Slip, do you want to give me lessons in politics?...please? :)
On Mar 19, 4:52 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it is obvious that I an not referring to music, odors etc, as
> reactive influences, Molly. This is over simplification aside from
> off track. I'm not stating that "because" there is an external
> influence, the influence is automatically evil. Besides I clearly
> identified the influences referred to in my earlier posts as being
> "Cosmic" in nature. I thought you were onto that with your first
> response to my earlier post in which you recognized my idea of evil
> energy but held reserve concerning intent. (Mar16) My wife's snoring
> is not a cosmic force/energy that I can identify as evil because my
> reaction to it is discordant. Are we on the same page yet?
> Tracing back through a blame game may indeed indicate that "all"
> involve play a role in a evil act, whereas a person innocent of the
> charge would have, out of the innate or learned goodness, rejected the
> request to follow through with one of the phases leading to the final
> outcome of the act. Do you think Ghandi would have delivered a
> packaged bomb to the British as the seventh role in the sequence of
> acts to carryout a evil act against the British?
> Isn't it possible that evil energy can/may effect evil outcome through
> several people in a sequence? This of course would have to have the
> intent factor as in your Karma suggestion. This is another area to
> discuss and display the existence of cosmic energies that have
> influence on people. Si?
>
> On Mar 19, 8:28 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt
> > influence upon our action.
>
> > Loud music, strong odor, water and air pollutants, all effect my
> > action/reactions I suppose. But does it make them evil? Does evil
> > need intent? If so, can mere intention really harm us? Or is the
> > combination of intention and action that destroys necessary for evil?
> > I am not sure that a force or energy by itself is enough to qualify
> > evil, even on a scalar level (which some would say requires intent.)
> > But the effects of an atom bomb dropped in Detroit would ruin my day
> > and more. Is the bomb evil? The guy who pushed the drop button?
> > They folks who loaded the plane with the bomb? The inventor? This
> > example is a good one, I think, because many of us have heard and can
> > empathize with the story of Oppenheimer. I think the Japanese would
> > see the bombing of Hiroshima as evil. I am not sure everyone in the
> > world does.
>
> > On Mar 19, 7:18 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > and then we
> > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside
> > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are
> > > "evil". <<CJ
>
> > > Nothing forces us to do anything. We still have choice, awareness,
> > > rationale. As much as we can accept the possibility that good and
> > > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we can't rule out
> > > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or attempt
> > > influence upon our action. There are no fixed perspectives or
> > > absolutes concerning good or evil other than those established by
> > > individual or group choice, for whatever reason. They still float
> > > about in the opinion pool.
>
> > > On Mar 18, 11:30 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Thank *insert deity* you're here, Michael. I was hoping someone was
> > > > going to point out that everyone seemed to be making the point that
> > > > Good and Evil were subjective ("Without cold there would be no
> > > > hot..."), and then turning right around and following that up with
> > > > something that seemed to imply they were somehow objective.
>
> > > > The problem with fixed perspectives of moral absolutes of good and
> > > > evil, such as those handed out by a purportedly objectivist view, is
> > > > that they can't possibly be such, and fail in scenarios which require
> > > > moral relativism. Not every situation does, and some might argue few
> > > > situations truly do, but some situations certainly do, or we wouldn't
> > > > be able to sit up here and play "What would you do if a madman pulled
> > > > a gun and said bomb the tube or I kill your daughter?" Belief in a god
> > > > given moral set is the only possible justification humans can give for
> > > > moral absolutes, because it's the only explanation which over rides
> > > > the common sense which suggests that sometimes, it's ok to break the
> > > > rules.
>
> > > > We further delude ourselves with this concept that our natural human
> > > > instincts to eat, and take, and fight and fuck are wrong, and then we
> > > > truly start to believe that there must be some dark thing outside
> > > > ourselves which forces us to want to do these things which are "evil".
> > > > We are not evil ourselves. There must be something outside ourselves
> > > > which is evil. QED, there must be something good, and that something
> > > > good can save us.
