Without Normative statements, CAN I come to a moral decision?

I have been told that Normative thinking mal-appropriates intellectual freedom. Normative statements are thought to be bad in psychological circles.

This is (A-normatively) both good and bad.

It is good, because I learn a great deal from exploring all the branching binary moral trees that develop as I let my intellect run woolly-wild in search of boundaries to check it.

It is bad, because those who deplore "Normativism," (in all its abusive forms,) review me as BOTH indecisive AND abusive. BOTH indecisive when I do not come to a moral decision and act, AND abusive when I do, early or late.

I regard this, at the very least, as a loss of freedom.

My question is this: Are these Psychologists documenting the fruits of all the investigation that this [in my opinion excessive] overhead of moral computation yields? I ask this question because many pursuits are justified in the name of research.

In Physics and Computational exploration, Research is a hack; attempting the impossible is a waste of time and money [together with the other resource factors of intellectual production.] - M.E.

If the moral dilemmas and happenstances predicted by this new and freer view of Moral Values actually occur in nature at frequencies of probability that exceed 1.25 x 10E-10 [the smallest useful probability for human application,] then they _must_ be documented for us to even have a bite at the apple of observation [logically speaking; this is not solely normative.]

I suppose that if we can NEVER observe them, then we can NEVER make a normative evaluation of them. Sadly, guilt can still be conceived, even if there is no preceptor to perceive moral law-breaking.

I am more concerned that this paralyzing assault on my system of moral navigation [replete with moral compass, moral grounds, moral values, moral standpoints and, for me at least, moral VIEWpoints,] may ask me to allow for a great many more things to be possible than those we can observe in Nature.

Take for example the old adage:

Why won't an Authentic Texan be caught DEAD in a Wolsey?

The authoritative answer is: Because you've got to CATCH one to kill him, and they take their hats of to die OUT OF PURE RESPECT!

I can contrive a situation in which an Authentic Texan is actually caught dead in a Wolsey as follows:

He is actually wearing a Wolsey. I catch him in a football field sized man-trap of a net, but he is alive in the middle, all unsuspecting, and has not taken off his hat at the same time as he has not yet triggered the mechanism. I then dispense with formalities, and double-tap him in the head with a long-arm, triggering the mechanism before his lifeless body hits the turf.

Magic has occurred: He is demonstrably "caught," in a state of DEAD, with his Wolsey still ON!

I don't worry about scenarios like this. They just don't happen in nature, and the moral games the Psychologists ask me to play, attempting to accommodate ALL POSSIBLE moral possibilities, eventuate moral emasculation.

More fun with "Perception is Reality." (9/10ths good:)

To use the test of perception, I ask the question "does this appear..."

"It's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know!"
Hmmm... he doesn't _appear_ to know anything, but then he doesn't _appear_ to know anyone IMPORTANT either: can you REALLY tell, just by _looking_?

"Words have meaning!"
Do words _appear_ to have meaning? You simply cannot evaluate them superficially. This pithy saying is demonstrably not TRITE!

"Location, Location, Location!"
Does it _appear_ to be a good location?

"It's the Economy, stupid!"
Does it appear to be the economy?

"Appearances can be deceiving!"
Do these appearances _appear_ to be deceiving?
.
.
.

From this experiment, I guess I conclude that the phrase "Perception is Reality," makes a test of relevance to an individual. If his perception is superficial, an individual will be satisfied with superficial appearances. Since we ALL specialize in one way or another, ANY _large_ audience will be satisfied with a superficial explanation of a problem of even Byzantine complexity, as long as the subject is not one in which they _specialize_.

Verbal "sleight of hand," (slight of mouth?) becomes necessary for Politicians to justify even GOOD decisions when they are counter-intuitive. If incompetents mistake the exigency of "sleight of hand," for a license to lie, they will become subject to the oldest Political truism I know.

I attribute Abraham Lincoln (Honest Abe,) and I misquote for humor.

