Megalomaniacally Replaying the Errors

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

I dug up a Nobel Prize for Literature acceptance speech this morning I got a kick out of and this being an artists board and everything, thought some of you might too. the guy's name is Günter Grass. I haven't read any of his books.

Here's a clip from near the end of "To Be Continued ..."

Quote:
...

Just as the Nobel Prize – once we divest it of its ceremonial garb – has its roots in the invention of dynamite, which like such other human headbirths as the splitting of the atom and the likewise Nobelified classification of the gene has wrought both weal and woe in the world, so literature has an explosive quality at its root, though the explosions literature releases have a delayed-action effect and change the world only in the magnifying glass of time, so to speak, it too wreaking cause for both joy and lamentation here below. How long did it take the European Enlightenment from Montaigne to Voltaire, Diderot, Kant, Lessing, and Lichtenberg to introduce a flicker of reason into the dark corners of scholasticism? And even that flicker often died in the process, a process censorship went a long way towards inhibiting. But when the light finally did brighten things up, it turned out to be the light of cold reason, limited to the technically doable, to economic and social progress, a reason that claimed to be enlightened but that merely drummed a reason-based jargon (which amounted to instructions for making progress at all costs) into its offspring, capitalism and socialism (which were at each other's throats from the word go).

Today we can see what those brilliant failures who were the Enlightenment's offspring have wrought. We can see what a dangerous position its delayed-action, word-detonated explosion has hurled us into. And if we are trying to repair the damage with Enlightenment tools, it is only because we have no others. We look on in horror as capitalism – now that his brother, socialism, has been declared dead – rages unimpeded, megalomaniacally replaying the errors of the supposedly extinct brother. It has turned the free market into dogma, the only truth, and intoxicated by its all but limitless power, plays the wildest of games, making merger after merger with no goal than to maximize profits. No wonder capitalism is proving as impervious to reform as the communism that managed to strangle itself. Globalization is its motto, a motto it proclaims with the arrogance of infallibility: there is no alternative.

Accordingly, history has come to an end. No more "To Be Continued ...", no more suspense. Though perhaps there is hope that if not politics, which has abdicated its decision-making power to economics, then at least literature may come up with something to cause the "new dogmatism" to falter.

How can subversive writing be both dynamite and of literary quality? Is there time enough to wait for the delayed action? Is any book capable of supplying a commodity in so short supply as the future? Is it not rather the case that literature is currently retreating from public life and that young writers are using the internet as a playground? A standstill, to which the suspicious word "communication" lends a certain aura, is making headway. Every scrap of time is planned down to the last nervous breakdown. A cultural industry vale of tears is taking over the world. What is to be done?

My godlessness notwithstanding, all I can do is bend my knee to a saint who has never failed me and cracked some of the hardest nuts. "O Holy and (through the grace of Camus) Nobelified Sisyphus! May thy stone not remain at the top of the hill, may we roll it down again and like thee continue to rejoice in it, and may the story told of the drudgery of our existence have no end. Amen."

...

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Quote:
It has turned the free market into dogma, the only truth, and intoxicated by its all but limitless power,

And it's funny that there is no such thing as a 'free' market, at least not one that I've seen in my lifetime. And I can't imagine anyone actually being a proponent of one. I mean, child labor would be perfectly fine under 'free' market capitalism. Hiring illegal immigrants would be great. Unsafe conditions at work or monopolies would be just fine. That's a truly free market economy. If anyone believes that ethics should be in play then a whole slew of concepts arise as to what it means to be an ethical businessman. Does it mean providing your employees and their families with living wages? Or quality health care? Is there even a line of what is ethical?

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "Is there even a line of what is ethical?"

No. And without a common set of moral values, there never will be one.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Can you set them?

We have come to a commonly understood application of business ethics through legal enforcement. For instance, you can't rob the pension fund for personal gain. Businesses must meet minimum safety requirements. There is a minimum wage and age requirements.

These are the guidelines that have been agreed upon by our society primarily because business people left to their own devices are too often void of ethics.

Should the limits be more stringent? Less stringent?

Where should the basis of ethical/moral behavior in business come from?

I know that my ethical beliefs regarding business are much much higher than the legal code and probably much higher than most Americans. But should I be the guy who sets the standards for everyone else? Should you?

