What Is Morality?

[vicente]

A few years ago I asked the question What Is Morality. At the time, considering the Christian Conservative groupthink, such a question was not well received. However, now there appears to be a little loosening up, a little more adventureness to dive deeply, to explore further beyond consensus reality,...so I offer the question, What Is Morality?

Osho said:
"Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. Morality is nothing but a deep suppression. We can not do anything while asleep,...we can only suppress.
Through morality we become false,...we will not be a person, but simply a "persona" - just a pseudo entity.
Only a dishonest person clings to morality.
A moral person is concerned with ideals - how we should be, what we should be, how to be convenient to society,...and thus inconvenient to ourself.
The preachers have convinced the whole world that "we are sinners". This is good for them, because unless we are convinced, their profession cannot continue. Religion is built on us being sinners, on our inferiority complex,...they have created an inferior humanity.

Love is not concerned with our so-called morals, our social formalities, etc. Love is neither concerned with immorality, it makes no difference between a thief and a saint. Immorality comes from the disturbed mind of morality. Love is amoral.
Morality and concepts concerning moral behavior are irrelevant for love.

Morality is basically condemning. We are never the ideal so we are condemned. Every morality is guilt-creating. Love does not condemn.

Of necessity, every morality creates hypocracy. Hypocracy will remain with morality,...it is part of it - like a shadow. This will look paradoxical because moralists are the men who condemn hypocracy the most, and yet they are the creators of it.
Hypocracy cannot disappear from the earth unless morality disappears. They exist together as two sides of the same coin. Morality gives us the ideal and we are not the idea; that is why the ideal is given to us. Then we start feeling that we are wrong, and that this wrongness is natural, it is given to us, we are born with it, born with sin. We cannot transform it, only suppress it,...that is easy.

But what can we do. We can create a false face; we can pretend to be something we are not. This saves us; allows religion to save us. Then we can move more easily in society - more conveniently.
Inwardly we have to suppress the real because the unreal can only be imposed only if the real is suppressed. So our reality goes on moving downward into the unconscious and our unreality becomes our conscious. Our unreal part becomes more dominant and the real recedes back.

We condemn the real and we enforce the unreal, because the unreal is going to be helpful in an unreal society and the unreal is going to be convenient. Where everyone is false, the real is not going to be convenient. And thus, in the vicious cycle, we train our children to be false".

:)

[DavidS]

Hi vicente -

In response to your question (and sharing of Osho's take on the subject - very interesting, thank you), here's an excerpt from David Hawkins, which I think also presents interesting perspective and opinion on related matters. My own perspective and opinion are in synch with this, though my view gives greater 'reality' to things like 'individual' personality, Hawkins' "reality" is strictly im·personal, or should I say universal·onal. (LOL) But I think this 'difference' between us simply reflects different aesthetic preferences in terms of what we each 'like' more, in terms of regarding something as "foreground" or a "background." Either way, the same 'ingredients' are referenced.

Anyone interested in what Hawkins means as 'calibratable' in what follows, I refer to his books; I think his comments 'stand' quite nicely taken as 'his personal perspective and opinion' alone.

sylph, this one's not for you - it's an 'essay' kind o' composition, about 4 pages worth.

:) David
==============
The Paradox of 'Good' versus 'Evil'

To transcend the great classic seeming opposites of good and evil, it is beneficial to appreciate again that all seeming opposites are the illusory consequences of collective labeling from an arbitrary point along a scale that includes only one variable, not two. We can construct a scale of 'desirability' of human actions, behaviors, and events which starts at the top with "wonderful" and declines through "undesirable" to "awful," and finally, to "horrific" and "catastrophic."

This could be modified to apply to any area of human life, depending on the desired result or value (e.g., business profit, farm production, personal happiness, moral conduct, etc.). The consequence of any event would then automatically become descriptively classifies or terms "good" or "bad," depending on its influence on the desired result. From this observation, we can confirm that what is considered 'truth' depends on context.

From the traditional historical religious viewpoint, to disobey God (Garden of Eden) was at the top of the list of possible evils, followed by fratricide (Cain versus Able), which was then followed by patricide, matricide, infanticide, and the defiling of the innocent. Farther down the list came torture, cruelty, enslavement, mayhem, manslaughter, rape, and assault and battery against persons. Then followed offenses against sovereignty, property, money, and articles of value. Added to the list were offenses against human values, such as freedom, dignity, and personal choice, as well as ethical and moral values, and moral rights, including entitlements, and finally emotions.

Lack of clarity about rules, laws, and standards of behavior have reflected lack of certainty about context. Context itself is very complex and often vague or unspecified, which results in jurisprudence to define nuances of the gravity of offenses. The seemingly simple definitions of 'right' versus 'wrong' often defy the best of human intelligence. Discernment reflects the output of complicated and intricate interacting factors, such as education, age, IQ, and maturity, as well as ethnic, regional, and historic elements.

Consequently, the mantle of officialdom does not rest easily on the shoulders of responsibility. Morality and ethics shift with viewpoint that, in turn, reflects the input of society at an evolutionary point in history and the development of civilization. Even a seemingly minor scientific discovery in the laboratory can change an exhaustively derived verdict from 'guilty' to 'innocent' (i.e., DNA testing).

When we view the extreme complexity of trying to define context, it would seem that wisdom counsels to avoid glib and facile statements or judgmentalism. What appears to be a seemingly obvious truth can, in seconds, be turned into its opposite by a simple discovery of a more advanced mathematical process produced by a computer.

It would seem that what is considered to be 'truth' fluctuates from second to second, and with that fluidity, there is a correlate variability of ethics, morality, and the subtleties of good and evil. As an example, we can look at current brain research which demonstrates that psychopaths (the chronic criminal recidivist) have defects of the frontal lobe cortex which are genetic in origin. They have a genetic inability to learn from experience, or to delay gratification, or to surrender short-term impulses for long term goals. Should these genetically impaired individuals be viewed as evil, bad, criminal, or wrong and be punished? For instance, a very famous criminal, who cut off the arms of his rape victim so she could not defend herself, was released after some eighteen years in prison, and within twenty-four hours he had raped and murdered another woman. Paradoxically, he had pleaded to no be released as he knew he would be compelled to do it again.

We note that what is very animalistic is often labeled as evil. Thus, the unspoken context of all depictions of good versus evil reflects the positionality that all events that support human life, the common good, and spiritual values are good and those that have the opposite result are terms bad and evil.

If we examine the arbitrary scale of good versus bad from beyond the human condition to its effects on life, the all moralistic and dualistic judgmentalism falls away within the larger context. Life itself has no opinion; it just 'is'. Life effortlessly diverts quickly from one form into another without innate reaction or resistance. It does not even register a reaction to change of form. Life, like light, is innately formless and beyond preference, resistance, or reaction.

The moral dilemma is solved by comprehending the teaching of Jesus Christ that evil is in the eye of the beholder; yet, paradoxically, to transgress results in serious consequences to the human who ignores spiritual reality and willfully commits sin. Spiritual evolution brings with it new responsibilities and karmic consequences.

[a couple of 'digressive' paras omitted here]

From the analysis of the origin of the concepts of good and evil as perceptions of human consciousness, we can understand the answer to the question often posed through the ages: "How can a good God create a world that includes evil?" The answer, of course, is the He did not. The seeming opposites exist in the mind of man as perceptions and positionalities.

As human consciousness evolves, all depictions of good, evil and value judgments reflect a level of consciousness that is calibratable and relatively predictable. If consciousness evolves, it takes on evermore advanced moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibility. What is seen as a virtue at one level of consciousness can be seen as a fault at another level. Thus kindness, consideration, and forgiveness are values of the higher levels and could be contrarily seen at lower levels as weaknesses, defect, or faults. We see the same switch of values when there is a major shift of context, such as the rules of behavior during wartime are different from those in peacetime. Whole countries and cultures alternate between being friends or enemies over long courses of time, and the ally of one decade becomes the enemy of the next and then reverts back. The scintillations of human life and society reflect the shifts in content, context, and positionalities or perception, all of which interface and reflect back again the prevailing, calibratable level of consciousness.

Moralistic polarity is traditionally the greatest conflict are of civilization. It is responsible for the killing of more people than any of nature's catastrophes for it segments mankind into hate, guilt, revenge, murder, suicide, and more. It also sets up the ideological basis for all the pseudo-religious wars that parade under the banner of some religion, yet it completely disregards and violates all the premises of the religion under which the persecutions and terrorist attacks are conducted, ostensibly in the name of God.

Even 'heaven' and 'hell' are not opposites but merely quite different spiritual regions. The same phenomena occur in political ideologies, such a communism versus democracy, totalitarianism versus freedom, and communism versus socialism. If we examine much of what the world traditionally calls evil, what we discover is not evil, which is an abstraction, epithet, and label; instead we see behaviors that could be described as primitive, infantile, egotistical, narcissistic, selfish, and ignorant, complicated by the psychological mechanisms of denial, projection, and paranoia in order to justify hatred.

In much criminal behavior, 'evil' can easily be seen as a form of insanity and the acting out of infantile impulses and irrationality. Religious or political excess is acted out as righteous indignation, which supposedly removes all personal responsibility; that is, the basic excuse is the rationalized so-called 'principle'. The ego loves to act out of the vanity of 'principle'. As amazing as it may seem, upon inspection, entire populations, countries and civilizations can be easily persuaded by propaganda to give up their lives and property, and even their families and children, to some banal slogan. Out of infantilism, the immature psyche seeks external authority, which often is merely the consensus of public opinion under the sway of demagoguery. The real defect can be more correctly identified as a lack of evolution of consciousness, plus the innate defect of the human mind and its inability to discern truth from falsehood.

