From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Apr 29 2003 - 06:16:48 BST
Hi Platt,
>Still waiting for an answer for some examples of "moral mechanisms."
Well, what is moral is a lot looser and fuzzier now than it used to be, it
is now moral to work toward cures for diseases and figuring out ways to
solve various energy crisis, etc. Do you get my original objection though?
I'm trying to not throw the baby out with the bathwater when we talk about
replacing morality with "newer" and "better". It happens naturally, as part
of the moral patterns, that things improve. But when we start to suggest
that everything is rotten, including the baby, and we've got a newer and
better baby, well...i guess my metaphor loses some meaning there, but maybe
you can do your best to tell me what you think I am trying to say and if it
seems close, we'll put it to rest.
>As for "what most people do is moral," you might want to check out
>what's going on in Zimbabwe.
Whatever most people do in Zimbabwe is moral in Zimbabwe. Sounds like I
wouldn't consider it moral, whatever it is. Maybe we should bomb them, what
do you say?
>Singularity is a term from mathematics and physics, i.e., the intellectual
>level. The Good is a moral term. Pure Good IS the universe. It's not
>something that "became."
Don't you like your ontological theories to stack up Intellectually? I was
trying to reconcile "expectation" as an ontological power with physics
theories and theological accounts of creation. Good is the universe just
describes things as they are. But that's fine, my theory was murky around
there too.
> > My "faith in determinism" is comonly called Reason.
>
>Whatever. Your faith in Reason and Determinism is like the priest's faith
>in God.
You do know you are making a rather ironic comparison, right? THose are
usually considered mutually exclusive, the debate has been "Faith versus
Reason" for centuries. I never felt they were contradictory, to me my faith
in God was the same as my faith in Reason. But I never heard anyone propose
there was a third alternative. What are you proposing as an alternative to
both Reason and God, exactly? Atheistic Unreason?
>So you have experienced the effect? You do know what I'm talking
>about? Different people will experience the effect in different situations.
Well, probably, but I don't think I've ever purely experienced that, or
anything, really, so it is hard to say. THere are always multiple thoughts
swooshing around in my head when I experience anything, like a sense of
relief from jealousy now that I have experienced something great, a sense of
growth, a sense of hope and vision, a sense that i need to take notes to not
lose it, a sense that I might not be experiencing it all because I'm
thinking too much, or maybe over-reacting, and so many other things, that it
is hard to know what is at the core of those feelings. But I'm sure that
amongst all those things I've felt when experiencing something great, I've
felt "the effect", yeah. Haven't I?
> > >To you, to me, to every human being, some to a higher degree than
> > >others.
> >
> > Why do some people experience beauty to a higher degree than others?
>
>Everyone one experiences beauty to the same degree. Only particular
>situations in which beauty is felt changes. I like Rembrandt, you like
>Klee. But the degree of beauty each feels is the same. There's no
>reason (your favorite fall back position) to think otherwise.
You said "some to a higher degree than others". But you answer my question
above - different people are different because of the static patterns they
experienced. But I like the idea that we all experience beauty to the same
degree, when we experience it. Fair enough. (THough I think some people
block the experience more than others, no?)
>As explained, experiences of beauty differ from one person to another,
>but all experience beauty. The beauty experience is innate, like the
>experience of hunger.
I agree with that, but you know what? I think it shows an innate
appreciation of static patterns that relate to other patterns harmoniously,
or according to static patterns that define harmony. And I think that
innateness is also a constituent static pattern of human beings.
>Schopenhauer said intellect and art can free man from will which he likens
>to a physical force of nature, a kind of elan vital. His definition of will
>isn't
>the one normally referred to in the free will/determinism debate. Further,
>he contradicts your "everything happens for a reason" by asserting that
>beauty, the highest value, is known not by intellect, but by intuition.
>Better reread what Schopenhauer said..
How does that contradict Reason? Intuition has causes too, doesn't it?
Here's a passage from the conclusion of Essay on the Freedom of the Will:
"In a word: man does at all times only what he wills, and yet he does this
necessarily. But this is due to the fact that he already is what he
wills.For from that which he is, there follows of necessity evreything that
he, at any time, does.If we consider his behavior objectively, ie, from the
outside, we shall be bound to recognize that, like the behavior of every
natural being, it must be subject to the law of causality in all its
severity."
(If you have it handy, could you please point me to where he said art can
free man from his will? (or don't bother, I may come across it someday. Is
that in World as Will and Idea? I sporadically dive in to that randomly.
it's too long for me to read straight through.)
> > I say that good is expectation being realized, as opposed to it being
>what
> > is agreeable to me or beautiful to me. THere is usually a correlation,
> > though not as much as there was back in Paradise, when it was 100%.
>
>What about the unexpected good that comes as a surprise?
That's the kind of good that is 'agreeable to me or beautiful to me'. It is
'good to me' and is just what i have come to define as good according to
static patterns. Static patterns tell me that finding $20 is good. I'm
talking about the good that is the ontological result of continuing
existence of the universe. You say the good came first, I say it came
second, after the first static pattern began self-enlarging. "And it was
good" came after the the Word.
> > You underestimate how much of your will is a direct result of marketing.
>
>I thought you were a Schopenhauer fan where man is manipulated by
>will not of his own making.
Right, man is ruled by his will, and man's will is easily swayed by
marketing. He is not in direct control of his own will, the will is 100% in
service of morality (as in static patterns, which now includes those static
patterns called advertisements). This is why what other people do is
important. What we do effects what other people will do, because it changes
their perception of morality.
>How will you determine what is culture's and morality's benefit? I prefer
>the free market to make those decisions. You seem to prefer some sort
>of cultural or moral elite to decide for us made up of people who agree
>with you.
If you think something is moral or cultural, then doing it probably benefits
culture and morality. I do value a cultural and moral elite of respected
people like Rabbis and the Pope and also respected family members and
friends - people you can turn to when you aren't sure what to do, who can
help you not only figure out what a person should do in the situation at
hand but also teach how to be wise. It's not incompatible with a free
market, is it? Even if their moral precepts are enacted as laws, and even
if those laws are enforced. I also believe in electing people to office who
are moral and upstanding people who set a good example. (And I oppose witch
hunts that expose people's transgressions, moral transgressions should be
not spoken of)
>You pay for the convenience of not carrying around a load of cash and of
>having preapproved credit. There ain't no free lunch.
Even people who don't have credit and have to carry around cash pay. I just
think that the time may come when we will want to secure our transactions
and guarantee them better than the free market does on its own, with better
anonymity and guaranteed privacy. Plus the tax angle - don't you think
there is something to the idea of transferring all transactions through an
escrow account?
>Yeah, sure, like in North Korea. If the records are there, sooner or later
>someone is going to use them.
Not if who has access rights is built in to the program at the root level,
maybe including alarm notifications when someone (the FBI, a bank, a doctor)
accesses someone else's records. If the security can't be done then forget
it.
>So you must be in favor of the President's across the board tax cut. I
>am.
I just hope it cuts the taxes of some of my friends who make about 16 grand
a year but still have to come up with whopping FICA and state taxes.
Payroll taxes shoud be cut too, these people can't afford to go to movies or
eat out at restaraunts, yet they work full time at jobs we depend on (well,
coffee shops and record stores).
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 29 2003 - 06:17:14 BST