*lol* Yes, my American friend (are you not?), you can be happy that feudal times never took place on your soil.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Chuck Bowling < [email protected]> wrote: > It sounds like there are the seeds of an interesting discussion in this but > I don't really care to be drawn into an ongoing feud. > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 6:43 AM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Let me try to show you by defining this Google group "Minds Eye" as our >> common reality. It comes in the form of the English language. Now the >> English language is not my native language, which qualifies me for not >> having been exposed to a prescriptive moral when it comes to violating >> innate English language principles and rules. There is no shadow in that >> area that I need to be shown to learn to embrace. Coming from a German >> background, a statement from Chris in which he doesn't reflect his role in >> this community and the impact he has had to shape the present form of it - >> only saying: I'm out of it, it doesn't matter to me, it's your community - >> is like me here in Berlin saying: Hitler was not German, he was Austrian >> (check his birth certificate for factual evidence) therefore you Austrians >> are the root of all evil, it doesn't matter to me. Coming back to viewing >> the prescriptive power of language at work, note how Chris has established >> structures in his new/old project in which he alone controls the grammar of >> the site and the grammar of the foreign content. The grammar of a language >> is its bones with the words as the surrounding flesh - it's not the dark >> shadow that you can make disappear by hanging the lamp right above your >> head. And yet Chris has never avoided an open argument with me over what the >> world should like, which is why he will remain my American hero, and Orn and >> Molly cowards. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Chuck Bowling < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What is a prescriptive moral? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:57 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Where does that leave the prescriptive moral which I find is really >>>> under discussion here? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Chuck Bowling < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The term “morality” can be used either >>>>> >>>>> 1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a >>>>> society or, >>>>> 1. some other group, such as a religion, or >>>>> 2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or >>>>> 2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified >>>>> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. >>>>> >>>>> The above definition of morality was taken from the Standford >>>>> Encyclopedia of Philosophy. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that while the interpretation of the individual may be >>>>> subjective, the overall goal of a code of conduct is to objectify >>>>> behavioral >>>>> expectations within the group or society. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, [email protected] < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In short then a flawed human is flawed only on measures of subjective >>>>>> morality. I contend that there exists no such thing as objective >>>>>> morality. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
