repression the only way out for morality?

With moral relativism the only remaining theory of ethics, it’s weaknesses all but glaringly obvious except people in denial, it’s failure incurring more and more ethical violations of people’s right to privacy, is there a way out of this progressing quagmire without either devolving into a police state, or finding an adequate channel to dump evolving hostility into?, can social change be anticipated and controlled without recourse to more and more control and the use of misinformation? Aldous Huxley claimed three of the most heinous products of social malfunction: national idolatry, chronic lying, and incessant distraction.

As these are fairly evident in today’s society, and chronic lying as a from of propaganda is of accepted practice, is there a time in the not too distant future, when controls may be put into place to avert a seemingly regressive social decay? And if we are already at such a point as a matter of opinion, do we have a long way to go before approaching a bottom?

And finally, can anything short of violence/war avert such a disastrous scenario?

I consider all of it modernism, or most of it.

The golden age for civilization was between the classical age and the ages of steam and gun powder.
Around the end of the golden age america was founded.
People with ‘class’, it was a real thing back then. The people with class would value honor above their own life, in more than one case.
So as america entered into the ease of technology, it lost its class and honor in many ways.
For example, the vast availability of books has reduced their value greatly.
Before the printing press, a book was like gold. People thought about it and read it much differently.
This principal also applies to life and what we have in our lives.
As things got easier, people weakened in character.
If a catastrophy hits on a global scale, at least overpopulation will do it, then there would be an incentive to put the technology into use to compensate for problems moreso than today. If things got bad enough they might even allow free energy technologies instead of suppressing it.

Also a domesticated human, that is another factor of modernism.
Tame dogs are different than wild wolves. Tame humans are trained not to resist their master. Domesticated humans are easier to lead and to tax.
Capitalism is thriving off of domestication. It’s what the system wants. Right now the system wants “peace”. They are built for it, but they are not evolved for it.

I don’t Think this is the case.

But it’s not a problem solution kinda thing. They Think they are ontologically correct. So it’s weaknesses are beside the Point.

I am nto quite sure how the title relates to the OP. I mean that literally. I can imagine ways they relate, but I am not sure which one.

 Moreno;  they think they are ontologically correct, however they also think that ontology is besides the point.  The weaknesses of morality are obvious, since the symptoms of the faults are obvious.  Crime is up, soldiers' suicide is very dramatically up in a theater that's mostly mechanized.  Pollution is rampant.  Homelessness is bad.  But most importantly the. Family unit is degrading.  Moral relativism has created a structure where relatedness is interpreted as value exchange platforms.  

The more society gets out of whack in terms of police related social control, the more invasive government/law enforcement will operate in internal domestic covert operations in the US. The same goes for other developed industrial states in Europe, south Africa, in fact worldwide. Drones, are another example of the rapidly evolving phenomenon. Cover attacks, and protection against them is another form of this.

The regressive nature of this was predicted decades ago as early as the 1950’s by president eisenhower, the Nixon, who warned against I.

Repression is a reaction to the failure of adherence to ethical norms, and as societal norms become more relative, control mechanisms such as repression take over a previously internalized function.

I don’t know if crime is up compared to periods where there was less ethical relativism. How do we determine this? As far as soldier’s suicide…the wars we have engaged in we have engaged in on ethical grounds. (I don’t mean they were just wars, just that they were justified ethically)

Sure, but I don’t know if this comes out of ethical relativism.

The family has changed in many ways because of moral and ethical ideas. These relate to women’s opportunity and legal rights, children’s rights, the moral valueing of individualism and so on.

Some certainly view it that way, but very few people are in practice ethical relativists.

Not more than many kings did and there were definitely absolute moral rules under kings. Or under, say, DDR, with Stasi in particular focus. The communist regimes were often very anti-relativist.

Which are justified on moral grounds. In fact their use pretty much denies relativism. They are being used to kill people considered immoral and dangerous - please note: I am not defending drone use, just pointing out they are used, as weopons and Spies and Soldiers have Always been used, with moral justifications. I am sure that King and Emperors used these ‘tools’ for selfish and other reasons that were not the official (moral) ones, so this has not really changed.

I do Think a fascist state is trying to emerge and has already emerged in many ways, but this isn’t about relativism. It will emerge with moral justifications and already has. It seems to me immoral behavior and norms are being conflated with ethical relativism. But I see all these patterns have been used by moral objectivists and deontologists throughtout history, as is the case now.

I am against pretty much Everything here you are against. But I don’t Think relativism is to blame.