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

You're not really going to make me say where we need to look, are you?

ans · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 441

Satan?

bitwhys · Joined: 19 Nov 2004 Posts: 649

The lack of either a "common set of morals", if such is really the case, or a generally recognized ethical foundation is a logical extraction of the problem Grass is pointing out. The point he makes in his speech is we have abandoned responsibility and replaced it with an idolatry of the whims of the free-market, allowing what poses as "competition" to make our ethical decisions for us.

NRK, I agree. The free-market has to date been no more than a pipe dream. As Grass eludes to, its current one true claim to fame is its offspring hasn't collapsed yet the way the bastard child of its intellectual sibling Socialism did.

Edited by: bitwhys at: 10/13/05 15:00

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Quote:
You're not really going to make me say where we need to look, are you?

Well, why not say it?

You can fill us all in, what does the Bible say about business? What does it say about wages? What does it say about treating employees? What does it say about wealth? What does it say about someone who wants time off to have a baby? Are they allowed to keep their job? How about vacation time, is there some justified amount of time for vacation expressed in the Bible? What does the Bible say about the level of safety for workers? And what is a lost arm worth if it happened?

And can you effectively convince a Buddhist that he should follow the teachings of the Bible?

bitwhys, I believe that socialism hasn't collapsed, socialism is altering itself in the same way that capitalism is, slowly towards a mixed economic structure utilizing both free markets and social equity to acheive social goals. The US is doing the same thing, our capitalist system adds more and more socialist elements while socialist systems add more and more capitalist elements and eventually we'll find a good combination of the two.

But that's why I also think it's important for people to realize the idiocy of the loudest proponents of the free market. We don't have a free market, we haven't in a very long time and for good reason, it doesn't work. And when pundits start talking about the greatness of the freemarket (the idolatry) they need to be called out and told that they're an idiot.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "You can fill us all in, what does the Bible say about business? What does it say about wages? What does it say about treating employees? What does it say about wealth? What does it say about someone who wants time off to have a baby? Are they allowed to keep their job? How about vacation time, is there some justified amount of time for vacation expressed in the Bible? What does the Bible say about the level of safety for workers? And what is a lost arm worth if it happened?"

It's all there if one cares to look. Equity, kindness, fairness in dealings with others. These concepts would have to supplant profit as the main motivational concepts in all business dealings. If it were done, and we didn't live in such a litiginous society (which is a byproduct of a profit-based ethic), there would be no need for laws governing how to handle any situation you could think of...business or otherwise. If laws were made that could be upheld according to their spirit, and not the letter thereof, it would indeed be a credit to our society as well. But without the ethics derived from these Biblical morals to support the laws, the laws would be meaningless and unenforceable. There's always somebody looking for a loophole (with, again, personal gain as the motive). The love of money being the root of all evil, if done away with, would go a long way in bringing this about. Pipe-dream you say? Maybe so...but because of the Biblical morals themselves being absurd? No...because of the absurdity to the secular world of their implications to their way of thinking. Change must come from within...not from without.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

You say change must come from within, if that's true then it has nothing to do with the Bible or any other religious text.

The fact that people have written down things in books that are now passed off as divine doesn't in any way diminish the value of what they wrote. But as long as people don't have the ability of personal introspection to figure out what's right and wrong then we're doomed anyways. Utilizing religion or religious texts for the purpose of forcing morality on someone is inane and useless. The people who adhere to religious morality out of fear or out of the belief that it truly is the word of God is missing the entire point of human thought. We are capable of finding morality and ethics without any help or guidance, we can sit down and truly find it within, through introspection.

In fact, I would say that the Bible actually caused me five years of confusion over ethics and when I discarded that and all other religious texts, that's when I finally started to understand ethics and morality.

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "You say change must come from within, if that's true then it has nothing to do with the Bible or any other religious text."

LOL! Methinks you'll say anything just to be contradictory! I did not quote the Bible as a SOURCE of change, wise-guy...I quoted it as a model, whereby such a change that would not be left in the hands of men to squabble about could be made. It must be something external to men, or there will always be somebody trying to rewrite it to their own benefit (like laws). It must be something that stands on its own...unchanged...as the real truth is never changed. Only the words of men (laws) change.

NRK - "The fact that people have written down things in books that are now passed off as divine doesn't in any way diminish the value of what they wrote. But as long as people don't have the ability of personal introspection to figure out what's right and wrong then we're doomed anyways."

