I have written about this exact concept back in 2007 and am basing a large part of my current thinking on the subsequent development of the idea. The original core posts are at:
Relativistic irrationality -> http://www.jame5.com/?p=15
Absolute irrationality -> http://www.jame5.com/?p=45
Respect as basis for interaction with other agents -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=8
Compassion as rationaly moral consequence -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=10
Obligation for maintaining diplomatic relations -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=11
A more recent rewrite: Oneness – an attempt at formulating an a priori argument -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=328
Rational Spirituality -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=132
My essay that I based on the above post and subsequently submitted as part of my GradDip Art in Anthropology and Social Theory at the Uni Melbourne:
The Logic of Spiritual Evolution -> http://rationalmorality.info/?p=341
Really? I thought it consisted mostly of elites retorting straw men and ignoring any strong arguments of those lower in status until such time as they died or retired. The lower status engage in sound arguments while biding their time till it is their chance to do the ignoring and in so doing iterate the level of ignorance one generation forward.
You will find that this is pretty much what Kuhn says.
Brilliant post Wei.
Historical examination of scientific progress is much less of a gradual ascent towards a better understanding upon the presentation of a superior argument (Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery) but much more a irrational insistence on a set of assumptions as unquestionable dogma until the dam finally burst under the enormous pressures that kept building (Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Thanks for that Anna. I could only find two of the five Academic talks and journal articles you mentioned online. Would you mind posting all of them online and point me to where I will be able to access them?
2) You cannot write a book that will be published under EY's name.
Its called ghost writing :-) but then again the true value add lies in the work and not in the identity of the author. (discarding marketing value in the case of celebrities)
Your reading into connotation a bit too much.
I do not think so - am just being German :-) about it: very precise and thorough.
In general: Because my time can be used to do other things which your time cannot be used to do; we are not fungible.
This statement is based on three assumptions: 1) What you are doing instead is in fact more worthy of your attention than your contribution here 2) I could not do what you are doing as least as well as you 3) I do not have other things to do that are at least as worthy of my time
None of those three I am personally willing to grant at this point. But surely that is not the case for all the others around here.
Gravity is a force of nature too. It's time to reach escape velocity before the planet is engulfed by a black hole.
Interesting analogy - it would be correct if we would call our alignment with evolutionary forces achieving escape velocity. What one is doing by resisting evolutionary pressures however is constant energy expenditure while failing to reach escape velocity. Like hovering a space shuttle at a constant altitude of 10 km: no matter how much energy you brig along, eventually the boosters will run out of fuel and the whole thing comes crushing down.
My apologies for failing to see that - did not mean to be antagonizing - just trying to be honest and forthright about my state of mind :-)
More recent criticism comes from Mike Treder - managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies in his article "Fearing the Wrong Monsters" => http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/treder20091031/
Why am I being downvoted?
Sorry for the double post.