HeHe...Slip, I appreciate your method of reducing the POV of others using a velvet glove! That is all....true admiration. I'm more direct and people tend to react more adamantly.....
On Mar 19, 7:01 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the relevance of politics in this thread or my response to > Molly or more succinctly, what in (insert diety) name are you on > about, orn? > > On Mar 19, 8:19 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
