Taliban and Iran? O.o

Bush is so smart…

No joke. He’s too stupid to realize that the Taliban is anti-Shi’a and have massacred tens of thousands of Shi’as, and that they are still attacking Shi’as in Pakistan, starting with Parachinar.

In your honor, I will post an explanation of An Ideology of Common Sense, within the next day or so. I’m not sure that it will meet your test that, “A Common Sense exists in every situation upon which all might agree.” I’m not sure that any theory can insure universal agreement. But I do suspect that An Ideology of Common Sense can be used to bring enough people together, on enough issues, to help usher in an age of peace, or at least, an age of a lot more cooperation. Common sense will lubricate our dealings with one antoher.

In terms of Globalization, you’re right to point out that it is a two-edged sword. On the good side, globalization can be seen as an endorsement of man’s inclination to progress technologically, and using those advances, to create a world economy, which in turn can help the poor to escape the clutches of extreme poverty by, in effect, partnering with them for the sake of a brighter future.

On the bad side, globalization can be seen as a mixed bag of problems: the homogenization and loss of culture, the increasing gap between rich and poor, the environmental harm, the loss of jobs, the breakdown of traditional societies, the undo emphasis on consumerism and materialism, the threat to democracy, the raising of hopes among the poor which can’t be realized, the threat to biodiversity, the danger of tampering with life, the spreading of disease, the lowering of wages, etc.

So which side is right, Muhammad? My guess is that both sides are right, and therefore the answer is somewhere in the middle. What can I say- Aristotle is the man.

It’s OK to make money, and you’re not going to stop it. But Common Sense would suggest that a portion of the profits should be invested in the developing world, and in protecting the environment. That way, the profit motive is channeled toward the good; the good which may not meet your “universalist test,” but which would improve the lives of millions, which would protect our environment, which would help contain the violence, and which would give us all a better chance of survival.

In a way, Globalization is man’s way of playing God. But guess what, if you want to play God, you had better know the rules of the game. And the rules of the game, when it comes to playing God, are the rules of common sense.

The process you find ‘converging to a good point’ is supposed to be the worst disaster human kind has ever experiencd, and is called Globalization.

Though advocates of anti-Globalization movement sometimes mereley rely on conspiracy theories, not evey word they utter is nonsense.

Your premise (in common sense theory) is that I (as the weaker) and You (as the stronger) may find a common sense in every situation, i.e. there is a solution in every case upon which both of us might agree on the very basis of personal benefit; yes, thats true, even Game theory supports this idea (for example, refer to this game: Prisoners Dilemma); but I am afraid if we can not generalize this case, and there are a similar number of cases in which my benefit is in conflict with that of yours, and then, we might never come up with a Common Sense, i.e. in which cases the weaker shoud surrender to the stronger.

The thing you need to demonstrate first and foremost is that ‘A Common Sense exists in every situation upon which all might agree’; I’am afraid if you cant do so, though I wish you succeed to do so!

And I also accept the premise that a wealthy and powerful country will help the less fortunate only if it deems it to be in its self-interest. There are exceptions, of course, but this is mostly the case.

However, is it possible that the world, as a whole, is moving to that place where there is a convergence between what is right, and what is in everyone’s best interest? And if that’s the case, is it possible to bring about an ideological and economic mindset that will inure to the benefit of all, the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, alike?

It seems to me, that the world is moving in that direction. The powers that be have decided to move toward a global economy. Our increasing knowledge is bringing about an exponential increase in technology, which is being made available to an ever growing marketplace around the world. At the same time, we have problems looming which threaten our very existence, and which will require global cooperation, like Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, and the like.

If you put it all together, in certain respects the world is moving toward the rational, in which people will have to deal with one another economically, and technologically, in order to make money, and in order to solve some big-ass problems. Such a world will require a new ideological dialectic in order to function. In other words, we will not be able to tolerate the dissonance between our need to deal with one another rationally, and the idiocy of certain ideological perspectives, no matter where such idiocy continues to prevail.

The new language we need, as you suggest, will not be based on idealism, or wishful thinking. The new framework for rational discourse will have to be based on common sense principles, principles on which we can all agree. In the best of all worlds, Common sense will inspire our thinking and inform our speech. And only the notion of common sense can aspire to the universality that will be required in the new world that is emerging even as we speak.

I believe that An Ideology of Common Sense, if properly conceived, can be given the same sense of universality as mathematics. It is the only hope of coming together ideologically, and of bridging the divides which currently keep us from doing what we need to, to survive.

1) West, I think, supports and pursuits its benefits, not some sort of idealistic humane values. Sometimes its in their favor to ask for democracy, for example in the case of Iran; and some other times, in the case of some well-known examples, its in their advantage to keep quiet. Period.

2) in particular, one might never expect the wealth created in its very essence on the basis of greediness to be or become generous.
in general, an ideology charactrizing our species survival and evolution (or that of any other one) on the basis of personal benefit, can never be expected to ever think of real ethics. the superficial ethics this ideology may come up with, is the result of some materialistic win-win games: “A, as the weaker, convinces B, as the stronger, that He/She can bring B some advantage if B does not suppress Him/Her to the maximum it can. B accepts. Hurray! peace appeared.” that is why famines still kill too many people in Africa, and many people do not care, either in west or in an east raged by such a western ideology… there is no win for them in this case.

3) what happens if I, as the weaker, fail to convince you, as the stronger who gathered and exploited all the opportunities, that I can bring you some advantage? you dont share your opportunities with me. whats the next stage? I threaten you, to show you that the only alternative to win-win is fail-fail. then, you either might succeed to eliminate me or accept to share the opportunities with me. I calm down. then, you, again, try to reduce the extent to which opportunities were share with me…. and again. isnt it so similar to the story we might see here and there in the world?

However, as with all political and economic ideologies, it is easy to move toward extremes, and when you do, whatever good has been accomplished can easily become undone. So, for example, excessive captialism, which remains unchecked, could result in excessive materialism, a loss of idealism, an indifference to the fate of the poor, a disregard for the wellbeing of the environment, an excessive meddling into the affairs of other nations, etc.

It was Aristotle who first made it clear that the truth of a matter usually resides in the middle between two extremes. But actually, Muhammad and Maimonides bought into this as well. So in this case, captitalism does have to potential to create great wealth. And great wealth could be used for the betterment of mankind. But lurking around the corner is the potential for abuse if capitlism is not checked in some way.

I think that it is OK to encourage people to make money, but as you suggest, this effort should be conditioned on using a part of the profits to protect the environment, and to invest in developing nations so that everyone on earth has a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. You might refer to this as “institutionalized morality.”

The one thing that could bring about this fundamental change in the conduct of foreign policy, and economic policy, would be a new ideological framework based on common sense principles which are universally perceived as true, and therefore universally accepted. I think that it is possible to move the world in this direction, since such a move would be in keeping with the generalized move toward a global economy, and would be in response to global problems which are emerging such as Global Warming and Nuclear Proliferation.

In other words, if the world is already becoming smaller technologically and economically, it would have no choice but to become “smaller” ideologically, so that people around the world could begin making money together, with an eye to solving global problems which put them all at risk. The needs of a Global Village will push heavily in the direction of a universal ideological framework with common sense as its hallmark.