Your reply seems to meander like a convulted winding river
through several issues that repeat itself in different forms.
To be fair to you and your effort, your points
raised will require attention to the specific areas that you
have brought up with each new perspective to your previous stated
points.
Nobility is a result of experience and proper upbringing.
Parents play a fair greater part in that than any governments.
The experience in "NOBILITY" has been defined as
"the state or
quality of being exalted in character’ -
with the word "exalted" to mean as : "elevated in
rank, character, or status; or lofty, sublime; and exaggerated,
inflated"
Can such qualities be taught ?
Can this abstract "human spirit" experience in "NOBILITY"
be taught in a controlled environment - as I have asked in the
preceding post?
What in the world does pragmatism have to do with morals?
There's no connection at all. Pragmatism recognises morals as a
tool to provide ground rules for a stable society, moral denies
pragmatism as a valid way of looking at things.
Pragmatism recognises physical and biological constraints,
morals does not. They are both radically different perspectives in
a given scenario. As long as we exist in the physical world,
pragmatism will always make more sense.
Can life experience be of any values when morals are abandon in
favor of pragmatism ?
Is it not odd that you should emphatically state
that - "There's no
connection at all" - between "pragmatism" and "morals" ?
Yet you will follow on with your statement that
"pragmatism" recognises
"morals" as a "tool" to provide ground rules for a stable
society ?
You prefer to see "morals" as a "tool" to mould others in some
pragmatic ways, and clearly showed the moral flaws in your
character, as had been so clearly seen in the
moral flaws in LKY's pragmatism - as you have stated in your
earlier reply when stating that you do not see the
pragmatic LKY as any "moral hero".
Do you have morals ?
Without morals can you teach anyone the sense of "NOBILITY"
?
Yet you will 'boast' that "Pragmatism recognises physical and biological
constraints, morals does not"; and claimed that "They are both radically different
perspectives in a given scenario."
Are you correct ?
In a given scenario, a pragmatic person will forsake morals and
rule in favor of an expedient solution irregardless of
the pain caused.
While in the same scenario, a moral person guided by
his higher sense of values in the humanities will find a
solution that will be just, equitable, and acceptable.
Yes, "pragmatism" and "morals" will look at the same scenario
from their different values - can "pragmatic" values be
superior to "moral" values in guiding us in the physical world
?
Is pragmatism the only way forward to live LIFE in a physical
world ?
Where are your values ?
Do you have any morals ?
If Parents play a far greater role than the Government - without
morals as a guide and only depending on pragmatism - can
Parents living in a physical world impart any influence to instil a
sense of "NOBILITY" to the next generation ?
Because we live in a multi racial society surrounded by
countries whose politicians already like using us to score
political points. I enjoy talking with their citizens, but
politicans are never a reasonable bunch.
Because we are descended from lowly educated labourers and
required laws to make sure we don't resort to irresponsible
behaviour against people we disagree with. Violent culture is a far
harder thing to rid ourselves of when the other guy has a different
skin color and language.
Your narrow views and feelings are a result of the
missing moral fibre in accepting others who have
different skin colors and speak in different languages.
It is a result of too much reliance on pragmatism in living in a
physical world - as you have so clearly stated in your previous
paragraph.
Oh don't start playing the bloody victim here Atobe. I have
always been willing to parttake in meaningful debate with others
with different viewpoints. I recognise that i'm ignorant and
welcome new perspectives.You, however hide behind the ignorant
Singaporeans logic and lash out at anyone who disagrees.
How have I played the role of a victim ?
I am amused at your view.
As a victim, can I lash out at anyone who disagree
with me; or should I not be more intimidated ?
Why do you not simply "parttake in meaningful debate" instead of
taking umbrage in your pragmatic method
of defensively lashing out when your view points
have been dissected at each point - so that each has been given its
due measure of attention ?
What i dislike, is dealing with hysteria when i put forward a
viewpoint that is different. What i dislike, is having my posts
dissected to the extent that the original meaning is lost. What i
dislike most of all, is having to debate with people who refuses to
see any common ground with people who disagrees with them.
You are not even willing to respect a person with differing
viewpoints, so don't claim the moral highground.