To get to the core of the issue, one has to looks at the fact that the matrix and underpinnings of belief is willingness. The propagandist understand very well that the populous is eager to believe a lie for the sake of the motional payoff experienced by the ego. Secretly, people enjoy the pleasure of 'righteous' anger, hatred, self-pity, etc. Over time, this has become labeled a 'temptation', which has been alleged to be 'out there' rather than 'within here'.

Temptation stems from within; it is merely the desire to experience the ego's payoff and satisfactions of an impulse, even if it is only a curiosity or a wanting. The ego gets a secret thrill, excitement, and a temporary sense of self-inflation or importance, even if it amounts to killing one's own classmates just to 'see what it feels like to kill people'. We see that the location of the temptation is within the go itself, and the external world simply provides an excuse, an attractive stimulus, or an opportunity. All self-responsibility, guilt, and blame are relieved by projecting the origin of the problem into the external world as "they" or "my past made me do it."

Just as there is no 'thinker' behind the thoughts nor 'doer' behind actions, there is also no actual 'tempter' as such. The ego likes to pretend that evil exists 'out there' and seduces the hapless, innocent ego into inadvertently falling into the trap of seduction. The real tempter is the ego's desire for gain, whether that be sensation, excitement, advantage, prestige, or the pleasure of controlling others.

To realize the truth of the above releases one from the bondage of guilt and hate that ensues from the classic duality of good versus evil which has prevailed since the allegory of Adam and Eve. The presumed devil represents the ego's own proclivities and repressed desires. Man is therefore the victim of the inability to tell truth from falsehood as well as the seductions of the ego.

The calibrated levels of consciousness reflect the degree of the presence of Love, just as a thermometer registers the presence of heat. Each level represents an energy field that has innate characteristics and which is identifiable by the presence of those attributes. Each level also has its own culture in which there are leaders or symbolic representatives. Within each level, there are 'prominence' and 'success' as determined by the differing criteria and definitions of that level of consciousness.

From the infinite power of the Supreme beyond all universes, the Unmanifest manifests as the Light of Creation and all life. This radiates down through the heavens and celestial realms and appears on Earth as the great avatars, the enlightened sages, and the saints. Then there are the devoted people whose lives are dedicated to goodness and the relief of suffering. Next is the lovingness inherent in the average person that becomes conditional. Then occurs the consciousness that is devoted to intelligence and the intellect. The world of man is supported by the willingness and sociability of the populous and the integrity of the daily worker.

As dedication to Love diminishes, pride, selfishness, and anger become more overt. Self-centeredness and selfish egocentricity replace love, and darkness ensues. The energy fields devoid of love are consequent to the refusal of God and become denoted as 'lower astral', wherein reign the luciferic and satanic entities that envy and hate goodness and love as their enemies and seek to dominate or destroy the vulnerable. True evil is the result of a choice of the spiritual will and has grave spiritual and karmic consequences. At its worst, extreme evil is chosen for its own sake because it is evil. This characterizes the truly demonic.

The psychological source of seeming evil is primarily the naïve childishness of the primitive animal instincts of the infantile ego which tends to go into rage if its impulses are blocked by external authority. The same oppositional rage or narcissistic rebellion characterizes the criminal, the adolescent delinquent, the warmonger, and the puritanical moralist; they are all the same.

To fear evil is to fear lack of control over one's impulses. The average heroin addict starts out as being just one of a crowd and does not want to appear to be 'chicken' but then discovers that even one dose is sufficient to begin the lifetime entrapment. The addiction is actually not to the drug itself but to the euphoria that surpasses other possible human experiences. Addiction is a psychological, social, and physiological phenomenon born of naïveté and denial.

The spiritual aspirant, therefore, is wise to detach from all positionalities and opinions an be willing to surrender the ego's temporary satisfactions for a higher goal. Human history is the drama of the interaction of the collective egos of a population within which the general majority calibrates below the level of Integrity.

[sahyo]

Thus kindness, consideration, and forgiveness are values of the higher levels and could be contrarily seen at lower levels as weaknesses, defect, or faults.



As human consciousness evolves, all depictions of good, evil and value judgments reflect a level of consciousness that is calibratable and relatively predictable. If consciousness evolves, it takes on evermore advanced moral, ethical, and spiritual responsibility. What is seen as a virtue at one level of consciousness can be seen as a fault at another level.



Each level represents an energy field that has innate characteristics and which is identifiable by the presence of those attributes. Each level also has its own culture in which there are leaders or symbolic representatives. Within each level, there are 'prominence' and 'success' as determined by the differing criteria and definitions of that level of consciousness.



From the infinite power of the Supreme beyond all universes, the Unmanifest manifests as the Light of Creation and all life. This radiates down through the heavens and celestial realms and appears on Earth as the great avatars, the enlightened sages, and the saints. Then there are the devoted people whose lives



quoting hawkinsthinkingseparatingwhichnot

[sahyo]

which quoted not only which hawkins
has written thinkingseparatingwhichnot

[vicente]

This David Hawkin's seems to a product of the 12 Steps indoctrination, what I call positive negativism. So, overall, I disagree with the message, ie., that truth fluctuates from second to second. For him truth may fluctuate from second to second, but to say that is true for everyone is false.

I did get a chuckle from, in order of severity, the descending order of horrific sins,...that is, eating an apple, followed by, fratricide, patricide, matricide, infanticide, torture, cruelty, enslavement, mayhem, manslaughter, rape, and assault and battery against persons, etc.

His idea "How can a good God create a world that includes evil? The answer, of course, is the He did not",...to me, in most cases, this is basically a protective response in order to sustain the delusion of the existence of a god,....however, I'll expand on that idea with a quote from the Foundation for Inner Peace:

If God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).
These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:
The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.
You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.
It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.


Does A Course in Miracles really mean that God did not create the entire physical universe?

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of God, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

Perception is not an attribute of God. His is the realm of knowledge....In God you cannot see. Perception has no function in God, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).
In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which God did not create:
The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as Himself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).
And finally, a similar statement in the text:
God's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet are His laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).
These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.
Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of God. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).
To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:
How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).
In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 14 2003, 02:10 PM
This David Hawkin's seems to a product of the 12 Steps indoctrination, what I call positive negativism.
You strike me as being a 'classic' demonstration of the human mental-emotional system's capacity for and susceptibility to the 'temptation' to 'pigeon hole' others in 'boxes' that are different from one's own, with (one's own) 'box' not being recognized as being such at all. The ACIM (A Course in Miracles) material, which I have the highest regard for, also spokes to this, quite clearly I thought. I think Jesus also said something pertaining to such eye-motes.

So, overall, I disagree with the message, ie., that truth fluctuates from second to second.
Am I to understand from what you next said that you think and believe that what you perceive and experience as 'truth' pertaining to yourself, your situation, others and their situation NEVER varies or only varies in the sense of steadily 'progressing' in a 'stable' and 'sane' fashion? In that case, you must be some kind of rock! Any would-be 'multi-millennial church' builders in the audience?

In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.
Though I recognize that you are under the impression that you are not 'dreaming', based on what I 'see' as the willfulness and sense-of-superiority-sustaining-pleasure with which you "polarize" positions (word-sling-adeptly 'pidgeon-hole' attributing others' positions in ways which 'portray' them to be less respectable than your own), as well the lack of joyful-loving-lighthearted 'humor' ('humor' = 'spirit') accompanying your 'cloud of smoke', I daresay that the Reality referenced is also outside the world of yours . . .

At least, that's how it sure seems in my 'dream' -- my dream-logic says that no one would 'work' so 'hard' to say the kinds of things you do IF s/he really]/U] [U]understood and so truly regarded what is conventionally accepted as 'reality' to be learning-environment 'dream'.

:) David

[rich]

Good post David. The only thing that Vicente and I agree about, is we both have similar assessments re; G W( Dubbya) Bush. On other issues,
Vicente has satanistic views, David, and he is too set in his ways, so do not bother trying to change him. He does not want to listen. B)

Cordially,

Rich :D

[sahyo]

Vicente has satanistic views



:lol:

which thought"satanistic"whichnot?

[rich]

which thought"satanistic"whichnot? :unsure: Maybe does worship Satan.

answer: which thought, whichnot thought/rich thought rich not thought "satanistic" subject: vicente

Vicente's views are guilty of killing hope in everyone for he considers himself as hopeless. Closes his mind to be helped by divine guidance, and wants everyone to agree with his incorrect POV of classifying everything as hopeless. Vicente's pov is, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG WRONG! :ph34r: :) :angry:

Rich :P

[sahyo]

Vicente's views are guilty of killing hope*



richie...which thinks'pastfuture'hopewhichnot?

:P ;)

[rich]

asheera's question:Richie...which thinks'pastfuture'hopewhichnot?

a truthful answer is, I do not understand your question.

Think you may mean, living hereandnow,now.
I Am living here and now, now, as best as I can now.

Have to live in hope for happier future, or throw in the towel.

I may be dead for a long time, but whatever fate awaits me,
I do not know. In the meantime, I am still trying to understand
your question. <_<

[vicente]

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation.
1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief.
3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an expected payoff.

Is there a more dishonest word than hope?

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition,...an attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Heart? The belief of hope is a barrier which obscures the Heart's inherent unconditional preferencelessness. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or bad.

If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience immediacy,...the Now? If we seek hope, our overall frequency pattern will be one of projecting a self-manifested incompleteness, and thus can only attract to itself, that incompleteness. It is no different than a mirror in ones bathroom; if you look into the mirror with a frown, it will not reflect back a smile. In other words, our hope will never be realized as long as we hope; just like joy is never actualized if we are looking for it.

Hope is a condition,...Love is Unconditional. Hope can never enter Love, because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.

Vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente posted:Hope is a condition,...Love is Unconditional. Hope can never enter Love, because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.


Perhaps Vicente, and any others who espouse the word, Unconditional , but perhaps, rather than deleting the word Hope , you are suggesting, the word unconditional may be a better word to delete.