They were considered even more devine when they were written...not more so now.

As long as people are dependent upon their own abilities to figure things out, we're certainly going to be doomed. (Note that this doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to try. Wisdom is upheld in the Bible as something to be desired. Much in the books of Psalms and Proverbs was written by Solomon...according to the Bible, the wisest man who ever lived, or ever will live.) How many thousands of years have we been trying to get it right? How many times have we been successful, and for how long? We'll never be able to "figure things out for ourselves" unless truth becomes what is most upheld by all...beyond avarice, greed...and the love of money. (Note that this is unlikely to ever happen...now do you see why we'll never "figure things out"?) It's exactly why we need the Bible...it is external to mans desire to twist things to his own benefit. Even if we could figure things out, somebody would come along and mess it up to their own benefit. It is the fallen nature of man to be selfish.

NRK - "Utilizing religion or religious texts for the purpose of forcing morality on someone is inane and useless."

Who said forcing? That's not "from within", is it. It must be a personal decision...that's what "from within" means.

NRK - "We are capable of finding morality and ethics without any help or guidance, we can sit down and truly find it within, through introspection."

Maybe...maybe not. But WILL we? Nope...not even if we could. Not unless we got rid of all the other distracting motivations that lead us to make immoral decisions in our lives.

NRK - "In fact, I would say that the Bible actually caused me five years of confusion over ethics and when I discarded that and all other religious texts, that's when I finally started to understand ethics and morality."

You mean things became easier for you. Of this, I have no doubt. When we can rewrite morals according to our own desires, and they conflict with the morals of others, then are they really moral? Who is to say? Again, this is why we NEED an external source. And unless you have lived a thousand life-times and know all the possible ramifications of your own personal "moral" code, then how do you really know if it's moral or not? You don't. We must all accept our limitations as human beings. We must figure out what we can, of course...but not become so arrogant in our abilities of perception and thought to think that we have all the answers. We don't, and never will.

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

BTW, isn't this whole thread about how we keep making the same mistakes over and over?

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

So what you're saying is that all the introspection of the ages occurred mostly over 2000 years ago and there is nothing new to be learned. That the Bible has all the answers nailed. That the Bible doesn't have any fallacies or problematic issues when it comes to morality?

Hey, who knows, maybe God picked me out, gave me unbelievable powers of introspection and consciousness to bring the 'real' vision of his wishes rather than a bunch of dead guys who've been misinterpreted and misrepresented over the ages. Are you capable of telling me that's not true?

And maybe God isn't even the one in the Bible, there are lots of texts about morality and ethics that don't believe in a Christian God.

You have faith in something I will never believe in because it's not cohesive. It's lacking in soul and spirit. The Bible can't be right not if you look at it in any intellectual way. And if it is then there's no point to a human existence anyways. We're supposed to bow down to some pretense of a omniscent God who fails humans every single day? @#%$ that God. @#%$ the Bible. I would rather burn in Hell than worship such a dick, but I don't believe in a God who would send his children to an eternity of damnation and pain and essentially show them nothing but hate.

And unfortunately, history has shown that as long as the Bible is used as a 'guideline' for behavior, there is hatred, disrespect, violence and just mean horrible inhumane behavior by it's proponents. The Bible is responsible for more 'unethical' behavior than any other document on the planet. Doesn't seem like a place to look for behavioral guidelines.

We do agree on one thing. Greed cannot be used as a starting point for ethical behavior. I've been past that one for decades. I want for nothing. And if everything I have today was gone tomorrow, I would want for nothing. I'm going to die and I don't care about that. While I'm living I intend to focus on the good things, like love and kindness and the ability to give of myself.

And again, my ethical standards are probably higher than 99% of the people on this planet and they're not based on anything other than introspection. Maybe I have a direct line to God and he's giving me the tools I need to be a positive, healthy, happy human being who believes that if there is any purpose it's to try and make the world a kinder, more equitable, freer, better place to be.

And just one more question. How would you utilize the Bible as the authority for all people on this planet for their ethical behavior? How could you justify that without causing people spiritual/emotional pain? And is that ethical?