Can the meaning of your message be so easily lost when
dissected ?
The roots of your message must have not been well thought
out when you cannot even hold them together.
Common ground can only be found as our differing views are
crystallized and narrowed to the point where our positions have
reached logical and pragmatic ground - that need not be based on
morality if it has no values for you.
Have I even hinted any claim of the moral highground, or are you
beginning to waver in your pragmatic lofty
ideas hung from soft clouds ?
About Bush and Cheney, incorrect. My pragmatism acknowledges
that wars cost more than they are worth and a policing action is
far more difficult to maintain than a military action.Yet they did
it, because they felt it was morally correct for America to remain
the dominant superpower in the world.
Is it moral to go into a war based on murky reasons ?
Your pragmatism will probably place the financial cost
of war more important than the moral cost of lives lost in the
war.
Your thoughts are beginning to be seen
as laughable and leave pragmatism out when you clearly
show a total lack of experience in discerning political events
Moral correctness does far more damage than pragmatism.
Religious wars are fought over moral correctness, racial
discrimination comes from moral correctness. The constant
tendancies to demolish regimes because they're not pro American
gains its strength from moral correctness over no Democracy.
Terrorism, comes from people who wants moral correctness but has
neither the economic or miltary strength to do so.
Have religious wars been fought over moral values, or over
religious idealogies ?
Is racial discrimination a result of moral correctness, or
is racial discrimination a result of selfish racist
interests, prejudices, and the pragmatism in emphasising
differences rather than taking the more difficult route of
acceptance based on what is morally correct ?
You are assuming that i believe the PAP and LKY to be a morally
upright government, that they have no skeletons in their closets.
Incorrect, i have always regarded governments as no better than
gangs i do not believe that there are no backhanded dealings within
the PAP.
You seem to have a habit of making assumptions of what I am
assuming about your position. Seriously, I have better things to
think of after replying to your silly positions taken in
your clearly printed statements.
For all your disclaimers in embracing LKY and the PAP, you
have an odd way of displaying any contradiction in the
mirror image of your stated pragmatism and lack of
moral guidance that are preferred by LKY and his PAP.
Does anyone need to waste time making assumptions about you
?
I work in the Creative industry, so don't pull out this Human
Creativity crap when you obviously have so little dealings with it.
Creativity comes from an actual formal education, not from this
vague "freedom" you talk about. Da Vinci is both a scientist and an
artist.
True masterpieces are not made by splashing pails of paint at a
canvas. They are made through hard research and experimentation
like all other fields.
Does one little YOU make all of the Human Creativity ?
How long have you been in this industry ?
It is pathetic that with you in the Creative industry, Singapore
is nowhere making any larger impact or contribution to the World
Community.
For a creative person, you seems to have an inability to
accept the very differences in people and LIFE, and have a
superfluous potency in making all the assumptions about others.
As much as Creativity depends on some form of formal
education and transfer of ideas and encouragement, the final
productive accounting will depend on the net absorption and
development of inspirational creativity in the student.
It is quite clear by now that your dependence on
formal education in Creativity - which you have boastfully
claimed - has shown the clear and defined lines of structured
pragmatic thoughts, instead of the more potent and virile ideals
based on stronger moral fabric.
Can you be creative when relying only on pragmatism ?
Can you be creative when you are afraid to thread on moral
values ?
Can you be creative when you are trapped in the cocoon of
structured forms that provide you with the imagined safety away
from the multitude of differences in skin colors, languages, and
foreign ideas ?
You are a product of LKY and his straight jacketed
pragmatism.
Go ahead and try to find real creativity through your pragmatic
hard research and experimentation - forget about moral
inspiration.
Is it any wonder that there are insufficient numbers
of Singaporeans with 'moral fibre' to stand up to the nonsense
propagated by LKY ?
If the world have similarly few number of strong characters
with 'moral fibre' - will there have been new world discovered;
will there be any science and industry existed when those
without moral fibres allow themselves to be beaten by skepticism
and ridicule to their radicalistic creativity ?
Try reading the following : "Singapore:
The Missing T in Creativity"