Unconditional allows no conditions, it allows only one way, no room for compromise. Unconditional is a very uncompromising word.

Do your actions want a blank check, to do whatever makes you feel good, and just do it ?

Do not follow any moral codes, ethics, principles, Dharma, Commandments, except a bottom line,FEEL GOOD!

Sorry Bub, but my world does not work that way. I wonder if there are many others who see things your way?

Unconditionalunconditional my way?LoL :lol: Silly!

[vicente]

RichieT says, "Unconditional allows no conditions, it allows only one way, no room for compromise"

RichieT, you're defining Unconditional as unconditional. I'm not speaking of the unconditional that is the opposite of conditional, which is simply another condition,...but the Unconditional, the Unconceptual, Causeless Love which has no opposite.

You are correct,...in that not many self-absorbed, Judeao-Christian Westerners can Still themselfs long enough on the seesaw of illusion to realize the only true splender of the Now. Not a perceived now that thinks its attachments to the past and hopes of a future are real and can come along, but the Unconditional Now, where the illusory conditions of past and future never existed.

vicente
:)

[rich]

Vicente,

Know what you are trying to say, but I do not think that the use of the

word unconditional is the best word to use, since usage of the

word unconditional imposes its own conditions. ;)

Perhaps ultimate may be a better word to use. :unsure:

Rich

[DavidS]

Many thanks for your advice, rich. And I must say, really cool 'jujitsu' out there in relation to the subject, man! Impressively agile-acrobatic, especially for a old-geeser. :D Or maybe because you're one! : "I've got little or nothing to 'lose' " attitude sure frees one from being 'uptight', ay what? :lol:

Well, I sure ain't going to 'try' all that hard at lost puppy corraling. The Reality of it all is that nothing is all that 'serious'! The 'attraction' of the Life-Force-Being-Maker-n-Mover is such that the integral-sum (calculus term) of the flow is ocean-ward. And moving water and sand do eventually wear down even the hardest rockheads.

Also, one can live-enjoy in hope :lol: of a 'miracle' in the meantime. I mean, since anyone with a head that ain't buried in his/her ingestion-excretion tract can 'see' that inexplicable thangs periodically do happen. The NOW is here-there-n-everywhere 'bubbling' with them!

And that NOW may either be fluidly-LIVED and LOVE-JOYed or simply sat-in-a-corner-gripe-railing-about-others-lollipop-thumb-sucked on . . . or a whole lot of other more actively luciferian thangs! . . . ain't 'free' will wonderful!

:lol: David

[sahyo]

hope = fearthinkingpast"hope"futurewhich not

[rich]

words of vicente, asheera.

[sahyo]

richie still 'thinking' asheera following vicente?, when not

[rich]

richie 'thinks' asheera follows vicente's point of view! does not? ;) :blink:

[sahyo]

nope

:D

;)

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 20 2003, 04:40 AM
nope

:D

;)

hope?

:D

;)
See quoted post :rolleyes:

[sahyo]

oooooh
hooooooooooo
shhohofizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:D

[rich]

oooooh
hooooooooooo
shhohofizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

sodapopfizzzzzzzesnapscracklespopspopselkcracspans ezzzzzzzzifpopados :lol: ;)

[sahyo]

fizzzzzzzzzzzzilsnipilolpholdophilizzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz???zzzzzzz ;) :D

[a random hack]

:blink:

[sahyo]

:lol:

[rich]

fizzzzzzzzzzzzilsnipilolpholdophilizzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz???zzzzzzz

champagnefizzzzzzzzzzzzilsnipiphilizzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzbubblinginiz,"icic"said B) :)

[sahyo]

frifrikkllllllllcccccccccccccccccccing, eh?

[sahyo]

:)

[rich]

:D ;)

[sahyo]

:)

[rich]

asheera humoring/returning :) to rich : :P

[DavidS]

Hopefully :) you'll 'get' this, asheera, though, on the basis of my ex·peer·ience here to date, my guess is that the probability of such 'happening' is pretty small.

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 19 2003, 12:10 PM
hope = fearthinkingpast"hope"futurewhich not
That's 'true' in your 'mind-field', presumably derived from your personal observations and experience in the past-leading-up-to-the-present.

HOWEVER, that's NOT 'true' in my 'mind-field'.

You see "hope" may be a heart-openness to something positive (i.e., something personally desired for 'attractive' reasons) happening in the future. This, without one's 'fearing' that things might simply continue as they are or even get 'worse' -- such possibilities being 'fearlessly' accepted and not a 'driving force' behind one's thinking and feeling.

Let me play with your idea-stem hoping that 'speaking your language' will help make things more evident. As I do so, please try to open your mind-field to the possibility that "hope" can be:

lovethinkingpast"hope"futurewhich is.
If you 'see' what this says, then I hope you'll understand my plea that you stop dripping-n-dribbling 'negativity' (deriving from fear-based assumptions-n-projections and related thinking) into my lovely :D soup -- when I'm doing the 'cooking' that is . . . fine with me if and when you are actually prividing the ingredients and doing your own cooking with them.

- David :huh:

[vicente]

I agree with Asheera, "hope = fearthinkingpast"hope"futurewhich not"

DavidS, your belief and attachment to "hope" is keeping you tethered, imprisioned, and obscured. You remind me of the cow, like in the Mata Amritanandamayi story:

"There was a cowherd boy who took his cows to the meadows every morning and brought them back to the cowshed at the end of the day. One evening, as he was tying the cows up for the night, the boy found that one of them was missing her rope. He feared that she might run away, but it was too late to go and buy a new rope. The boy didn't know what to do, so he went to a wise man who lived nearby and sought his advice. The wise man told the boy to pretend to tie the cow, and make sure that the cow saw him doing it. The boy did as the wise man suggested and pretended to tie the cow. The next morning the boy discovered that the cow had remained still throughout the night. He untied all the cows as usual, and they all went outside. He was about to go to the meadows when he noticed that the cow with the missing rope was still in the cowshed. She was standing on the same spot where she had been all night. He tried to coax her to join the herd, but she wouldn't budge. The boy was perplexed. He went back to the wise man who said, "The cow still thinks she is tied up. Go back and pretend to untie her." The boy did as he was told, and the cow happily left the cowshed. This is what the guru does with the ego of the disciple. The guru helps untie that which was never there. Like the cow, due to our ignorance, we believe that we are bound by the ego when, in fact, we are completely free. We need to be convinced of this, however."

:)

[a random hack]

Hmmp, that'll teach me not to listen to cows! :P

[rich]

Dear Fred,

I guess that I did not realize that for some, the use of a computer may present a financial burden to some.

Wish you well Hack, I guess i am lucky to have cmptr at my disposal.
Hope to see you posting soon again.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 21 2003, 11:46 AM
I agree with Asheera, "hope = fearthinkingpast'hope'futurewhich not"
We are all to some degree 'tethered' by and to the views and opinions we 'hold' in mind-n-heart at any given moment, even those which we hold 'tentatively' and 'temporarily'.

It looks to me like you and asheera are 'tethered' to the above one - hence also the advice to give up or get rid of all 'hope' on your part.

I am simply declaring that there is a different kind of or basis for 'hope', to wit:

"hope = lovethinkingpast'hope'futurewhich is"

And, yes, you might say I am 'tethered' to that. But I must say that I find this 'tether' very uplifting and very much enjoy the fact that it serve/enables me to be a 'high flyer' ('higher' than I otherwise would, that is); and, conversely, the 'tether' asheera keeps on proferring though I've repeatedly declined the offer, and which you now also 'champion', I find a real 'downer'. Each to his/her own taste, I say. That's just the way my mind-n-spirit flavor buds seem to be geared.

By the way, I agree there can be a 'down side' to 'hope' if it is engaged in in the way you and asheera suggest is its only kind of dance-manifestation, as well as if it is engaged in gullible-pollyanna·ishly in 'mindless' fashion.

David :)

[sahyo]

which is thinkingdrug"hope = lovethinkingpast'hope'future"?
for "very uplifting and very much enjoy the fact that it serve/enables me
to be a 'high flyer' ('higher' than I otherwise would, that is) "

;)

[sahyo]

cow story quote :D

[rich]

Posting this, just to start the adrenalin flowing. :o

What Is Morality?

All that I know about that, is, You can't legislate it! ;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 14 2003, 12:05 PM
Osho said: "Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. Morality is nothing but a deep suppression. We can not do anything while asleep,...we can only suppress. Through morality we become false,...we will not be a person, but simply a "persona" - just a pseudo entity. Only a dishonest person clings to morality. A moral person is concerned with ideals - how we should be, what we should be, how to be convenient to society,...and thus inconvenient to ourself. The preachers have convinced the whole world that "we are sinners". This is good for them, because unless we are convinced, their profession cannot continue. Religion is built on us being sinners, on our inferiority complex,...they have created an inferior humanity. Love is not concerned with our so-called morals, our social formalities, etc. Love is neither concerned with immorality, it makes no difference between a thief and a saint. Immorality comes from the disturbed mind of morality. Love is amoral.
Morality and concepts concerning moral behavior are irrelevant for love... [Etc.]"

Emmanuel's perspective on aspects of personal 'morality', or 'moral' response-ability, touching on certain socio-political 'issues'. (I refer the reader to the Soul Talk thread in the Religion section for specifics on the 'source' of this):

Q: Is abortion ever right?

There are no succinct answers to this
because each individual
is a soul incarnate.
You must walk your own way
to find your own answers
to the best of your ability at any given moment.
It is a complex world you live in, dear ones,
and it does not beg one single, simple answer.

Abortion offers those involved an opportunity to probe the meaning
of their own self-love
and their own belief system
about life after death and life before birth.
those indirectly involved stand peripherally
and make judgments.
For almost everyone
who has ever been confronted with that issue
it has been a useful time for self-exploration.