   The idea is Moreno, as far as social change is concerned, that more variability of morality will cause more consfusion and value variability within social groups.  This variability bears down on the evaluation of this very variability.  But since Dan says, its part of modernism, it seems as if though, its in a sense above evaluation with a view toward some kind of formative process, as you include that within this process.  

However with. This process of relative morality, if it is a process, does cause control issues, where internal controls having been unseated relatively speaking, are replaced by the outer controls of law enforcement, and societal intrusion into personal privacy. Relative morality is related to this process, where. Contingent changing values, create a fabric of a morally relative feedback between members of the society, using values (often commercial) to attributes of value exchange among members of society. As devaluation occurs crime and dysfunction follows, and where crime goes up, repression follows. This is the link between changing morality and its negative effects. There are positive ones too and they are related. As well. De ontologists, using pragmatic approaches social change, factor this in as did Dan, who attributed it to modernism.

Whatever the cause, I am not suggesting an evaluation as to the merits or deficiencies , only to show the link that is slowly putting ethics into a program of more and more technical scrutiny. Welcome brave new World, with all of it’s trappings.

I haven’t read all of this, yet. I want to remind everyone that “moral” and “ethical” mean two subtly different things. They aren’t interchangeable words. I’ll be back to respond a bit later.

Good topic, obe. Thank you. :smiley:

My first responsibility must be to define what I mean by “moral”, and morality, and what I mean by “ethics,” and ethical. I’ve tried to do this before; I’m not sure if my definitions have changed in the interim.

“Moral,” to me, is knowing the difference between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ as it has to do with your self and other selves. “Ethics,” to me, is a utility system that separates itself from morality because there are many ‘ethical systems’ leading to ethical ‘duties.’

A criminal lawyer, for example, has an ethical duty to provide the best defense for a person who may have committed a morally reprehensible crime. A soldier may feel it’s her/his ethical duty to go to war although s/he may not feel that either the war or killing is moral. (I could reduce the last example even further, but I won’t.)

Morality depends on culture. What’s ‘morally right’ for one culture may not be so for other cultures. On the other hand, culture relies on the morality of the people living within that culture.

I think most WW people can and do live moral lives, for the most part. We’ve advanced as a culture because of that. This may be the result of living under strict, religious, moral codes and our fear of transgression. It makes no difference. If we now deny organized religion, we still have its affects.

Is repression going beyond the boundary of the law? Or have laws gone beyond the boundaries of our cultural morality?

My thoughts.

Thanks for your comments liz:
The answer to a legalistic approach can be approached with a view to what has happened to how law itself has changed over the years.

A long time ago, maybe more than 50 years, boundaries changed qualitatively What has emerged was a type of reasoning called public policy… . A lot of boundary issues can be skirted by this policy, which entails justification by virtue of a rationalization that some judgments can be skirted, on the basis of a "common good. As distinguished by justification by reference to “black letter law”. Black letter law interprets issues and holds judgments on basis of interpretation of the letter of the law. Public policy can trump black letter law, on account of national policy issues, spelled out as national security, the rights to privacy, among others. The boundaries, in effect have become blurred, because of this shift away from the letter of the law. In addition, sensitive issues, relating to terrorism, or any other loaded issue, are at judiciary discretion.

This from my brief law studies. So how other ways to test these boundaries, the over stepping of which may entail repressiveness. By society’s gate keepers in the US?

Quantanimo Bay is an example of this possible over stepping of Constitutional boundaries. Others are internal scrutiny upon citizens, and finally identification of the population at large, for domestic security reasons. The internal use of drones to achieve this purpose also has been hotly debated, the use of surveillance by wire tapping by the IRS, also poses problems not only to the boundary issues related to morality, but to the defining effects of ethical justification.

Ethical and moral considerations are not mutually exclusive, the latter can encompass the former, if we do not restrict the use of ethics to the idea of it being one of duty to act on moral consideration.

Moral justification refers to a higher implicit ground of right and wrong, and ethical is a narrower interpretation based on what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances.

I think. The increasing repressive activity is an indication of more than just a sign of advancing modernity, it reflects other viable causes : such as the limits of open society, the signs of cultural decay, and the failure of the individual’s preception of what those rights are, which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights of the US.

Can an implication be drawn, that repressive tactics are a reaction to this imbalance between morality and ethics, ? Or put it another way, a difference between a public awareness of what their rights are, and the constitutional definition? Can this be interpreted as the coming of an eventual constitutional crisis?