"You can keep ALL the people happy _some_ of the time, and you can keep _some_ of the people happy ALL of the time, but you can't keep ALL the people happy ALL the time!"

"Now is the winter of our discontent!" - Winston Churchill.

The Value of a conversation - an unsent letter

The following letter will remain unsent. It refers to tee-shirts. The design had a Republican RW&B elephant facing a Democrat RW&B donkey on the front, with the caption "Opponent is the dictionary antonym for Partisan," on the reverse in creative fonts. I printed up the tee-shirts and tried to give one to a friend. She pointed out that a partisan was a friend, and an opponent merely a foe. My idea of opponent politics as an antonym for partisan politics may be "romantic" but is not supported in the language of today. I cannot reproduce the white space of the printed copy here in cyberspace - I can be done, by my HTML is not up to it :-)

The White House Attn: David Plouffe 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Robert Johnson [address deleted] 01/18/2009 Dear Mr. Plouffe: I enclose a campaign Tee design that I developed out of the observation that I have weak party affiliations. It is literally the day after inauguration day, and as a citizen I have had no opportunity to evaluate President Obama as a leader. Coming from the standpoint that, as an American Citizen, it is to my advantage that ALL American Presidents do well, I use these presents to certify my goodwill before there is any opportunity for disagreement. While I qualify as swing vote (I voted AGAINST McCain because I did not think he could bring the GOP to heel in face of much needed change - his Maverick credentials and maturity notwithstanding,) I usually identify Republican. By examining the enclosed Tees, you may understand that I feel that Republicans are guilty of being too "partisan." To understand the "opponent" concept, it may be helpful to consider sports "rooting." In NFL Football, one is expected to "root, root, root, for the home team - if they don't win it's a shame..." similar to Baseball (the great American Pastime.) This is the Partisan practice, and a valid paradigm for applauding. The contrasting view is illustrated by European Soccer, where all attendees applaud superior efforts, without particular regard to Mascot and team. This correlates to the Opponent practice. In the Political arena, Opponent practitioners usually achieve their accomplishments in bi-partisan efforts where they "reach out across the aisle." While this is regarded as anti-gridlock by the polity, the opponent practitioners are usually viewed as potentially disloyal when evaluated as an ideologue. For their part, Partisans have more accomplishments, but disappear in the solidarity of Party, and "never" receive public accolades. In a related observation, there are Left-Wing liberals in both parties, but the greater proportion of them, affiliate Democrat. In the same way, I estimate that of the available Opponent practitioners, the greater proportion of them affiliate Democrat as well. Your reply will encourage me to request latitude to present the same design and explanation to a potentially less charitable audience (the GOP) - in a bi-partisan way. I hope to also use the opportunity to share an untested idea to differentiate Liberal/Conservative, starting from the definition of "liberal," that appeals to the Latin "Liber," freedom or liberty. I hope that President Obama will accomplish much of his Party Platform while in office. Thank you for your consideration. Yours Sincerely, (Robert Johnson)

Free Speech is RESPONSIBLE speech;

I've thought about it, and I'd like to return, and hold the author of the Baraketology "publicity move" responsible.

Bracket-ology assigns Scientific Value (with associated virtue,) to the bracket predictions of Analysts.

Barak-et-ology cloaks the bracket predictions of our current POTUS with like gravity.

This is why it appeared to be self-promotion in the eyes of some. To others it was disparaging,

...but not against their preferences. "Bracketology is non-scientific? Barak Obama is superstitious, in the religious, sense, and I do not MIND the assertion that he is unscientific."

An excellent prognosticator who _could_not_be_wrong_ would have difficulty meeting that standard of evaluation. The further POTUS goes without a miss, the farther up he climbs the figurative stairs to Haman's Gallows [Esth 3:4 - Eth 7:10; see also Book of Crib, Reflexive 6:6.] As a human being, he'll eventually make a mistake. I don't mind... the PR gaff is no worse than merely that, either.