Do you believe
that an Angel does not know what to anticipate?
If the vehicle is not to come to term,
then there is no soul, no Angel,
to inhabit the body that is being formulated.
Now, how does one know
what the future decision will be?
In human terms that knowledge is impossible.
To the Greater Knowing
all things are predetermined.

Abortion is one of the endless questions.
Each human being must decide individually.
There is a "yes" for one
and a "no" for another.
There will never be regulations
satisfactory to everyone.
Why? you did not come to be regulated.
You came as
Angels within human bodies,
to live respectful of the human condition,
compassionate to the suffering of your world,
and at the same time remember
that all things are eternally in the hands
of perfect Love.

The issue of abortion
has been one of the many useful teachers
on your planet today.
Some teachers are fading;
others are just rising
into the zenith of their effectiveness.
The nuclear threat to the world
was also a powerful professor for a long time.
It no longer has supreme attention-getting authority.
Other things are moving up.

Until the soul has graduated,
there will always be a curriculum
upon your plane: abortion, AIDS,
small local skirmishes
that have an enormous global effect,
nuclear power, the rights of people
to a home, food in their stomachs,
and clothes on their backs.
These are penetrating issues now.

As humanity moves
up the ladder of experience,
the teachings will become more complex,
more demanding, more compelling.
I am not in any way suggesting
that there will be monstrous earth changes
or terrible holocausts.
I am reminding you that on an individual basis,
the world offers endless opportunity for study.

Q: What can we tell someone when they are in pain?

The first things to tell them
is that they are loved,
not by some impersonal or invisible being,
but by you standing with them.
The doorway to any truth
is the one labeled "LOVE."

When that can be heard,
then the vaster reaches of Love can be believed.
When a human addresses human,
there is a tendency to believe the person
rather than the philosophy.
That is quite appropriate,
because the suffering takes place
within the personal experience,
so it must be within that area
that one first reaches for solace.
If one could leap to a broader understanding
and announce "I know I am an Angel,"
there would be no suffering,
just another point of interest on the journey.

Human experience
is not some parasitic growth
upon the consciousness of the being.
It is the chosen journey.

When fear steps out, miracles can step in.
Will they always transform circumstances
as the compassionate friend would wish?
No.
Since everyone is embarked
upon their specific journey of love,
then all you can offer then is yourself.
you are the balm.
Your are the sermon.
Perhaps the immediate benefit cannot be seen.
It is a call to faith.

I was going to transcribe some more from the chapter I just read and am going over once more, sifting out 'nuggets' to share, but I will continue with this later. It struck me that an 'inspirational' 'story' circulating on the internet which synchronously came to me just today might be worth inserting here:

Subject: Fw: The Inspiration in Kindness

Breakfast at McDonald's

A mother of three (ages 14, 12 and 3) recently completed her college degree. Her last class was Sociology. Her teacher was absolutely inspiring with the qualities that every human being had been graced with.

Her last project of the term was called "Smile."

The class was asked to go out and smile at three people and document their reactions. The mother is a very friendly person and always smiles at everyone and says hello anyway, so, she thought this would be a piece of cake, literally.

Soon after she was assigned the project she went to a McDonald's with her husband and youngest son one crisp March morning. It was intended as a special playtime with their son. They were standing in line, waiting to be served, when all of a sudden everyone around her began to back away, even her husband.

She did not move an inch ... then an overwhelming feeling of panic welled up inside of her as she turned to see why they had moved. She turned around only to find a horrible "dirty body" smell and standing there her were two poor homeless men. As she looked down at the short gentleman, close to her, he was "smiling".

His beautiful sky blue eyes were full of God's Light as he searched for acceptance. He said, "Good day" as he counted the few coins he had been clutching. The second man fumbled with his hands as he stood behind his friend. She realized the second man was mentally challenged and the blue-eyed gentleman was his salvation.

She held her tears as she stood there with them. The young lady at the counter asked him what they wanted. He said, "Coffee is all Miss" because that was all they could afford. If they wanted to sit in the restaurant and warm up, they had to buy something and they just wanted to be warm.

Then she really felt it - the compulsion was so great she almost reached out and embraced the little man with the blue eyes. That was when she noticed all eyes in the restaurant were set on her, judging her every action.

She smiled and asked the young lady behind the counter to give her two more breakfast meals on a separate tray. She then walked around the corner to the table that the men had chosen as a resting spot. She put the tray on the table and laid her hand on the blue-eyed gentleman's cold hand. He looked up at her, with tears in his eyes, and said, "Thank you."

She leaned over, began to pat his hand and said, "I did not do this for you. God is here working through me to give you hope." She started to cry as she walked away to join her husband and son. When she sat down her husband smiled at her and said, "That is why God gave you to me, Honey, to give me hope."

They held hands for a moment and at that time, they knew that only because of the Grace that they had been given were they able to give. They are not church goers, but they are believers.

She returned to college, on the last evening of class, with this story in hand. She turned in "her project" and the instructor read it. After finishing reading it, he looked up and said, "Can I share this?" She slowly nodded as he got the attention of the class.

He began to read and that is when she knew that we as human beings and being part of God share this need to heal people and to be healed. In her own way she had touched the people at McDonald's, her husband, son, instructor, and every soul that shared the classroom on the last night she spent as a college student.

She graduated with one of the biggest lessons she would ever learn: UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.

REMEMBER
To handle yourself, use your head. To handle others, use your heart.
==========

[sahyo]

when ceases asif :zzz:
thinking"yourself"others"-giverreceiver-trying to "handle"

:)

[DavidS]

More from Emmanuel, touching on 'morality'.

Q: Is humanity sinking into immorality?

To the contrary,
humanity is spiraling upward.
Things have been much more dank
and dark than this.
Today's capacity to communicate
is a wondrous device for truth,
although I know there is also great nonsense,
indeed harmful information,
disseminated through the media.
One's cells become permeated with terror
upon watching the usual fare of the television meal.
Yet it also holds a capacity to display
the shadowy sides of your human world.
Once people see what is happening,
they cannot pretend they do not know.

The majority of the planetary inhabitants
are evolving with the same rapidity as you are.
They see the same pain,
the same environmental outrage,
the same sad results of greed, of cruelty.
There are few who remain
stubbornly blind to all that.
The call of awakening comes
within each generation.
Immorality in governments
may turn your stomachs, but a century ago
it would not be known.
The alarm bell would not be sounded.

Fear will always find a way
to bring darkness, given the chance,
for that is the atmosphere of its survival.
The eruption of hostility
need not be seen as a step backward.
It is an emergence of the social abscesses
that were always there.
We are cleaning the sublayers.
The long-denied terrors
are being given a public airing.

Q: Is there anything we should do?

Rush to support the beneficial.
Speak out.
Do not let the ennui of fear
persuade you that you are powerless.
There is always something you can do
as long as you move
with the integrity of Love.

We are walking subtle lines here.
When one points to "Negativity out there,"
it becomes judgment.
One cannot help but see, but one can help judging.
"Then what should I do with this?" you ask.
Open your heart that much wider
to an immoral leader. That does not mean you
support his actions.
"There is my teacher," you say.
"He is walking on a journey just as I am.
There goes an Angel
with a most demanding curriculum."

Q: Can we really change things in our world?

Everything you do
affects your entire planet.
Just one moment
of open-hearted allowing
and your planet is transformed.
All those who are breathing the atmosphere
inhale that much more Light.

The world is changing rapidly,
for the journeys of many
are being completed in these times.
There are many souls
who will choose to return to spirit,
for there is indeed
the upward path of remembering.
There are also those who come
in willing service and walk
into the very depths of darkness
to help shake loose those
who, in their terror, would still cling
to what darkness seems to promise.
No souls is ever lost,
but forgetting can be profound,
can it not?

If you can stop one moment of inhumanity,
you must do so,
because you are part of the Plan as well,
but bring as much Love
to that moment as you can.

What is to be done?
look for the Light smiling at you
through the apparent shadows,
and remember there is nothing
that transforms darkness more quickly
than a festivity right in the middle of it.
Today would be a perfect time to begin to celebrate
your angelhood.

Will you fall into forgetting again?
Of course, and you will awaken again.
each tie you remember,
the delight of your heart will explode
into a million twinkling stars.

Do not wait for perfection
to be the continuous way
in which you live
before you celebrate.
Whenever there is a crack
in the shell of illusion, give a party.
When you catch the sun
streaming through the clouds,
buy yourself a dozen roses.
Whenever you feel
like waltzing down the street,
let nothing stop you.

Q: Is joy the dance. Is that all there is?

Yes.
To get to that joy,
one must recognize in oneself
and in others
that the suffering is not the person.
joy is.
A miracle is waiting for you—
not to create it, but to remember it.

<span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>You are not a beggar at the table of life.
You are the honored guest.

===========</span>

[sahyo]

when :think: imagining'believing' ceases

[rich]

David.

Both of your posts, rich is in agreement. :applause:

[slayer]

Vicente,

I'm going to take a stab at your question: What is morality?

I want to first say that talk about Love and some Nietzschean genealogy of morality is not to the point. In this regard, Osho and many others are completely off the mark.

Morality seems to be the rules of conduct, with their attached 'good' and 'bad' labels, which we as people in a society use to help us live peacefully together and to prosper.

So, as would seem to follow from my definition, we consider some acts immoral (which really just means morally bad) because they work contrary to our goal of having a society where we can all live peacefully together and prosper.

For example, is it wrong to kill your neighbor's kid? Yes. But under my definition, it is wrong because it's not conducive to living peacefully. This sounds rather harsh, if not wrong; yet unless one can establish some metaethical principles, which has been tried unsuccessfully for thousands of years, it seems that we have to rest our justification for calling that particular act (killing your neighbor's kid on whim, say) morally wrong on something less absolute. But do not think that I'm a moral relativist, because I'm claiming that this act is always wrong for all people. (By the way, relativism is the sickness of small minds). And what we rest our claim on are the ways which humans best prosper in a society.