>
> > > > The premise is based on a flawed assumption to begin with; that our
> > > > natural hungers and desires are themselves, not a normal, healthy
> > > > expression of us. That we should all be naturally, unassumingly
> > > > altrustic, and that to feel any other way is a sign of negative
> > > > outside influence. Once we dispel that myth, and recognize that our
> > > > conscious choices to become altruistic as a method for the improvement
> > > > of society, ONLY because better society provides better personal
> > > > quality of life, it all starts to make sense. We see how we still are
> > > > on the same biological evolutionary track, how sociological
> > > > progression has occurred, and how the long conversations over
> > > > seemingly minor twitches of semantics somehow seek to mystify
> > > > something as natural as grass growing, and chicks hatching in spring.
>
> > > > Organisms all act in a fairly similar fashion. We do not spend much
> > > > time thinking about whether a lion is evil when it brings down a young
> > > > gazelle, and tears it limb from limb. Yet the same act in a human is
> > > > "beastly!"
>
> > > > Of course it is. We're beasts. Some of us are better adjusted than
> > > > others. This is not the influence of outside radio waves of dark
> > > > malice. This is straight up old school Maslovian progression, with all
> > > > the standard textbook pathologies, and we understand it a million
> > > > times better than we did a hundred years ago.
>
> > > > Debate the definition of evil if you like, but the fact is, there's a
> > > > pill for that.
>
> > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Michael Berkovits
>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > True, cold could exist only if hot exists. "Hot" and "cold" are
> > > > > cognitive constructs referring to the subjective response we all feel
> > > > > with respect to being in the presence of molecules whose average
> > > > > kinetic energy is higher or lower than a baseline number we feel as
> > > > > mild.
>
> > > > > What transcends humanity is the fact that molecules have kinetic
> > > > > energies. What does not transcend humanity (arguably) is "hot" and
> > > > > "cold." You can make arguments for "hot" and "cold" on the basis of
> > > > > other organisms that arguably feel. But "good" and "evil" are way too
> > > > > abstract, and those I think purely depend on human definition.
>
> > > > > re: Archy's post: In what sense do we contain evil and need a cure?
> > > > > From whose perspective? There's a reason some philosophers posited
> > > > > that humans are fundamentally good, and others posited humans are
> > > > > fundamentally bad. It's a definitional matter. (Unless, say, you
> > > > > believe in God and define good as "that of which God approves").
>
> > > > > Needless to say, I agree with Pat 100%. Sure, I'm a normal human
> > > > > being so on a visceral / colloquial level, I "feel" and "know" Mr.
> > > > > Fritzl is "evil." But we're not having a colloquial discussion right
> > > > > now. If I were talking to a friend I might say something like "Dude,
> > > > > that Austrian guy is so frickin eeevil." But we're having high-
> > > > > minded debate right now, and that won't cut it.
>
> > > > > Pat's key point, from my perspective, is: "Now, even I tend to coldly
> > > > > lump Mr. Fritzl into the category of
> > > > > evil, but I do so knowing that my declaration doesn't make it so."
>
> > > > > I join ornamental in asking someone to expand on why it is so obvious
> > > > > that good and evil precede and transcend humanity.
>
> > > > > I also posit this further view: Where does viewing things as "good and
> > > > > evil" help us, as opposed to the reductionist view that hey, people
> > > > > have visceral reactions borne out of a combination of brain structure,
> > > > > personal experience, and cultural absorption (part of experience, of
> > > > > course, but I'm breaking it out because it's important), and most
> > > > > people happen to have the same positive or negative visceral reactions
> > > > > to a wide array of things (e.g., everyone reacts viscerally negatively
> > > > > to the idea of killing a helpless baby).
>
> > > > > On Mar 17, 7:34 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Evil exists if and only if good exists. Both good and evil exist if
> > > > >> and only if a morality exists.<<MB
>
> > > > >> Does Cold exist only if Hot exists?
>
> > > > >> Cold and Hot exist only because we exist?
>
> > > > >> Good and Evil transcend that of humanity, that of human morality.
>
> > > > >> Good and Evil existed long before the presence of humanity and
> > > > >> humanity's sense of morality.
>
> > > > >> On Mar 17, 7:33 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > Evil exists if and only if good exists.
>
> > > > >> > Whether or not a morality exists depends purely on what one means
> > > > >> > by a
> > > > >> > "morality." It's a definitional question, no? Clearly, people
> > > > >> > have
> > > > >> > moral intuitions, reflected
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