My music for the disenchanted masses

DreamTone7 · Joined: 20 Sep 2002 Posts: 2571

NRK - "Hey, who knows, maybe God picked me out, gave me unbelievable powers of introspection and consciousness to bring the 'real' vision of his wishes rather than a bunch of dead guys who've been misinterpreted and misrepresented over the ages."

When you get a bunch of people who agree with you to the extent that they revere you and acknowledge you as a profit, call me. (Though I do realize that cults start out the same way...please keep this in mind, as I certainly will.) In the meantime, would you care to substantiate your claims as to the "dead guys" being misinterpreted or misrepresented? Were you there? Do a little research on the translation process for the King James Bible...it's rare in the history of mankind that such great lengths have been gone to to maintain the accuracy of a written peice of work when translating.

NRK - "And maybe God isn't even the one in the Bible, there are lots of texts about morality and ethics that don't believe in a Christian God."

First of all, let's get one thing straight. God is God for both Christian and Jew alike. That being said, can you name any system of belief that resides wholly with one single god (I said "god"...not a man)? Not Mohammad (Islam)...not Bhudda...not the Hindu religion (which has several gods). Can you name one? If you can, we'll discuss it from there. (I should note that although Islam does follow one god, Allah, that the teachings they follow are actually from their prophet Mohammad...a man...and not the son of God as was Christ. I sometimes ponder if God and Allah are one and the same...but when a belief system follows a man and not God, then it is lost anyway. Christian teachings have been twisted in some cases...but this twisting comes from men, not the Bible. The Bible does not change, just as the truth does not.)

NRK - "You have faith in something I will never believe in because it's not cohesive. It's lacking in soul and spirit. The Bible can't be right not if you look at it in any intellectual way."

That is relying on your own understanding of all things. I talked about that in my last post.

NRK - "We're supposed to bow down to some pretense of a omniscent God who fails humans every single day?"

How do you know that He fails us? In order to know that, you would have to be able to see the future, and understand how all possible outcomes will/might have effect(ed) it. Pretty tall order for a mere man. Oh, I certainly do have some questions I would like to have answered...but I also have faith that the answers will make sense once I know them.

NRK - "...I don't believe in a God who would send his children to an eternity of damnation and pain and essentially show them nothing but hate."

That is your choice...you choose not to believe because the way things are is not to your liking perhaps? God has layed out the way things are...we make the choice in what we choose to do...and, therefor, where we choose to end up. It is our choice. God wants us to choose not to end up in damnation and pain...but again, it is our choice. Door #1 or door#2...we decide.

NRK - "And unfortunately, history has shown that as long as the Bible is used as a 'guideline' for behavior, there is hatred, disrespect, violence and just mean horrible inhumane behavior by it's proponents. The Bible is responsible for more 'unethical' behavior than any other document on the planet. Doesn't seem like a place to look for behavioral guidelines."

You're confusing the behavior of men with the Bible itself...which, physically speaking, is a book. The Bible itself is not responsible for the actions of men...men are. What you suggest is like saying a gun is responsible for killing people. A gun is just a gun.

Men twist things to their own agenda...we've already discussed this. But when people take resposibility for their own actions (including reading and understanding the Bible for themselves) it becomes very difficult for others who would do this to get people to follow them. If everybody read their Bible, this wouldn't happen nearly as often methinks...but again, we must all choose to follow what is in there. I cannot make that choice for another.

NRK - "And just one more question. How would you utilize the Bible as the authority for all people on this planet for their ethical behavior? How could you justify that without causing people spiritual/emotional pain? And is that ethical?"

I wouldn't. There's that "from within" thing again. People have to make the choice to follow what is in there...another cannot do this for them.

NRKofOver · Joined: 07 Sep 2002 Posts: 505

Quote:
There's that "from within" thing again. People have to make the choice to follow what is in there...another cannot do this for them.

And again, we're back to the beginning. I do not need the Bible for ethical understanding. You apparently believe people do even though it's working individually and 'within' it's still utilizing the Bible as an outside source of inspiration or understanding. And the conversation is essentially done because we both believe that men will never agree on one source for moral center. You believe it to be the Bible, I believe that could be the worst possible place to look. Without that being resolved, nothing can be resolved.

Like I said earlier, I believe ethics to be 'self-evident'. They are within us, all the time, all of us, regardless of our access to books or religion or anything. That's what God has endowed us with, an ability to understand things without outside influence, at least that's what I believe.

My music for the disenchanted masses