Let me try to expand on this "ways which humans best prosper in a society." You, wanting to live peacefully, do not want to be killed just because someone had the whim to do so. I, wanting to live peacefully, do not want to be killed just because someone had the whim to do so. So, we agree that to kill each other on a whim is wrong, because this is not conducive to our living together peacefully. We hence come up with a moral tenet: thou shalt not kill someone merely on a whim. I'm claiming all moral 'rights' and 'wrongs' rest on the ways which humans best live together.

A part of this view rests on something akin to Kant's categorical imperative, which is, roughly, that one should do what one would be willing to have done commonly. So, if you kill my kid on a whim, you'd be assenting to having the killing of kids on a whim become the prevailing doctrine. Of course we wouldn't want this, and, so Kant would say, you shouldn't kill my kid on a whim.

An ethical layman,

slayer

[beesting42]

slayer... does morality lead to suffering?

[Comus]

Slayer is a brilliant mind from what I've read of his old posts. Our greatest concern should not be concocting a list of moral/immoral acts; instead we need to find the precise point that qualifies an immoral act as immoral. Therefore: giving the history of morality, some writers, the overused Nietzsche, is far too easy to really mean anything. Morality necessarily exists outside of us or else it would live while we live and, likewise, die when we die. The motivation, the will to wrong, is what makes an act immoral. Slayer will probably disagree since that's not exactly Kantian, but the Categorical Imperative is slightly too rigid a system to secure any absolutes with. Killing Jesus: Christians would agree that this was an immoral act that occurred. I, though, am no Christian. As for relativism: if everyone is right, then the pursuit of what is right is equally as useless as posting on this board. Nobody should change--we can all get along. How's the weather? Morality is a construct of man, who strives to protect himself and, paradoxically, conquer. Women, too. Even on this board people desire desparately to make a difference, seeking to reassure themselves with their "personal philosophy" or "heart's musings" against the backdrop of like-minded individuals. Suffer and affirm, friends. You have truth, it is ripped from you and you heal, adjust and learn self-defense. Slayer believes he has found truth; if you want to beat him at his own game then learn the rules and arrest him with brilliant strategy. For me, though, I'll have no part in it; why would I crucify a fellow prophet?

[a random hack]

Morality necessarily exists outside of us or else it would live while we live and, likewise, die when we die
who says it doesn't live as we live, and die as we die?

and if it doesn't, why are we still looking for "the precise point that qualifies an immoral act as immoral"?

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Aug 10 2004, 12:01 AM
Morality necessarily exists outside of us or else it would live while we live and, likewise, die when we die
who says it doesn't live as we live, and die as we die?

that be true, Random, morality, right/wrong, whatever, changes as society changes/evolves. Different cultures have different mores.

[Comus]

I agree that different societies have different morals; for example, some Eskimos kill their kids. But they don't do it to kill their kid, they don't do it to be mean--that would be immoral even in a culture that embraces killing its children. No, Eskimos kill their kids if they can't provide for them. Knowing the reason completely changes your outlook on the situation, doesn't it? Food is so scarce and when it is found they share it in the community. It would be selfish for one family to hog all the resources. So they kill the kid to help out the community. Where is this going? Different societies have different morals. Okay. But the vast majority of societies would agree that to do something for a malicious reason would be immoral.

[Comus]

"A Random Hack": After giving it some thought, I'm not entirely certain that even I am capable of sufficiently justifying a response to your, well, we could call them thoughts. However, since I am a good-natured soul who plays at these kinds of childrens games, I will provide you with answers which you, evidently, so desparately need. But first, a suggestion to keep you all occuppied: Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky while paying particular attention to the relativist, the superman, Raskalnikov. Is killing wrong, A Random Hack? Do you eat children? Well, I would hazard to say that there were people before you who also abstained from such palatable fare. Some of these people are dead. You're alive. But their morality has lived beyond their years and even violated your own emotivism. However, were it my personal moral code that allowed me to go out and canabalize at whim, then you could say nothing to stop me. Also, using your ethical formula, Hitler was justified. He felt that he was helping Germany recover from the atrocities of the Treaty of Versailles. The nation was in economic turmoil, what then? He was saving the nation. Ah, but now we have tread into different territory. Something that is ethically wrong? If Hitler was wrong because he was killing innocent people, then you're not the relativist you claim to be. However, if Hitler was justified (which is your responsibility as a relativist to agree that, indeed, he was) then you're cold-hearted. Now, Slayer, I ask you a question. Is stupidity the most common human trait, or the laziness to actually stand ground and do battle? These yellow-bellied philosophers retreat at the first sign of confrontation. Buddhists, the lot.

[sonrisa]

comus-- Also, using your ethical formula, Hitler was justified. He felt that he was helping Germany recover from the atrocities of the Treaty of Versailles. The nation was in economic turmoil, what then? He was saving the nation.

-- oh it was more than that. He actually thought he was literally on a flippin mission from god. He was convinced that Jesus hadn't finished the mission when he was crucified & that he, Hitler, had been hand-picked by god to take up the reins & finish the job. Nazism was more than just a political party, it was the new flippin religion, the new way of life, The New World Order. Jews were the anti-thesis to this New World Order, they were throwbacks to the time before Jesus, they should of disappeared when Jesus came, but they didn't- they perservered into the 20th century, & now they were this subhuman anti-race that he, Hitler, had to get rid of once & for all. And so the Final Solution.

It doesn't matter if you do or do not believe all that crap, or if I do or do not believe all that crap- Hitler believed all that crap & then some (that's just the tip of it above, it gets better). He was justified for all the stuff he did- in whatever passed for his pinhead.

Actually, (& here comes the wrench, or spanner, whatever) I'm not so sure we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold sane normal people. Not that Hitler shouldn't have been stopped- he most certainly should have- but he was into some strange flippin stuff, maybe even delusional. Can you hold people who are living in their own little la-la lands to the standards of the Real World if they aren't living in the Real World?


comus-- However, if Hitler was justified (which is your responsibility as a relativist to agree that, indeed, he was) then you're cold-hearted.

-- r u cold-hearted, Random? :D

[a random hack]

thank you, comus

thank you for your answers, or reasons

I agree that different societies have different morals; for example, some Eskimos kill their kids. But they don't do it to kill their kid, they don't do it to be mean--that would be immoral even in a culture that embraces killing its children. No, Eskimos kill their kids if they can't provide for them.

if this is true, i don't know, never net an eskimo, that i know of. i assume there are other reasons they do this,,,like, they don't know anyone else who can provide for the kids, they don't want to die so their kids can live a little longer, they already ate all the dogs, the 7/11 is closed, and their social security isn't due til next week...
Knowing the reason completely changes your outlook on the situation, doesn't it?
who cares? the kid is still dead
Food is so scarce and when it is found they share it in the community. It would be selfish for one family to hog all the resources. So they kill the kid to help out the community. Where is this going? Different societies have different morals. Okay. But the vast majority of societies would agree that to do something for a malicious reason would be immoral.
so, if i killed your kids, and gave you a good enough reason, that would be ok then? what if your reasoning, emotivism, cultural indoctrination, call it what you will,, disagreed with mine? it might be perfectly justifiable to me to circumsize my kids, for example, and to you, it might be a barbaric practice of bodily mutilation.... but i might belive in it so strongly, that i felt the need to forcibly circumsize you and your family, it might cause me great anguish to know that you and your family weren't circimsized, so what then? are you being mean for not letting me circumsize you, or are you being mean for allowing me to suffer a lifetime know you are not?


"A Random Hack": After giving it some thought, I'm not entirely certain that even I am capable of sufficiently justifying a response to your, well, we could call them thoughts.
oh, do your best However, since I am a good-natured soul who plays at these kinds of childrens games, I will provide you with answers which you, evidently, so desparately need.
if only you knew how to play childrens games, you might realise the value of answers But first, a suggestion to keep you all occuppied: Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky while paying particular attention to the relativist, the superman, Raskalnikov.
is dosoevski telling you to eat your children? and if he did, would you?
Is killing wrong, A Random Hack?
no idea :lol: Do you eat children?
i eat veal when it's on special, and baby carrots, and baby peas :D Well, I would hazard to say that there were people before you who also abstained from such palatable fare.
you think? Some of these people are dead. You're alive. But their morality has lived beyond their years and even violated your own emotivism.
yes, it has. So? However, were it my personal moral code that allowed me to go out and canabalize at whim, then you could say nothing to stop me.
talk is cheap
Also, using your ethical formula, Hitler was justified.
can you codify my ethical formula for me, please? for the sake of argument, naturally :) He felt that he was helping Germany recover from the atrocities of the Treaty of Versailles. The nation was in economic turmoil, what then? He was saving the nation.
yup, that sounds about right, according to what i've seen on innumerable TV documentries Ah, but now we have tread into different territory. Something that is ethically wrong? If Hitler was wrong because he was killing innocent people, then you're not the relativist you claim to be. However, if Hitler was justified (which is your responsibility as a relativist to agree that, indeed, he was) then you're cold-hearted.

poor ole hitler, seem he can't win, whichever side of the fence he's on...maybe if he's won WW2, you're opinion might be different?
Now, Slayer, I ask you a question. Is stupidity the most common human trait, or the laziness to actually stand ground and do battle? These yellow-bellied philosophers retreat at the first sign of confrontation. Buddhists, the lot.
oh, i'm glad you asked slayer this one :lol:

well now, this was fun, wasn't it? let's do it again some time
oh, and if you didn't read all this, can't say i blame you



risa :D

oh it was more than that. He actually thought he was literally on a flippin mission from god. He was convinced that Jesus hadn't finished the mission when he was crucified & that he, Hitler, had been hand-picked by god to take up the reins & finish the job. Nazism was more than just a political party, it was the new flippin religion, the new way of life, The New World Order. Jews were the anti-thesis to this New World Order, they were throwbacks to the time before Jesus, they should of disappeared when Jesus came, but they didn't- they perservered into the 20th century, & now they were this subhuman anti-race that he, Hitler, had to get rid of once & for all. And so the Final Solution.

wonder if he ate babies lol

It doesn't matter if you do or do not believe all that crap, or if I do or do not believe all that crap- Hitler believed all that crap & then some (that's just the tip of it above, it gets better). He was justified for all the stuff he did- in whatever passed for his pinhead.

