Thank you Pedro, for moving us along to the new topic.
I will add just these final remarks from myself.
Thank you Gordana for your far reaching thoughts.
Humanity is indeed in the process of becoming aware of
it's commitments to concurrent alternative tiers of
'integrity' - those it has already been part of,
and those it is capable of allieging to by conscious
commitment and volition. As well as learning how -
if at all possible - to coordinate the groupings
already developed.
Dialogue is the only way to achieve aspirations
of safety and peace - the state of existence we
intuit is best for long term individual/group
growth and advancement. But Dialogue requires
a criteria - extending respect and value to
companion participants - who are bringing alternative
life-choices and cultural modes to the forum.
To pre-judge 'differences' as being 'inferiorities',
is to doom any efforts to failure before even beginning.
Every person or group brings to a forum its own confidence
in itself - it -knows- it's own 'integrity'. It may
not believe in the integrity sets of others, but
communication and any possible coordination of these
integrity groupings, requires allowing that others have
as much innate dignity and worth as one does oneself.
Then and only then can coordination begin, let alone
be accomplished.
That is the real-time-experienced part of coping
with social & cultural integrities.
An arm's length analysis gives us a different
perspective however. It's well understood in
biology that the healthiest eco-systems aren't
the ones wholly uniform every where - but are
the ones where there is diversity : coordinated
but quite distinctive and individually unique.
Interactions happen, but on narrow limited basese.
If any one imposes on any other - a peace-state of sorts
occurs - but stagnation can set in for the long term.
Or, vulnerability .. if lack of engagements with
test-scenario situations prevent new-learnings and
responce-abilities that may be important, if only latent.
In general, from my research, "integrity" is a potentially
important meme in the understanding of how systems function,
operate, and experience. Be it within given tiers, or, between
nested emerged-tier levels. For General Systems analysis,
I believe it to be a key notion
I reference my website
<http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/>
for anyone interested in reading and contacting
me off-list for conversation.
As regards 'information', one last thought for your
consideration: it is not only susceptible to 'translation'
but to 'transduction' as well; and extensive coding or masking.
At the moment, our primary analytical tool - mathematics -
is not fully equipped to deal with the inter-/intra-
emerged-tiered transductions of information.
A lot of conversation will go wanting, until those
needed math-operators are discerned/developed.
All best to everyone,
James Rose
Ceptual Institute
2006 May 13
> Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
>
> “At the very best, your definition/inference holds only when
singular societal
> value sets are the criteria for judgment. A general attachment of
'integrity'
> with morals is improper.” James Rose
>
> Here I think we have an important distinction that is good to make having
in
> mind the rapid process of globalization that is going on. It is also
relevant
> for Alex’s remarks.
>
> It seems to me that one of the central issues right now is that of a
dialogue.
> There are importantly different ethical points of view within different
> societies. There are different judgments dependent on how you set your
> values/priorities. To me, the most reasonable way to solve such problems
is a
> dialogue. One way or the other human rules of the game are negotiated. I
agree
> with Steven that it is important to find common denominators. If you want
a
> dialogue between different value systems (and what would be the
alternative?) it
> is good to start from what can be identified as common.
>
> Lawrence Hinman for example identifies the three most fundamental ethical
> principles as:
> 1. Value human life (not killing the members of your group)
> 2. Taking care of children
> 3. Trust (that establishes the stable rules for the system)
>
> Naturally the central question is whom you experience as a
> member of your group – humanity or your best friends.
>
> Back to the need of defining (global) ethics, one might say
> that one thing happens here, as often in the history of
> philosophy – philosophy is progressing by leaving parts of its
> territories to the science. It seems to me good at this stage
> to make scientific all that may be made scientific, but not
> more than that (paraphrasing Einstein’s advice to make simple
> all the may be simplified, but not more than that). Part of
> ethical judgment may be built into expert systems. Simulations
> may help to predict the consequences of different ethical positions.
> (Here the practical action - what can be done and how – is on
focus).
>
> The question of integrity that appears on many different scales –
> integrity of a state related to other states, integrity of a group
> among other groups, integrity of an individual in relation to other
> individuals, groups, etc. What would be the value of those different
> integrities? The answer is emerging as a result of interaction/dialogue
> on different levels, and we hopefully are contributing to it.
>
> I like Michael’s view:
> “The word "health" comes from the same root in language
as
> the word "wholeness". Psychological health comes from
integration,
> and an essential part of this is the process of remembering, i.e.,
> bringing the memory objects into an integrated structure of mind.
“
>
> It is a very general idea, and it can be applied in different value
> systems and at different levels of granularity.
>
> Best,
> Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
> http://www.idt.mdh.se/personal/gdc/
>
> James N Rose wrote:
>
> > I would like to challenge this as a category error.
> > Integrity does not have to be linked with ethics
> > or morals.
> >
> > A cannibal who remains true to his/her collective's
> > code of behavior and eats other people is outside
> > the coda of other society's "ethics or morals",
> > but has 'integrity' within his/her social order.
> >
> > At the very best, your defnition/inference holds
> > only when singular societal value sets are
> > the criteria for judgement. A general attachment
> > of 'integrity' with morals is improper.
> >
> > James Rose
> >
> >
> > "Michael Leyton (by way of Pedro Marijuan )" wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So it is by refusing to remember, that the
> >> non-integrated person, i.e., the person without integrity,
> >> becomes an unethical person.
> >>
> >> best
> >> Michael Leyton
> >>
> >>
> >>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat May 13 18:52:36 2006
