To me, what you say is inspiringly simple and authentic, and open. Thank you.
On Sep 22, 5:13 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Loners can range from the Unabomber to prophets and philosophers, etc. > so I disagree that becoming socialized is a mark of morality since it > presumes the society is moral. It takes integrity to challenge the > wrongs of one's society and the risk of ostracism or death. There are > countless examples in history but also exist in common life when you > refuse to go along with the group norms and mores. The question really > is where did that superior judgement come from? Are there universal > morals that transcend one's particular society? I would argue, yes. > > On Sep 22, 5:37 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 22 Sep, 09:38, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hey Pat, > > > > Why do I think there is a differance? Come now Pat you know the > > > answer to that one, free will. > > > Either your will is constrained by you (and, thus, the One through > > you), or it is 'free' and can act of its own accord. IF you are in > > control of it, then it is not 'free', rather, it is yours; if it is > > 'free', you would find yourself doing all sorts of things as 'your > > will' goes about executing ITS freedom over/from you. Exactly how > > free do you want 'your will' to be? ;-) > > > > As to morality, I think that is wholey a human concern. > > > As you say 'God is that than which nothing greater can be', also the > > > creator, beyond birth and death, without fear or enemies, of course > > > God undertands morality but why would the supreame being have such a > > > thing? > > > For the very reason that slipped past your own hand. If God is 'that > > than which nothing greater can be', then it's easy to see that a God > > with morality is greater than a God without, so, actually BEING 'that > > than which nothing greater can be' forces Him to have ALL that which > > would make Him greater, thus He has morality and, through Him (as we > > are all only an extension of the One, rather than separate from Him), > > others, too, can have morality. Now, for the exact details of why a > > 'particular' morality over any other, THAT requires an understanding > > of TRUE eschatology, which, in turn, requires a perfect (quantum- > > state) view of 'the end', and THAT, my friend, neither of us has. > > > > Do animals have a morality? I would argue not, and because morality > > > is a code for humans on how to treat each other. > > > I would argue that, depending on the animal, their morality/ethics > > will vary with the requirements of their social structure, as ethics > > are a social consideration. For example, dogs in packs and wolves > > will ostracise (and or kill) pack members who act outside the code of > > the pack, which comes from the Alpha male, no doubt, 'the prophet' of > > their society. We are animals, you know. Animals and ethics go > > together so long as the animals are social animals. Loners follow > > their own code, thus, would only have 'morals', i.e., a personal code > > of behaviour. I would find it far easier, to argue against vegetable > > ethics than animal ethics. But, as 'awareness' is the REAL key--and > > plants HAVE awareness, you'd even be wrong then: > > >http://whorledleaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/new-findings-on-social-beha... > > > > On 21 Sep, 17:29, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Sep, 13:03, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Oh yes there are links between dyslexcia and a whole host of other > > > > > 'skills' . It may be that my areguments are purly semantic Pat, it > > > > > may well be that is the case. > > > > > > Heh still on this anti free will kick huh? > > > > > > I guess even though you make some interesting arguments for your case > > > > > I'll never be able to agree with you, perhaps for the reason you > > > > > suggest, I think though mostly because I simply cannot agree with what > > > > > it means for us if you are indeed correct. > > > > > > If you are right then I'll never agree with you, and what does that > > > > > matter as that must be my lot in life, that is how the One has made me > > > > > to be I can't even choose to submit, nor realise that I already have. > > > > > > Yet you see where that leaves us? No blame nor merit can be attached > > > > > to anything that we do, nothing we do matters as we have no control > > > > > over it, there is no 'I' to make any desicion, all crimes are not > > > > > really crimes they are just the capriciouse side of the one. > > > > > > Yet I can use the word capriciouse, I have a sense of morality, why is > > > > > this I wonder? When I have no choice at all, what use is the > > > > > knowledge of good and evil? No sir you cannot be correct and even if > > > > > you are, I'll never admit to such, now I wonder if that is my free > > > > > choice or just the way that the One intends me to be! > > > > > Ahh, I love that last line: even if I am, you'll never admit to such. > > > > That's classic!! Why do you think there's a difference between the > > > > 'way you are' and the 'way the One intends...'