Actually, (& here comes the wrench, or spanner, whatever) I'm not so sure we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold sane normal people. Not that Hitler shouldn't have been stopped- he most certainly should have- but he was into some strange flippin stuff, maybe even delusional. Can you hold people who are living in their own little la-la lands to the standards of the Real World if they aren't living in the Real World?
ay, there's the rub... but hitler, and all of us, ARE living in the real world, no matter how we see it...

r u cold-hearted, Random?
does it matter? lolololololol

[sonrisa]

ay, there's the rub... but hitler, and all of us, ARE living in the real world, no matter how we see it...

--darlin, Hitler is dead. Or should be by now.

does it matter? lolololololol


-- yes it duz

[a random hack]

darlin, Hitler is dead. Or should be by now.


only his body

yes it duz

why?
and how you know i an gonna tell the truth?

[sonrisa]

me--darlin, Hitler is dead. Or should be by now.

Random--only his body

--so his sick mind is floating around the cosmos someplace? Scary



me--yes it duz

Random--why?
and how you know i am gonna tell the truth?

--u wood lie, oh Krafty Cheez Whiz Giggle-Splarf? that is soooo dubya

which brings us back to the question at hand, the morality of killing kidz.... how moral is it to kill innocent kidz with du cluster bombs becuz they happen to live in a place where there's lots of oil? And how moral is it to rape & torture kidz- some as young as 10- in places like Abu Gharib?

[a random hack]

so his sick mind is floating around the cosmos someplace? Scary

yup... you ever meet a neo-nazi?


[/QUOTE]Krafty Cheez Whiz Giggle-Splarf? that is soooo dubya
[QUOTE]
nope, dubya wouldn't ask :D

[Comus]

"It doesn't matter if you do or do not believe all that crap, or if I do or do not believe all that crap- Hitler believed all that crap & then some (that's just the tip of it above, it gets better). He was justified for all the stuff he did- in whatever passed for his pinhead." (Pinhead what? You've forgotten something here, Sonrisa. I am convinced that there was too much writing without enough thinking).
"Actually, (& here comes the wrench, or spanner, whatever) I'm not so sure we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold sane normal people. Not that Hitler shouldn't have been stopped- he most certainly should have- but he was into some strange flippin stuff, maybe even delusional. Can you hold people who are living in their own little la-la lands to the standards of the Real World if they aren't living in the Real World?"

Philosophy 101: Welcome to Class
I am Professor Comus

Okay, Relativist --or better yet, Emotivist-- if you're "not so sure we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold sane normal people", then you're admitting that there is a heirarchy of morality. Some conduct makes people sane, while other conduct seems to convince you otherwise. And by calling Hitler "delusional" and admitting that people who create and live within their own "la-la lands" cannot be held to the same standards as those created in the "Real World", you're implying that what Hitler did was immoral, yes? But it's what HE believed! Can't we all be right? And you've found the answer, it seems: No. Also, another contradiction. The Real World? But I thought there was no Real World. Maybe what Hitler saw was his Real World and saw his Real World differently than you see your Real World. You've found the answer, it seems: No. Because this is the finest argument we have against your kind of morality. You've argued for me, and I thank you. People who create their own ethical code live in their own "la-la lands" and this statement perfectly describes your morality. I am not these things, though; there are moral absolutes, it's you Relativists who defeat yourselves. We objectivists are out here to clean up your mess.

A Random Hack and kids: I am not a Relativist, you are. Do not be so eager to forget and fight yourselves since you need all the help you can get.

"But i might belive in it so strongly, that i felt the need to forcibly circumsize you and your family, it might cause me great anguish to know that you and your family weren't circimsized, so what then? are you being mean for not letting me circumsize you, or are you being mean for allowing me to suffer a lifetime know you are not?"

Since you ask, tough luck then. It just so happens that me or my family may not understand or agree with your reasoning enough to let you circumsize us. Where this becomes immoral is at you feeling "the need to forcibly circumsize" me and my family. Remember, I do not agree with Relativism. So let's look at your contradictions just in this very, very short paragraph of yours: If you have the sense of personal obligation to circumsize every human being on the planet, or perhaps just me, then it seems we've reached a problem. This is why moral absolutes must exist. This is what makes you delusional. This is why you would be locked away. This is why Relativism doesn't work. Oh, and if you were a Relativist, then you would have to be equally as accepting of my beliefs as you would expect others to be of yours. Another reason why Relativism doesn't work. Because by not changing your belief structure, you admit that yours is superior and still the best way to live. Therefore, even a Relativist believes in a heirarchy. Often, you herd are simply too blind to see it without the guidance of a shepherd. But he has left you now among the wolves.

[sonrisa]

random--yup... you ever meet a neo-nazi?

-- no thank god. So I'm not sure if those jerks are just spewing hate, or if they actually buy into the more bizarre stuff that Hitler was into. Some of them appear to idolize Hitler, tho. They seem to think he's the god as opposed to, well whoever or whatever Hitler thought was god.

but, to get back to what you said (& leaving Hitler out of it)--

QUOTE (Random)
ay, there's the rub... all of us, ARE living in the real world, no matter how we see it...

--yeah, except I'm not talking about sharing physical space with somebody from the neck down, I'm talking about what goes on from the neck up, which is another story..



Random--nope, dubya wouldn't ask :D

--yer right, he wouldn't, he'd just lie (again)




I am Professor Comus

--hello Prof Comus, & welcome to TBV. :)


Comus-- You've forgotten something here, Sonrisa.

-- & that is...... (seriously, what did I leave out?)



comus--Okay, Relativist ...

-- who me? nope, I''m not especially into that, I mean Relativity has it's uses, but I lean to Max Planck, Heisenberg, & Stephen Hawking. In his latest book Stephen Hawking challenges the Big Bang (which stems from Relativity) by pulling out Kant's theory of the uncreated universe. What's old is new again! LUVVIT!! :)



Comus---- if you're "not so sure we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold sane normal people", then you're admitting that there is a heirarchy of morality.

--you mean like a top-down thing? Explain please



Comus--And by calling Hitler "delusional" and admitting that people who create and live within their own "la-la lands" cannot be held to the same standards as those created in the "Real World", you're implying that what Hitler did was immoral, yes? But it's what HE believed!

--yes & yes, except I wasn't admitting anything. I was questioning whether we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold normal sane folx. And I don't have the answer yet. And apparentally, neither do you, since you didn't really offer me one.



Comus--Because this is the finest argument we have against your kind of morality.

-- & what kind of morality is that?


Comus--People who create their own ethical code live in their own "la-la lands" and this statement perfectly describes your morality

--it duz? ya think? you don't even know me.


Comus--I am not these things,

--so wut thingz r u? do u mardi gras Comus? Just asking cuz I like to mardi gras myself :)

[a random hack]

commas,
come back to play some more? WIKKiD :D

A Random Hack and kids: I am not a Relativist, you are.

maybe.... but, what do you mean by a Relativist?
or, for that matter, Emotivist and objectivists?
is the difference between a relativist and an absolutist, relative, or absolute?
Do not be so eager to forget and fight yourselves since you need all the help you can get.

gee, i can see why you like slayer :lol:

"But i might belive in it so strongly, that i felt the need to forcibly circumsize you and your family, it might cause me great anguish to know that you and your family weren't circimsized, so what then? are you being mean for not letting me circumsize you, or are you being mean for allowing me to suffer a lifetime know you are not?"

Since you ask, tough luck then. It just so happens that me or my family may not understand or agree with your reasoning enough to let you circumsize us. Where this becomes immoral is at you feeling "the need to forcibly circumsize" me and my family.

that's you point of view... mine is, it becomes immoral when you refuse me the chance to save your immortal soul (for example) by circumsizing you. no, i am not quite sure how that works, either.

Remember, I do not agree with Relativism. So let's look at your contradictions just in this very, very short paragraph of yours

thanks, short paragraphs rule!!!

: If you have the sense of personal obligation to circumsize every human being on the planet, or perhaps just me, then it seems we've reached a problem. This is why moral absolutes must exist.
must, whether they actually do or not?;)

This is what makes you delusional. This is why you would be locked away. This is why Relativism doesn't work. Oh, and if you were a Relativist, then you would have to be equally as accepting of my beliefs as you would expect others to be of yours. Another reason why Relativism doesn't work. Because by not changing your belief structure, you admit that yours is superior and still the best way to live.
sounds like an absolute belief to me.
and belief in a moral absolute sound squite delusional to me.

Therefore, even a Relativist believes in a heirarchy. Often, you herd are simply too blind to see it without the guidance of a shepherd. But he has left you now among the wolves.

mmmm :)
well, that's enough attention for you this week,,, we don't want you getting overstimulated, do we?



risa,

random--yup... you ever meet a neo-nazi?

