Slip.....that will be check!!! ;-)
On Mar 20, 4:31 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Orn, appreciate that. I have noticed adverse reactions to
> your more direct, cuts like a knife posts. Now, about the lessons, is
> that cash, check, or Pay Pal?
>
> On Mar 20, 2:23 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