? There can be no > > > > difference to the One, the difference lies in your realisations (some > > > > of which you have already made, some of which you have not: but God > > > > knows them ALL already). Which, as you have noted will either be made > > > > or not. I am correct, but there's more to the story than just 'no > > > > free will'. The inescapable illusion is good enough, in that it's > > > > inescapable, so, as long as God has informed people how He would like > > > > them to act, then reward and punishment are justifiable. This, of > > > > course, means accepting that God would actually convey a moral code to > > > > humans. Well, it just so happens that such a thing has been posited > > > > in the past (a few times!!). And, a God that can be imagined to > > > > reward and punish is less than a God that CAN and DOES reward and > > > > punish, and God is 'that than which nothing greater can be', then the > > > > whole morality thing fits in quite well. > > > > > Also, if YOU have a sense of morality, is that not proof positive that > > > > the One does via YOU? > > > > > > On 21 Sep, 12:36, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 13:36, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > David Beckham in fact trained very hard and put in an imensse > > > > > > > amount > > > > > > > of practice kicking a ball so that it dropped exactly where he > > > > > > > wanted > > > > > > > it to. Of course an early interest in a subject means that you > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > the practice earlyer. > > > > > > > > There is something in biological triats that may make the > > > > > > > performing > > > > > > > of some actions easier, but this I would say is not talent, but > > > > > > > biological advantage. > > > > > > > As far as musical talent goes, though, have a read of this: > > > > > > >http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/080429_music-genes.htm > > > > > > > It seems that there's a connection between dyslexia and musical > > > > > > aptitude. But, is the difference between 'talent' and 'biological > > > > > > advantage' just a semantic one? Funy how we seem to have no problem > > > > > > admitting to being coded, yet some still persist in thinking that we > > > > > > can escape the coding of space-time itself (by the mystical power of > > > > > > 'free will'). I reckon it's a gene that prevents people from seeing > > > > > > the forest because of the copper in the chlorophyll in the leaves on > > > > > > the trees. ;-) > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:58, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 12:22, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Well does it? > > > > > > > > > > I say no, practice makes pefect, but what do you think? > > > > > > > > > Practice makes perfect but, how long does it take to train a > > > > > > > > chimpanzee to write Shakespeare? To date, the only readable > > > > > > > > thing any > > > > > > > > chimp has ever typed was the word 'Jamiroquai' (thus the name > > > > > > > > for Jay > > > > > > > > Kay's band), which is completely meaningless. I had, for a > > > > > > > > long time, > > > > > > > > been scared to attempt to play a guitar because, I felt, it > > > > > > > > took so > > > > > > > > much time to learn it. But, after having one for about 3 > > > > > > > > weeks, I had > > > > > > > > already developed one little ballad. But, of course, growing > > > > > > > > up with > > > > > > > > a father who had a degree in music and a mother 'talented > > > > > > > > enough' to > > > > > > > > teach herself voice and keyboards, I reckon that I'd inherited > > > > > > > > something that made it a little easier for me to play music > > > > > > > > than it > > > > > > > > would have been had I not had that genetic and environmental > > > > > > > > kickstart, as it were. If talent exists, then it is, most > > > > > > > > likely, a > > > > > > > > heritable trait, but there can be talents for many things. For > > > > > > > > example, David Beckham has a natural talent for kicking a > > > > > > > > football > > > > > > > > pretty accurately and, of course, that talent was noticed and > > > > > > > > further > > > > > > > > developed. I doubt that I would have the same skill even if I > > > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > been given the exact same 'development', as the underlying > > > > > > > > talent > > > > > > > > isn't as great. Which is why, when I play footy, I'm either a > > > > > > > > defender or, preferably, a goalkeeper, as I have a 'talent' for > > > > > > > > getting myself in the way of others. This has even been > > > > > > > > evidenced in > > > > > > > > some of the things I write. ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