Finally, are de-ontologists capable of filling in the gaps, between the use and function of societal mores and their intended constitutional elements as drawn up by the founding fathers? These and many others remain to be answered now, and in the coming years, with increasing urgency.

Yes, there is one.

And, the answer is very simple-

There must be a check of wisdom on the power.

But the issue is not as simple as simple this premise looks. Let me explain-

I think that we are focusing more at symptoms rather than causes of those.

Let us understand that liberty is also a power. Thus, it should not be handed over at will. Otherwise, disintegration of the family and society is bound to happen, sooner or later. More often than not, we use to forget that, after a certain point, liberty converts itself into anarchy automatically.

So, the million dollar question which we have ask ourselves whether we want to sacrifice some personal liberty in favor of the betterment of the society or not?

This simple question applies right from allowing sex to 14 or 16 year old to adults, who want to have guns.

Members may believe me or not, most of the issues within the family can be sorted out easily if elder ones are allowed to have a final say on the issues. The same is applicable to the society. But, then everyone shouts for his/her liberty. We have to choose between a liberal and peaceful society. We cannot have our both hands full. Society ought to have a limit to liberty.

[b]One wrong step invites other. Now, in most countries, the age of voting is 18. But, we must remember that voting is not merely a power to elect the government but also indirectly influences policy making. Because, the representatives have to please their constituencies in order to get their vote again. This is from where the problem starts.

If a political party wants the vote of teenagers, them it has to allow all sorts of liberty to them. Otherwise, next time, they would not vote for the same. Teenagers do not want any restrictions whatsoever whether those are for their good or not. They do not like to be instructed even from their parents though no one else is more concerned about their welfare. This is natural phenomenon because their energy wants to challenge every boundary. Thus, it is duty of the elders to channelize that.

But, we are doing the opposite. Instead of guiding them, our political system is being guided by them because they outscore adults in numbers. As the result, our system has come up with some wrong policies like allowing sex to the teenagers, which ultimately results in immature and broken relationships. This is the wrong interpretation of the democracy[/b].

Some girls become mothers at very early age, and even without marriage. Then, her boyfriend dumps her and she would be left with a child and without any future. Then the government consoles her and says- come to me, i would give you shelter. That is ridiculous. Why does it not stop her before getting into trouble by simply raising the age of sex? Why allowing sex to him/her before he/she becomes able to handle its consequences independently? The same is the case of divorce and many other issues.

Dependence on government strengthens the establishment and weakens the family. Then citizens tend to dump the family and take the shelter of the establishment for their survival. Let teenagers ( or even up to the age of 21) remain dependent completely on their parents in order to force them to obey. It would be in their welfare whether they like it or not. Simply because, they are not wise enough to understand what is good or bad for them.

In the same way, stop granting divorce on mutual consent or even petty issues. I have seen in news papers and TV that bizarre reasons are being given for demanding divorce and even accepted too by the courts. If society wants to flourish the family system, then it has to ensure that its members understand the values of relations. And, do not try to encourage the divorce by making it easy. The society should not support those citizens who willingly make mistakes and then ask for help. They must realize if they make mistake, then they would have to pay the price. This fear would act as a deterrent and make them to learn how to compromise. It should not be too easy for either of them to get out of the relationship.

Now days, particularly in the western societies, marriage are formed on mutual consent and even after a having long courtship and physical relations too. So, if anyone of them wants divorce, it is fine, but, then why does one want the half of the wealth of the spouse? You exercised your liberty in your wisdom but made a mistake by choosing a wrong partner, so now, bear with it. If you want your children and have finances, take them with you. If your spouse wants to bear the burden, hand your children over to him/her. And, if neither is ready to accept their responsibility, drop them at the orphanage at the mercy of the government and move on in the life by searching for a new relationship. Let them learn by facing the ugly side of the liberty too.

Where this concept of the liberty use to disappear when one asks the half of the wealth of the other?

But, what is the solution?

The solution lies in a very simple premise that- rise the age-bar at every level to ensure and bring more experience and wisdom in the system. Because, this is the only solution which we can have under the democracy.

Let me explain-

[b]Stop giving voting right at early age. Increase the age limit at least to 35 for voting, though, 40 is an ideal age in my opinion. Voting is a very serious issue and should not be allowed for everyone. Only those, who are wise enough to understand the long term implications of the policies, should be allowed to vote. And, in most cases, wisdom uses to start forming in late 30’s or early 40’s when one would have been seen enough in the life and able to know how things work out in the real world. If one wants to be more liberal, in that case, post graduates may also be allowed to vote whether they are 35 or not. But, one of these conditions must be fulfilled to vote.

