I understand showing how the dichotomy they are constructing is not absolute as far as judging a criminal by their worst act and a fetus before the age of moral reason, but in regard to the statement posed by the pro-choicer above, wouldn't the pro-lifer just say, "Right, we are judging innocent life versus freedom." Yes, it may not be actually innocent (though on the same token the freedom in question might actually be a coerced act to some extent) but I guess I'm wondering in regard to the abortion debate, are you willing to rely on this false dualism argumentation? I'd bet they'd be willing to take that on, I know I would've when I was pro-life. Of course Andy any thoughts, go for it. It is, after all, your blog. Don't let punks like me run roughshod over it. :coolsmile:

Reply this comment

Person

Re: EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

By Cra008, Peeperkorn at Aug 20, 2004 12:03 PM
The convict may be concretely guilty of specific crimes. Our tendency is to judge his moral character on that basis. He becomes a wrongdoer, absolutely, abstractly, and this bears directly on his life's worth. The fetus has no capacity for moral action. She has potential for wrongdoing, but this can't impinge on her absolute innocence. Because she can't act, but she's human, her life's value is as infinite as the convict's is void. So the abstract innocence/guilt duality is the wedge issue I referred to, which when attached to concrete things, seems to resolve a moral dilemma about how to treat them. But this is only apparent since no objective, ongoing relation between abstract categories like "guilty" and "free" has been established. These terms' association with concrete persons was just situational after all, as was their relation to each other. "I guess I'm just saying that forcing dualistically absolute abstractions onto human morality (actions)--or even worse onto human beings (objects)--just won't work."

Reply this comment

Person

Re: EvilDoers & DoGooders 2: The Concrete & Abstract

By Cra008, Peeperkorn at Aug 20, 2004 12:02 PM
I am not an academic, but I read. My post came from memory and imagination. The example (for better or worse) involved abortion. Not because I want to discuss it, but because it was a useful topic that people are familiar with. I can't deal with all the angles. But the example requires only a simplified debate: The pro-lifer says an innocent human life matters more than a woman's right to choice. The pro-choicer responds, you're inconsistent: I've heard you advocate capital punishment. P.L.: I said an innocent life, which a fetus certainly is. P.C.: So a guilty person's life isn't sacrosanct? We already agree that personal freedom isn't. P.L.: No, justice demands that the guilty are punished and the innocent protected. P.C.: We can agree on something then. Our abortion debate isn't just about valuing life over freedom or vice versa. End of example. The lives of the convict and the fetus are equally concrete. Their guilt and innocence are more nuanced than the argument allows. But the dilemma of whether it's fair for them to die is resolved as if they're absolutely this or that. [to be continued in a second post]

Reply this comment

Loading_border