“I think morals are fairly fixed and also very difficult.” – Neil Probably one of the most profound posts made here in recent months …
Morals *are* fairly if not entirely fixed. Where we can discuss stuff is in the area of them being ‘difficult’. Starting out not knowing for sure what archy meant by the term…I will proffer a guess, knowing full well that it will appear to be yet again an imposing of a common theme of mine. I find that knowing what a human being actually is is a very complex proposition. Here I mean that we are much more complex than any one or any set of definitions or even analyses. A short while back we were discussing intuition. This one area alone holds much that elucidates what we are yet is seldom actually tapped, accepted nor addressed. Yes, slip has listed an analytical set of apparent differences in what morality is. I can’t help suggesting that such a list merely points out our ignorance when it comes to such things rather than any true differences. It is obvious that behaviors do differ from society to society. It is obvious that, from person to person, vast apparent differences in understanding, learning, maturity, wisdom, knowledge, clarity etc. manifest. Again, when mapped and groked, I suggest that we embody an innate moral sense even though behaviors can be analyzed as proving otherwise. Behaviors as we know are not a consistent thing at all. Yet, what motivates apparent divergent activities can be understood if/when approached with s total apprehension of ‘being’. This type of holographic knowledge is hard to come by and seldom if ever is employed. Most find that, within their confusion and ignorance, any single layered analysis and/or argumentation…perhaps using only one criteria such as ‘evidence’, produces a subjective, immediate and quite obviously erroneous mish mash of an ontology. Such simplistic approaches add to the tower of Bable approach humanity uses while searching for the truth, goodness and unity that exists in all of us. On Mar 14, 5:04 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think morals are fairly fixed and also very difficult. > > On 14 Mar, 23:24, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry is not enough, > > > Say 4 Our Fathers, 3 Hail Marys, 2 Acts of Contrition, drink 1 glass > > of Red Wine and give God a high 5 before you hit the Deep Six. > > > Ah, "Their" emotional dilemma", well that just gives it a 180 degree > > spin doesn't it. Makes more sense MFE, thanks for clearing that up. > > > I'm sure fiddler will sleep better tonight and iam's mind will rest at > > ease too. > > > On Mar 14, 5:41 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry Slip, I never meant just you personally. > > > Perhaps I should have said: > > > If anyone was going to upset the majority of us with their emotional > > > dilemmas, why > > > should we accept them anyhow? > > > They may have their emotional dilemmas as they like, but they should > > > not impose them on us. > > > I hope this helps to clear the misunderstanding, including fiddler and > > > iam deheretic. > > > > On Mar 14, 12:21 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You are as usual Manfraco Frank the Elder, a real piece of work (not a > > > > derogatory comment or an ad hom attack), while in fact you are with > > > > your post, exhibiting emotions that may not be acceptable to others. > > > > > When you say "we" are you speaking on behalf of others in here or are > > > > you referring to yourself and yours? I think others should have their > > > > own say in the matter and not be spoken for by you. If it is just you > > > > then you should say "I" and not "we". > > > > > I don't see anyone else being "upset" by what you call my emotions and > > > > in fact I'm not a very emotional person just a very opinionated one. > > > > By self admission I admit being a cold heart prick. > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:32 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Slip Disc! > > > > > If your are going to upset the rest of us with your emotions, why > > > > > should we accept them anyhow? > > > > > You may have your emotional dilemmas as you like, but do not impose > > > > > them on us. > > > > > This is only my personal views; but if you want to know more then you > > > > > have to try to find it within yourself, if nobody else of the group > > > > > comes up with a better explanation. > > > > > > On Mar 13, 10:31 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > but only if they are acceptable to the > > > > > > > > rest of us. <<Manfraco > > > > > > > Really, I have a hard time understanding this. I take it that if my > > > > > > emotions are not acceptable to you and yours then it is deemed > > > > > > unacceptable? > > > > > > > By what right does anyone or any society have to determine that > > > > > > someone's emotions are not acceptable. > > > > > > > Of course I will reiterate my first reply. > > > > > > > Morality has a broad scope considering much of it is defined by > > > > > > society/culture/religion. Emotional attachment to a moral dilemma > > > > > > would have to be based on the defined moral incident specific to a > > > > > > circumstance. > > > > > > > I think we'd be better to work with a specific moral dilemma if we > > > > > > are > > > > > > going to establish the correctness of moral emotions and whether > > > > > > they > > > > > > should be kept in check or allowed to flow freely. > > > > > > > Anyone have an example of a moral dilemma? > > > > > > > Lee you started this so you should provide an example of what you > > > > > > were > > > > > > thinking about. > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 4:57 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Lee! > > > > > > > I believe that in a moral dilemma emotions must be kept in check > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > reason, which is the base of acceptable human standard, therefore > > > > > > > emotions have a role in it; but only if they are acceptable to the > > > > > > > rest of us. > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 1:46 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So a though occoured to me yesterday. > > > > > > > > > Is it better to approach moraly dilemars in an emotionly > > > > > > > > unattached > > > > > > > > reasonable way, or do emotions have a role to play in moral > > > > > > > > questions?- 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.