In the same way, the age limit of the all the political posts like senators, ministers, prime-ministers and presidents should be hiked at 50. I do not know much about the west regarding this but I am seeing here in India that sometimes people below even 30 become members of parliament. That is not justified[/b].

If this can be implemented anyhow, then I am quite sure that society will change and for the better too. Because, in that case, the political system, which formulates guidelines and implements also, would be cross-examined only by those wise adults, which cannot be fooled easily like younger ones.

with love,

Sanjay: why this may not work, in part, is because, if the age limits are pushed upwards into the thirties and forties, to accede demands for Your aforementioned privileges, the 18 year olds who are sent to fight for various causes may simply refuse on account of the repression. For instance, the issue over gay participation in the military is found on the same idea. The repression has been of so long a duration, as to have created the disconnect between causes, rationale and morale. But advocates probably rightfully claim the exact opposite, and the issue is permeating the younger organizations, as the boy scouts, with the realization that a return to the humanistic spartan ideal is best descriptive of what really is going on.

 Wisdom may be a priori hidden, yet it is embedded in the very neurological makeup, and repression only takes it underground.  Wisdom need not be overt, conscience exercises the mind , yet, iin unknown ways.  For these reasons, repression is not the way out of morality, and the question was put forward, only as an example of underlying repression which has always questioned the utility of social adhesion on basis of induced fear.  It still has a very long way to go.

Obe, repression has much strong intent than what i am suggesting as it refers to complete domination. I am not in favor of that.

If you see carefully, then you will find that i am not denying libery, but just delaying it for some period. So, it would not supress wisdom at all. On the contrary, my whole focus is on the enpowerment of the wisom as to take the charge of the whole system. I am favoring quality over quantity and without any discremenation of cast, gender, breed or status.

A little bit of restriction is in the welfare of those and society also, who are not wise enough to exercise their liberty on their own. Because, sooner or later, they would realize that it was done to protect them from causing harm to themselves.

with love,

Justice Scalia went against the conservative majority today when he voted against the majority decision to allow police departments to take DNA samples from possible perpetrators of ‘serious’ crimes. Is this an example of what you’re talking about when you speak of repression? If so, I agree with your position.

My thing, however, is a general lack of critical thinking in the US. Very few people question what they’re told if the medium used is television or the web. I don’t know whether or no this is philosophical modernism, post-modernism, or whatever. I don’t speak the philosophical jargon that’s tossed around here. I do know that the lack of critical thinking is why and how propaganda is effective.

I’ve found that it’s a cross-generational thing. Older people are no more able to think critically than are younger people and technology fosters the blindness because most people don’t understand technology. Trust is also an issue. “I heard it on the news and then I read about it on the web. It has to be true!”

Will this all lead to a Constitutional crisis? If so, what sort of crisis do you envision?

The men who participated in developing the Constitution (many people were involved most of whom aren’t that well known today) were men–humans who were principally concerned with creating a government that wasn’t based on a monarchy. The ones we know most about weren’t religious, but they were deists. Because of this, the Declaration on Independence (written by Thomas Jefferson) states that men are “endowed” with “inalienable rights.” This isn’t a part of the Constitution, although the movers and shakers of the time all agreed to the deist philosophy.

So you have a group of men gathered together who had agreed to certain things that had been discussed in all the previous meetings. They were revolutionaries. The core group who’d been around from the beginning drafted the Constitution to which they all agreed. However, since not everyone was present to agree to the document, it was sent to the various States (the former colonies) for their representatives to agree to and sign–ratify–what had already been agreed to by the core group.

Some of the state representatives said they would only agree to the document if certain changes were incorporated. Those changes were consolidated and became the first ten amendments to the original document–what’s called the Bill of Rights. This, then, is the controversy that’s still being debated today. Does the Federal government have the “right” to dictate, through the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, law and policy for the entire country?

To get back to philosophy and your questions to me–I think I’ve answered a lot of them in this response. Except this: "Finally, are de-ontologists capable of filling in the gaps, between the use and function of societal mores and their intended constitutional elements as drawn up by the founding fathers? " I’m really not sure of what you’re asking.

Should people consider what’s morally ‘good’ versus what’s morally ‘right?’ Does morally ‘good’ mean what’s most beneficial to the majority? What does morally ‘right’ mean?

If morality is cultural and transitory as the result of time and change, how can the label hold?

