Rigsy you are correct, of course. ;¬0
On Sep 1, 2:55 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > You are forgetting genetics and possibly early upbringing that has > influenced who you have become. Okay- I will thank your parents for > making you possible! :-) > > On Aug 31, 6:34 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed OM indeed. > > > I asked once or perhaps twice or even thrice what is it about human > > life that many see as sacrosanct, I don't see life that way at all and > > so it confussed me why again the majority of us would view the takeing > > of a human life by another human as immoral. > > > I guess I'm just in a strange place at the mo, beliving in a creator > > God without beliving that life is somehow sacred. > > > I can see both sides though, I think most would thank their parents > > for the 'gift' of life, but I can certianly understand why some would > > not. > > > Myself I'm a little differant. I had no choice about my birth and so > > I neither thank nor revile my parents for their choice in makeing me. > > I mean I, Lee, the human and the soul and the mind that makes up the > > indivudual we call Lee, had nowt to do with my birth. > > > It was my parents choice, and their desire to have kids, I know this > > desire, I think most of us humans do at some point or other in our > > lives. > > > Now of course I have two teenage boys, I don't ask them for their > > thanks, not for mine and my wifes desires, our choice. We did not > > gift them with life, we simply followed our own wills. > > > No I'm more intersted in arming them for their own lifes, so that they > > can make their own choices independant of me and their mum. They are > > not really my kids but humans that own their own lifes. > > > On Aug 31, 11:53 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > “…Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may > > > not > > > see their life as agift at all. “ – Lee > > > > Conversely, those born into affluence or under the rule of an > > > enlightened and benevolent leader may not see their life as a gift > > > either. > > > > On Aug 31, 3:50 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Indeed that is the way I see it, but of course others may not. > > > > > Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may not > > > > see their life as agift at all. > > > > > On Aug 31, 5:29 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes- but there are so many ironies and surprises and turn-abouts in > > > > > life that it offers possibilities, as well. It still is a chance > > > > > given. > > > > > > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Heh and of course there is an argument to be made that life is no > > > > > > gift > > > > > > at all! > > > > > > > On Aug 30, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes- a lively topic! The whole matter rests upon the spirit in > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > the gift is given or received and it can get tangled up in some > > > > > > > pretty > > > > > > > strange emotions! > > > > > > > > We can never repay parents for the gift of life. > > > > > > > > I have sometimes given a gift to get rid of a person! And it > > > > > > > works! :-) > > > > > > > > "The moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are > > > > > > > free" (song) > > > > > > > > On Aug 30, 4:46 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > > > > > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is > > > > > > > > ridden with > > > > > > > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes > > > > > > > > to be > > > > > > > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be > > > > > > > > fiscal > > > > > > > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free > > > > > > > > from debt > > > > > > > > agian. > > > > > > > > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a > > > > > > > > slavery > > > > > > > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not > > > > > > > > rest untll > > > > > > > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in > > > > > > > > turn > > > > > > > > move. > > > > > > > > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human > > > > > > > > physche. > > > > > > > > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > person is not thought highly of. > > > > > > > > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual > > > > > > > > freedom, and > > > > > > > > the fettering of choice. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois > > > > > > > > > morality > > > > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. > > > > > > > > > I take > > > > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To > > > > > > > > > abandon > > > > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in > > > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and > > > > > > > > > 'low and > > > > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be > > > > > > > > > generally > > > > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in > > > > > > > > > considering a > > > > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and > > > > > > > > > wonder what > > > > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have > > > > > > > > > any 'right' > > > > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman > > > > > > > > > concerned > > > > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > > > help with her distress. > > > > > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to > > > > > > > > > 'free > > > > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > > > > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') > > > > > > > > > - one > > > > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > > > > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the > > > > > > > > > answer > > > > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could > > > > > > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us > > > > > > > > > with some > > > > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we > > > > > > > > > can be > > > > > > > > > in this sense. > > > > > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful > > > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good > > > > > > > > > example would > > > > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold > > > > > > > > > this view > > > > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. > > > > > > > > > Yet what > > > > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > > > > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on > > > > > > > > > debt - even > > > > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from > > > > > > > > > debt' and > > > > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition > > > > > > > > > of debt > > > > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not > > > > > > > > > be. We > > > > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical > > > > > > > > > about debt > > > > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding > > > > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at > > > > > > > > > least in > > > > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, > > > > > > > > > we could > > > > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > > > > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of > > > > > > > > > 'return' - > > > > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things > > > > > > > > > through - > > > > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much > > > > > > > > > 'morality' in > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at > > > > > > > > > > all. Makes > > > > > > > > > > a change huh! > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to > > > > > > > > > > > kick in > > > > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable > > > > > > > > > > > when you think > > > > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, > > > > > > > > > > > but then the > > > > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, > > > > > > > > > > > religion, > > > > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and > > > > > > > > > > > expectations > > > > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work > > > > > > > > > > > out the > > > > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anybody who thinks > > > > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking > > > > > > > > > > > > straight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of > > > > > > > > > > > > deity, and the > > > > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course > > > > > > > > > > > > religious faith may > > > > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? > > > > > > > > > > > > Culture does, > > > > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent to outline > > > > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's > > > > > > > > > > > > > professor seems > > > > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent > > > > > > > > > > > > > debate than the > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