-- no thank god. So I'm not sure if those jerks are just spewing hate, or if they actually buy into the more bizarre stuff that Hitler was into. Some of them appear to idolize Hitler, tho. They seem to think he's the god as opposed to, well whoever or whatever Hitler thought was god.
mmm, i met a few, thankfully, i ain't asian or black...
i believe hitler thought he was a god, tho
god hitler (http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm)
who knows, he never told me



but, to get back to what you said (& leaving Hitler out of it)--

QUOTE (Random)
ay, there's the rub... all of us, ARE living in the real world, no matter how we see it...

--yeah, except I'm not talking about sharing physical space with somebody from the neck down, I'm talking about what goes on from the neck up, which is another story..
is it?


:)

[Comus]

Sheep,
Because you are useless and lost without your shepherd, I will take pity on your ignorance. However, I will not do you the favor of defining different schools of Ethics. Normally, were it an obscure Philosophy, I would probably help you; but if you do not know what the terms "Objectivism", "Relativism" and "Emotivism" mean, you have no right even reading posts on a Philosophy Discussion Board, let alone writing them. As for what I believe, Sonrisa: I believe in whatever I am arguing. A true Philosopher does not seek petty truth, right or wrong. The true Philosopher will argue constantly and revels in the battle of debate. Heirarchy of morals means that one way of living is more moral than another way and, likewise, another way of living is inferior to living a certain way. This means that there is a "best" moral lifestyle and completely contradicts your collective Relativism (go look it up). After all, if every morality is equally valid, then what conduct do you think would condemn a man to being qualified as insane? This is where Relativism fails. You subject others to your way of thinking, which contradicts Relativism. Therefore, you use Objectivism, which presupposes that there are moral absolutes. If there is a heirarchy of morality, which you also presuppose by judging a man insane based on his conduct, then it would equally stand to reason that you mean to say that your way of life is more valid or conducive to morality than is another man, particularly one whom you judge to be insane. Thus, all perspectives are not equally valid, even in the scared, innocent eyes of a Relativist. If all perspectives are not valid, then I'm right. I'm right because my argument is AGAINST Relativism, and in favor of Objectivism. For people who would claim to take Philosophy seriously...

A Random Hack-"commas,
come back to play some more? WIKKiD"

[It's Comus, you ignorant sop. I would recommend you pick up something with pages betwixt a front and back cover, proceed to open it and commence to read, if you are so able.]

A Random Hack-"gee, i can see why you like slayer"

[Because he's the only other Philosopher on this board.]

A Random Hack-"that's [your] point of view... mine is, it becomes immoral when you refuse me the chance to save your immortal soul (for example) by circumsizing you. no, i am not quite sure how that works, either.

[Then you ought not use it as an example, if you're not quite sure. And also, you ought to strive to learn spelling. In addition to spelling, grammar might also be a matter of interest to you. A good rule of thumb is elipses stop being the all-purpose punctuation when you leave third grade. Additionally, not writing in stream of consciousness should be your greatest virtue.]

A Random Hack-"well, that's enough attention for you this week,,, we don't want you getting overstimulated, do we?"

[I don't know,,, three commas certainly is stimulating. Furthermore, don't trust your trite remarks to satisfy my attention whether you respond regularly, or only when you worked hard on coming up with something worthless to say, which you are evidently practiced at so doing.]

A Random Hack-"sounds like an absolute belief to me.
and belief in a moral absolute sound squite delusional to me."

[If belief in a moral absolute "sound squite delusional" to you, then you mean to say that certain moral philosophy, even if it belongs to an individual, may still qualify that person as "delusional". That means there is a standard that you apply to all people, an objective standard with which to render them sane or delusional. This is your contradiction. I believe there are moral absolutes, you do not--yet you judge people based on an absolutist scale of sanity? Open your eyes, wether.]

Sonrisa- "I was questioning whether we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold normal sane folx. And I don't have the answer yet. And apparentally, neither do you, since you didn't really offer me one."

[My answer is yes. However, your answer needs to be no. What you call normal completely contradicts your morality. Go look up Relativism, not Relativity. Your standards for "normal sane folks" requires you to measure these people objectively, not weighing each one as being equally moral in their own fashion as the next.]

Sonrisa-"it duz? ya think? you don't even know me."

[Ah, but if you've met one sheep, you've met them all.]

Sonrisa-"so wut thingz r u? do u mardi gras Comus? Just asking cuz I like to mardi gras myself "

[Why must all conversations become idiotic jokes not dealing with Philosophy? Go play with your small collection of beads, you simpleton, and never attempt thinking again as it is clearly beyond your function. I do not Mardi Gras since I am gifted with a Neo-Mammalian brain I abstain from participating in frivolous Reptilian behavior.]

If ever any of you look back regretfully, questioning why you're unpublished, unkown among the Philosophical community or dim-witted (should you one day wake up), come back and read your posts. You'll have your answer. What to do with sheep, but butcher them and make lambchops? Dinner is served.

[todd]

Relativism doesn't work. Oh, and if you were a Relativist, then you would have to be equally as accepting of my beliefs as you would expect others to be of yours. Another reason why Relativism doesn't work. Because by not changing your belief structure, you admit that yours is superior and still the best way to live.
That is ‘relatively’ wrong. As an ‘absolute’ adept of relativism, I see all ‘things’ considered relative to a relative referential. So I may simultaneously admit several representations of the same ‘thing’ as ‘relatively’ true. Why should I deny another observer ability or honesty?
So I admit you are right, but in your ‘relatively’ right way.
I know that I am not right, as well as I know you aren’t either; however, I think that understanding multiple facets of the same ‘relative’ truth, can get me closer to an ‘objective’ one, which is virtually unexistent.
Thereafter, I’m using my own internal value scale to appreciate the quality of all the information I get without denying them, and by doing that, actually, my own referential, shifts.
Knowing that I am not and I cannot ever be ‘absolutely’ right – as you observed- doesn’t exclude there may exist an ‘absolute’ objectivism, but I think this is where religion starts.
If ever any of you look back regretfully, questioning why you're unpublished, unkown among the Philosophical community or dim-witted (should you one day wake up), come back and read your posts.
This may be a selfish view, but generally speaking, people here do not post thinking about being eventually published, not for fame. There is no fame for an incognito forum member.
Some are posting to show people how wise they are, some are envious, some are contemplative, some mean and some are searching - searching for shareness, for fun, for hope or for knowledge

[a random hack]

todd,
what are you searching for?

[sonrisa]

comus-- Sonrisa: I believe in whatever I am arguing. A true Philosopher does not seek petty truth, right or wrong. The true Philosopher will argue constantly and revels in the battle of debate.

--ok


comus--Heirarchy of morals means that one way of living is more moral than another way and, likewise, another way of living is inferior to living a certain way. This means that there is a "best" moral lifestyle

--ok, now that you've defined what you meant, I'm not sure how much I adhere to it. To a certain extent, yes- for instance, living sustainably is much better than polluting the Earth & exhausting her resources. I mean, if you trash the mothership....
otoh, different ways of living can be due to cultural differences I may or may not understand. So in that case, I would have to say that one lifestyle isn't necessarily better than another, the two in question are just different.



comus-- After all, if every morality is equally valid, then what conduct do you think would condemn a man to being qualified as insane?

--oh I dunno, hearing voices in his head maybe? And then telling the judge that Jesus told him to kill a bunch of people.... or maybe somebody who is so paranoid they think everybody's out to get them, don't trust anybody, the least little thing freaks them out.
This actually happened: several years ago one of my neighbors asked me to watch his 2 toddlers for him while he went to work. He was building a deck around his house & there was this drop off where he had stopped working. He blocked it off, but all the same he told his wife not to let the kids near the (then) edge of the deck. He told me she simply smiled & told him that if they fell off they would go straight to Jesus. Well that freaked him out so would I please watch his kids cuz he didn't trust his wife with them. A couple days later, she was convinced that it was Judgement Day, so he had to commit her & the MD's put her on some meds & after that she was fine. But until she got on the meds I would have to say her behavior was not normal.


comus--You subject others to your way of thinking,

--how so? I do not force my way of thinking on anybody. Unless, by "subject others to (my) way of thinking", you are referring to posting on a discussion board, then wouldn't that apply to everybody who posts here? I prefer to call it sharing ideas & pov's, & isn't that the purpose of discussion forums? But I don't force anybody to adopt my pov's, that runs contrary to the 1st Amendment, whch is one of the very few things I hold sacred.


comus--Therefore, you use Objectivism, which presupposes that there are moral absolutes. If there is a heirarchy of morality, which you also presuppose by judging a man insane based on his conduct, then it would equally stand to reason that you mean to say that your way of life is more valid or conducive to morality than is another man, particularly one whom you judge to be insane. Thus, all perspectives are not equally valid, even in the scared, innocent eyes of a Relativist. If all perspectives are not valid, then I'm right. I'm right because my argument is AGAINST Relativism, and in favor of Objectivism. For people who would claim to take Philosophy seriously...

--whatever.. (yawn) exactly what r u talking about here? This part of your post is reading a little insane to me....

A Random Hack-"commas,
come back to play some more? WIKKiD"

-- :goodlaugh:



It's Comus, you ignorant sop.

--except this Comus don't mardi gras :shakehead:


A Random Hack-"gee, i can see why you like slayer"

--yeah 2 pees in a pod


Sonrisa- "I was questioning whether we can hold sick people to the same standards that we hold normal sane folx. And I don't have the answer yet. And apparentally, neither do you, since you didn't really offer me one."

comus--My answer is yes.

--thanx. Could u elaborate please?



comus--However, your answer needs to be no.

--why? becuz you say yes? y duz my answer need to b anything? fyi, I'm still undecided. That's y I threw the question out 4 discussion, 2 see what other folx think


comus--What you call normal completely contradicts your morality.

-- oh really? I don't recall posting my morality. I said I like to mardi gras, that doesn't make me a bead ho.


comus--Your standards for "normal sane folks" requires you to measure these people objectively, not weighing each one as being equally moral in their own fashion as the next.