 Lisebeth: I have just become aware of your blog, forgive me, I have so little attention span these days. Will try to read it carefully and answer in due time. Thanks

Another way out of morality is: morality does not exist. It only exists as a perception of human behavior and abstract virtues that people choose or choose not to subscribe.

   Lisbethrose:  it has been pointed out that morality and ethics are two concepts that seem to have varied interpretations, as far as their meaning is concerned.  The fact that the terms are used interchangeably, points to the fact that they are used in a relative sense, regardless of their intended usage.

 The morally "good" is where absolute meanings seem to be putatively placed, as more of a reservoir of referents, whereas rights, seem to imply specific aPplications of it.  It is probably just a matter of convention, as in most epistomologies, where a referentiality is part of the process of thought.

 I must admit, I used repression in it's wider context, where it refers to a process of sealing thoughts, ideas, and procedures, withholding it from private or public access. 

 In the aforementioned example, of repressive police activities, the reference is to the initiative started by Arizona, in it's handling of illegal aliens.  That it has become a national referendum is the result of the case US vs Arizona. Is this the same case?  At any rate, the issue was not really reprehensible, because, it  was only a conjecture, the core issue being a states rights issue. I believe the US contested arizona's right to advance the issue, whereas it belongs under a US statute.  

The implications were political, because arizona’s action was inconsistent with the objectives of the North American trade agreement. That arizona’s intent ruled, is. A sign of political reversals relating to immigration reform.

  Here the crisis of the rights of states, versus the "what's good for the union" is an example of. , at least from the states' point of view, or repressive methods by the US government.

 What most people seem to forget, that as "rights" are referred to either the written document, the constitution and the bill of rights, is, that, at least as far as the constitution is concerned, it has been amended, and amendments bring out the fact, that changes are necessary to stay in tune with the changes of social mores.  

 Constitutional crisis have had precedent: the slavery issue caused a major fracture, as the civil war can attest to.  

 There was a to do about the enron incident, where california and texas were in a head on argument over manipulations over pricing of electric power, instigated by the Enron corp.

 Overall, the constitution as an arbiter of what rights are, are contingent on the economic, political well being of the nation, and it's relevance comes under scrutiny in times of unrest due to instability.

  The way the system works, the political overreach, as in the case of the red baiting during the McCarthy era, where it was factored in as a mechanism of  control, to correct social problems associated with the depression and consequent war in that era.

 The word is not absolutely out, whether the stability of this country, the US, can be sustained in the foreseeable future, and whether the constitution can be a proper formal vested authority as it stands.

In particular, the huge, and mostly foreign financed debt, and the vulnerability of the dollar is at stake.

I only brought up these issues because you mentioned them. However other points of noticeably repressive issues which have come up , are the well known rights to bear arms, surveillance and privacy due to internal and external terrorism.

On other then the economic front, the political landscape has a lot to do with the use of repressive methods such as the right of incarceration of persons deemed to be hostile to US interests, and the use of torture to elicit information.

Because these issues are so far reaching, and the environment is nothing that can be described as anything near stability, the tenets of the constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, remain in many cases, a far cry to what is actually happening in terms of adhering to those tenets. So vague terms such as rights to life, liberty and the enjoyment of happiness are in many cases not even vaguely applicable. This is what I meant by a crisis, not as much in the constitution in re, but in the trust afforded to it by the citizenry.

I’m not convinced yet that it’s a progressing quagmire or just a perpetual quagmire. Also not sure it’s a quagmire, but I do like the word quagmire. Religion is not morally relativistic and it continues to dominate an enormous part of our culture. I think you might be in fact asking about politics and government and media.

Social change can occur with many forms of information, including misinformation as a form of information. The fact of misinformation is information. A big part of being human is experiencing stuff, and misinformation is just another organism of experience, as is no information. When abuses become unbearable, social change gushes forth. So as long as the misinformation is bearable, social change will be slow.

seemingly to who? it doesn’t seem that way to me, but it depends where you’re looking. history is roiling with decay and growth, evolution, always has been. my neighborhood doesn’t seem to be decaying. Paleo diet. Charity. Communal connections. Local vendors. Environmentally friendliness. Solar power. Discourse and information, including misinformation, the courage to say I don’t know. On and on. But enough about Uganda. Things are also good in other places.

Maybe a singularity or something. I don’t see us hitting bottom anytime soon. But it depends how you define bottom. (I define it as sweet rump)

I hope so. It would be dumb to go around with guns in search of more moral or ethical streams of honest communication.