I respect him. You may have enjoyed a similar experience to my own. By shared ideology or moral agreement, you've respected both the man AND the office of POTUS simultaneously. If you have not, please see me after class. If you are merely looking for an individual who has not, to contradict my opinion of our current POTUS, I'll enjoy the irony of political endeavor's difficulties, until I lose respect, or you gain the same.

On fertile minds and their occasionally odiferous offspring;

Fog - Carl Sanberg

The fog comes
on little cat feet.
It sits looking
over harbor and city
on silent haunches
and then moves on.

A Kitten - Evan Gross

The problem with a Kitten is that,
eventually it becomes a Cat,
at first wants to play,
then do nothing all day,
sitting around getting all fat.

Fucking with peoples' heads - Moi

The problem with fucking with peoples' heads is that,
eventually their fertile imaginations come up with theories...
"up with which you will not put!"

A Hell joke;

This guy is making an informed decision on Hell and Heaven, (on the advice of his Barrister,) so he goes down to Purgatory and takes the Demo tour. It consisted of three representative rooms.

In the first room, all participants were REQUIRED to assist in documenting tedium in its Dickensian superlative experience and manifestation.

In the second room, self loathing was being eternally gratified by ENFORCED self-flagellation.

The third room was populated by fools and vagrants, standing around in 6 inches of bull shit, telling jokes about Hell.

The man established that it was the same Devil running all three establishments. On contingency basis, he applied for priority placement in Room Three. As soon as he left, Satan came in an cracked the whip and shouted: "All right you lot. Management Tour is OVER. Back to standing on your HEADS... and no more jokes about HELL!"

Your taste is all in your Mouth: Baraketology;

"Spin" is a word synonymous with the corporeal nature of appearances in Politics. "Appearance is reality," is a mantra that has afforded me some humor in my time: "There's NO such _thing_ as BAD publicity!"
"Does this _APPEAR_ to be GOOD publicity?"
If I'm creative and it's still pertinent I'll exert myself to append some more.

In Basketball, "spin" is primarily employed gyroscopically to balance the ball on one finger for theatrics - someone once recommended smashing vertically down on the ball so balanced on the finger of a romantic rival :-) He wasn't in the mood for "spin."

The newly minted coin of flattery "Baraketology," telegraphs pointedly to me that no one person yet rules POTUS' PR...I don't think Plouffe really failed to anticipate that some would view the term as "confirmed self promotion, brazen and unabashed." Someone, somewhere is hockey checking Plouffe.

I think Politics' recent Jackie Robinson was badly served that day... it is to the advantage of all Americans for ALL American Presidents to do well.

In his day, Mr. Robinson faced ethnic hatred, brazen and unabashed: he was "beaned" first pitch if possible first time at the plate at every game until he'd "paid his dues." Baseball Stats had been popularized to level a player-trading arena early in the century. When public sentiments were so badly offended by the prominent trade of "The Bambino" from the Red Sox to the Yankees, Stats had been highlighted to even up comparisons; when Jackie Robinson was beaned, he was sent to first base, "hit by pitch." As such, "Whitey" sacrificed himself to a _stellar_ "on base percentage," just to mollify racial controversy. I'm not enough of an aficionado to know, but I am curious how the new Bill James stats system would have treated a non-ethnic player continually flinching from the opposing pitcher's collaboration with team orders.

POTUS has not yet accommodated insiders by becoming subject to spin in solidarity to poor Washington performance. I think it is tolerant of him to allow a pratfall in what is otherwise his favored personal constituency. He LIKES Basketball - "spin" is to no avail in the teamwork this sport teaches.

I'm personally moved to observe that, while I evaluated the move as a lose-lose PR-wise, the author of it certainly silenced me - I can't even say WHY I thought it was so stupid. The author really SHOULD get credit -

Free Speech is RESPONSIBLE speech