Craig Spencer wrote:
>
> Dale,
>
> You pose an important question to understand and answer. But
> fortunately
> the answer, rightly understood, is not a difficult one.
>
> > > Strictly speaking the problem is not that they are unidentified. It is
> > > that they are criminals. Identification may filter out some of the
> > > criminals but it does not filter out all of them and it interferes
> > > with some perfectly legitimate business.
> > >
> > A broader view encompasses the definition of "crime" and "criminal".
> >
> > And who is in charge of interpreting those definitions.
>
> This appears to be a problem only because you presume that a single
> answer
> must be applied to and by all people. But each of us are seeking ends
> according to our own values. So the answer is that each of us must
> answer
> this question for ourselves, act according to our own decisions and be
> responsible for our decisions and actions.
>
Hi Craig,
I try not to presume anything. But perhaps you persume to know what I think? I
was in no way referring to anyone other than e-gold as a sovereign organization
with operating rules, procedures, etc. needing development and implementation.
E-gold is "caught" between definitions (jurisdictions), pulled hither and yon.
Each, as you say, are in charge of his or her own destiny and therefore must
make their own determinations (as you well point out). E-gold makes theirs. My
comments are meant to be impersonal and philosophical. I do not look for
"blanket rules" to be applied to everyone everywhere. That is why I said dilema
(not mine, theirs). Some (organizations and bullies) make blanket dogma and
doctrine, others (true individuals) do not.
>
> Do not misunderstand what I have said above as a advocacy or tolerance
> for moral relativism. I endorse an absolute moral code.
>
I do not (endorse an absolute moral code ) as that implies a "set" of "rules of
conduct" applicable (forced) on others. "Compelled performance" is another way
of defining tyranny. If there be any rule to which I adhere it is the Golden
Rule because I realize I am among others who have their own "moral code" or
ideal(s) to which they live by within themselves and in dealing with their
world. I am in their world and they are in mine. Mutual respect and
consideration then are a logical mode of personal conduct. I respect others'
views even if I disagree or see otherwise. Tolerance, then for others' views, is
akin to foregiveness of my own judgements of them.
For example e-gold may be caught between definitions of money laundrying
(whatever that is). Client A is in a no-money laundrying jurisdiction and client
B is in a second country that does not recognize the definition of money
laundrying used by A's country. E-gold is in a third jurisdiction that could
care less. In the event of a "dispute" whose definition of money laundrying is
e-gold going to use to decide whether or not to freeze metal? This is not my
dilema to unravel. I am curious though how e-gold or anyone else would handle
this. Simple philosophical curiosity - I'm not pushing for a decision or
pronunciamento or the development of a "moral code" of yet another variety. Is
e-gold (or one or more of its officers) to become Soloman-like? Wisdom, I
believe must prevail over dogma and doctrine otherwise disputes as to validity
of dogmas and doctrines (moral judgements; i.e., opinions) will insue.
>
> But I realize
> that each of us must choose (or not) to follow that code by individual
> volition. Those who do must strive to live it out and protect ourselves
> as best we can from those who don't.
>
One only needs protection if they live in fear or their perceived world is
fear-filled. Thoughts are attractive of that contemplated. I strive to be
unafraid in a seeming bizarre world. Since I and everyone else has been taught
since childhood to be afraid it takes some practice to undo these
indoctrinations or brain-washings. Either our thoughts are creative or this is
not a free-willed universe and no one is truly creator of their own destiny. If
our thoughts are not creative of our destinies then we are victims of outside
influences. Most people won't agree with these views but that is their choice. I
do not ask/demand that any believe these beliefs over their own beliefs.
Otherwise I would be guilty of trepass or force. Just exploring some
philosophical ideals.....
>
> The topic I am concerned with in
> this discussion is how those of us who do choose objective morality (of
> which I think there is more than one on this list) can do this
> effectively. Other people will presumably do other things.
>
Perhaps there is no such thing as "ojective (outer) morality" which is a
judgement of other people's actions outside of our selves. Or maybe my
definition is different? There is only the ideal(s) by which we choose to think
and live - within our own thinking and world. Perhaps there may be a "subjective
(inner) morality" by which we choose to govern our selves as we go about being
in our world populated by other people who each have their ideal(s) of personal
conduct in their world? I think I'm fairly safe in saying no two people have
exactly the same view of the world.
>
> > History has a long list of criminals who were never accused of a crime but
> > instead were publicized as heros or demi-gods. Usury is legal is some
> > countries but illegal in others just as are prostitution, so-called money
> > laundrying, etc. A crime in one jurisdiction (arena of specific defining
> > and definition use) may not be a crime in another.
>
> Very good points and examples.
>
Thank you. Your points are appreciate similarly.
--
Life, Love and Laughter,
Dale Pond
Sympathetic Vibratory Physics
Sacred Science - Sacred Life
http://www.svpvril.com
SVP Discussion Forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svpvril/
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