The only question of interest to me is what motivates people in back rooms. Like presidents and other powerful creatures. If asked if they are honest and truthful in their jobs, I imagine them to respond like this: “In MY job, I can’t be honest all the time to everyone. If I’m strong and wise and lucky, I can be honest to myself. From that boldness, everything flows outward. Society can’t as a whole (and individually for the most part) abide the idea of a leader changing his mind, developing an approach over time. But just like science, social change demands a humble, dispassionate, scientific approach, tempered by morals and ethics. The populace DEMANDS leaders who espouse clear and unchanging policy ideas. In doing so, they by definition, DEMAND misinformation. It’s not for me to reinvent the human animal. Only to reinvent our government to better serve the human animal.”

Your optimism is refreshing and chilling at the same time. We really are only puppets playing in an absurd theatre of wish me well, and what we get is not always what we bargained for. By a meltdown, I meant not the actual manipulation of marketplace pragmatism, a not too new deal, where there may not be a war to put everyone into the right morale by giving them jobs, self regard, and most importantly a structure to live by.

We may have to individually, singularly fall into our own rabbit holes to really come full circle on this, but given our system of governance, and profit taking mentally, only huge profits can get this ship realigned again, so that we can again live in our very own levittown prefab. I see a very exhausted oversold system, of very much diminished returns.

It’s still an early call for self adjustment to be declared a total sucess.

What you mention above, including Enron, are certainly moral and ethical concerns, but I don’t think they’re necessarily Constitutional issues that require an amendment or amendments. The financial debacle doesn’t go against the Constitution, it goes against our form of economics, which is an uncontrolled free market system. The world is now a world market, and our economic system isn’t based on a world market. That’s why it’s hard to accept that we invite world investment.

The debt we face was caused by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The erosion of our personal liberties is the result of the Patriot Act. That’s why the CIA is now collecting phone records from communication providers. It’s why DNA samples can be collected from individuals accused of criminal activity. It’s why the Border Patrol can demand to ‘see your papers’ if you seem to be headed toward the Mexican border.

This is, to me, a sign of paranoia that started on 09/11/02 and promulgated by the paranoia of our elected ‘leaders.’ But it’s only the major ‘problem’ we face. There’s also the strength and power of corporations, which are now considered ‘people’ when it comes to campaign financing. There’s rampant, legal, tax evasion by both individuals and corporations. I could go on, but it’s after 3 am and I need to go to bed. Besides, I’ll go back to my rant about the lack of critical thinking and the ease with which propaganda is accepted by the average American.

Please, call me Liz. :slight_smile:

  Liz: I do my best at night too, and just a general comment on dynamics without any particulars: limits on everything is probably the only way to go from an ethical issue toward a moral justification.  Capping campaign contributions, limiting market drops before automatic bars kick in, conditioning overseas investor's ability to manipulate US marketplace, while prohibiting them to buy in or buy out "sensitive" businesses, enforcing unfair trade practices of economies which set artificial value on their currencies in an effort to gain advantage, and the list goes on, conditioning recipients of foreign aid to limit their spending on certain things, and the list goes on.  Since the economy seems to be trumping all considerations, including politics and social considerations, the mechanics of international finance will determine how everything else falls into place.  The constitution  figuratively is the dynamic by which parts interact.  The blueprint of the world seems to gravitate toward a universal-constitutional format not unlike that of the US/Britain.  The international corporations. Liz, have a deterministic effect on the makeup of the world economy, and I think repression is such an important tool in this beginning of a integral stage in a world without borders, that I would even presume the use of repressive techniques, as limits are reached within regional conflicts, automatic interference patterns may emerge as well on certain computer screens pitting up red flags.   Remember 1984, Brave New World?  These predictions are coming true, we are arriving at a stage, where more and more limits have to be placed on an ongoing relationship between production and the means of production, simply put.  The means of production includes the human element, robotics, profit loss analysis, and other things.  The human element is the least predictable, and robotics, is kicking in as a way of augmenting and surveying it by way of surveillance.

Given the scope of the world stage, it is unavoidable, that human values, having previously been placed squarely in between production and consumption, will be displaced and conformed to fit the dynamics of production. This seemingly de-humanizational process appears repressive, as morality is more and more being re-defined as the functional derivative of an economic process. Freud comes in with his vague economics of the libido. Not so strange in light of having ramifications to his opus. Is it so strange that sexual repressions are being lifted by and by? Civilization is discontented for obvious reasons. Again, the word is out, whether mainline religions can also follow suit. Is there a hidden agenda? It’s the difference between the sacred and the profane. How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?