--my standards? Actually I was thinking along the lines of society's standards of normalcy when I posted that....


comus--go play with your small collection of beads,

--actually, it's a pretty hefty collection, & no I didn't flash for them. I already said I'm not a bead ho.


comus--I do not Mardi Gras since I am gifted with a Neo-Mammalian brain I abstain from participating in frivolous Reptilian behavior.]

-- oh sweeeeet! First we get a slayer who doesn't recognize Slayer lyrix when somebody posts them, now we got a Comus who doesn't mardi gras for christ's flippin sake, what's the bloody world flippin coming to?!!?
(ok y'all. I just popped a valium, I'm cool now) B)
A Comus who duzzn't mardi gras, now that's not normal....



comus--If ever any of you look back regretfully, questioning why you're unpublished,

--I am not interested in publishing anything, & if I were to publish something, it probably would be sci-fi


ps to Todd- :thumbsup:

[sonrisa]

Random, intresting Hitler link.
check out this one (http://www.crystalinks.com/thule.html)
and that ain't the half of it. it gets better.


comus
I do not Mardi Gras since I am gifted with a Neo-Mammalilian brain I abstain from participating in frivolous Reptilian behavior.

translation: his com-ass don't look good in the tights

[sahyo]

The true Philosopher will argue constantly and revels in the battle of debate.

no

[sahyo]

I'm right because my argument is AGAINST Relativism, and in favor of Objectivism.

relativobjectivISM ....comforts comus imagining isms?

[sahyo]

(ok y'all. I just popped a valium, I'm cool now) B)



:goodlaugh: :hug:

[Comus]

Flock,
Well, kids, let's hop to:

Todd-"This may be a selfish view, but generally speaking, people here do not post thinking about being eventually published, not for fame. There is no fame for an incognito forum member. Some are posting to show people how wise they are, some are envious, some are contemplative, some mean and some are searching - searching for shareness, for fun, for hope or for knowledge."

I might add that there is little hope, being published or otherwise, for a forum member who misquotes Descartes using that very word for which you have so much favor: incognito. Additionally, the variety of forum members seems to be all-inclusive. You've done a wonderful job sorting out the different personality types present on this board. Let's see, "some are posting to show people how wise they are, some are envious, some are contemplative, some mean and some are searching--searching for shareness, for fun, for hope or for knowledge." Todd, I'm pleased to announce that you've successfully narrowed yourself down to one potential category, since all the others can easily be eliminated by any single argument you pose (one of which we'll later discuss). You're searching, Todd. But, Todd, you're blind. Therefore, when you find truth you'll stumble over it as a child does alphabet blocks. Do you still play with alphabet blocks, Todd? I only ask because you're very fond of quotation marks, so I wonder if they're now making punctuation blocks and you can't get teh pretty colors or shapes out of your childlike head. And, let me save you the trouble of hoping and searching: there is no hope. Now, what you do with that truth will show the level of maturity you are as a philosopher. Hide behind your "I believe" clause, dress it up in quotation marks or trip over it like a blundering child, learning how to walk. These are your first steps; tread wisely.

Todd-"That is ‘relatively’ wrong. As an ‘absolute’ adept of relativism, I see all ‘things’ considered relative to a relative referential. So I may simultaneously admit several representations of the same ‘thing’ as ‘relatively’ true. Why should I deny another observer ability or honesty?"

Please, Todd. What is the definition of relativism? If you're using the word, you consent to observe the definition. Later in your post, you say understanding multiple facets of relative truths is the way to getting closer to the absolute truth, which you suggest doesn't exist. To put it simply, Todd (for your benefit, I assure you): Your reason for using relativism is to get closer to the absolute truth. The absolute truth doesn't exist. Therefore, your reason for using your system is not a reason at all, but nonexistant. If you were truly searching for truth, Todd (which implies that you don't have it) don't you think you'd be changing perspectives? The reason why you do not deny another observer ability or honesty eludes me, too; as does the subject to which it is referring. Todd, not only are you a blind child, but you can't write either! Think about all of this, Todd. I'm nearly positive that were you in my shoes, you'd be sitting here, as I am, regretting that Philosophy has become a pop term. People think, therefore they are Philosophers. It's not true, Todd. But even if it were, you'd be out of a niche anyway.

Todd-"I know that I am not right, as well as I know you aren’t either..."

A blind child.

A Random Hack-"todd, what are you searching for?"

I don't know; but if he ever finds it, you'll be there to hold it for him.

Sonrisa-"living sustainably is much better than polluting the Earth & exhausting her resources. I mean, if you trash the mothership.... "

Listen, if you are admitting to there being better or best moralities, then you are admitting to there being better or best moralities. By admitting this, you contradict your Relativism. I mean, what else is there to say? You can argue all you want; you've still proved me right and contradicted yourself and in so doing you've proved yourself wrong. I feel like they should give awards for stupid, too. Just so you folks don't feel left out for the rest of your lives.

Sonrisa-"oh I dunno, hearing voices in his head maybe? And then telling the judge that Jesus told him to kill a bunch of people.... or maybe somebody who is so paranoid they think everybody's out to get them, don't trust anybody, the least little thing freaks them out."

But according to your very accepting, very understanding morality, we can't judge these people based on an absolute system. We should accept their truth, their morality, and let them go on living this way. After all, they think they're right. Whether that's rational shouldn't matter to you Relativists. After all, what is logic but rationality? And who doesn't like logic? If you've just thought the insane, then look in a mirror if you could endure your reflection. You don't like logic. You abandon logic when it begins to betray your cowardly Relativism.

Comus-"You subject others to your way of thinking."

This refers to you diagnosing somebody as insane by judging what they hold to be true as rationally handicapped, that is to say insane. You subject others to this judgement because you hold it to be an absolute truth, which you disagree with in print, but also agree with in print. Hmmm... contradictio ad absurdum.

Sonrisa-"I am not interested in publishing anything, & if I were to publish something, it probably would be sci-fi."

Rest assured it won't be Philosophy.

Asheera-"Comus-'The true Philosopher will argue constantly and revels in the battle of debate.'
Asheera-'no'"

Go read Philosophy and I'm quite sure the answer you'll find is yes. However, let me be the first to felicitate your first response in legible English. Asheera, now what nationality is that? Neanderthal, perhaps?

Asheera-"relativobjectivISM ....comforts comus imagining isms?"

Asheera, you need to stop before you start convincing yourself that you actually have a chance of forming coherent thoughts.

None of you will ever accomplish anything worthwhile. Whether it be Philosophy or career. If anybody thinks you're smart, then you've actually just found somebody dumber than you. This person is likely to be severely retarded or dead. That's all I've got, I'm off in search for intelligence. I leave you to the sound of your own inferiority.

[sahyo]

None of you will ever accomplish anything worthwhile.
Whether it be Philosophy or career. If anybody thinks you're smart, then you've actually just found somebody dumber than you. This person is likely to be severely retarded or dead. That's all I've got, I'm off in search for intelligence. I leave you to the sound of your own inferiority.



:lol:

[a random hack]

:lol:

commas,
you look kinda familiar... <_<
are you slayer in a dress?

[sonrisa]

slay-ah with a blue dress, blue dress, blue dress, slay-ah with a blue dress on!! (and baby gravy on the blue dress!! :badgrin: )



(previusly)Sonrisa-"living sustainably is much better than polluting the Earth & exhausting her resources. I mean, if you trash the mothership.... "

comus--Listen, if you are admitting to there being better or best moralities, then you are admitting to there being better or best moralities. By admitting this, you contradict your Relativism.

--my what?? I said some lifestyles can be better than others, I don't classify them in some sort of top-down best/better/good or bad/worse/worst (& I guess fair-to middlin's in there somewhere too?) heirarchy. Morever 2 different lifestyles can each have their advantages & disadvantages. So which is better, which is not? Depends.
You wouldn't happen to be a hermit, would you? Me, I couldn't live like that, not for long stretches of time anyhow. What works for you may not work for me, & vice versa.



comus--I mean, what else is there to say?

--well if you have nothing else to say, then maybe you should shut up, or r u drunk again?



comus--You can argue all you want; yadayada.......

sonrisa--(yawn)



comus--But according to your very accepting, very understanding morality, we can't judge these people based on an absolute system.

--when did I say that?



comus-- We should accept their truth, their morality, and let them go on living this way. After all, they think they're right.

--like u think you're right?



comus--Whether that's rational shouldn't matter to you Relativists.

--I already told you quantum mechanix is more my thing



comus--And who doesn't like logic?

--hmmmm..... shall we do a poll?



comus--You don't like logic.

--actually I don't have an opinion either way....


comus--You abandon logic when it begins to betray your cowardly Relativism.

--huh? my what? Look, here's a news flash for ya- the world ain't logical. Life ain't logical. Sometimes ya just gotta go with the flow....


Comus-"You subject others to your way of thinking."

This refers to you diagnosing somebody as insane by judging what they hold to be true as rationally handicapped, that is to say insane.

--not me, I'm not a shrink. I don't make those diagnoses.



comus--You subject others to this judgement because you hold it to be an absolute truth, which you disagree with in print, but also agree with in print. Hmmm... contradictio ad absurdum.

--sî.... y no.....


comus--None of you will ever accomplish anything worthwhile.

--oh really? and u know this how, Nostracomus?



comus--If anybody thinks you're smart, then you've actually just found somebody dumber than you. This person is likely to be severely retarded or dead.

-- so witch r u? returded or dead?
(like I really care)


comus--That's all I've got

-- I believe that


ps to Asheera-- :D :dance:

[a random hack]

your childhood must have really sucked, commas :)

[sahyo]

risaing :dance: :D

[sonrisa]

:D :dance: :hug: :dance: :D

[sahyo]

:D :thumbsup: :D

[todd]

A stupid is not stupid enough is he's not exalted.