On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:53:49 EDT, you wrote:
>JON:
>
>Yes, words are symbols that point to certain concepts.
>But be wary of being
>too dependent on "official" dictionary definitions and "official" religious
>categories. Language is limiting and failing to see beyond the definitions
>can limit our perceptions of certain aspects of reality. It limits what we
>are willing to believe.
>
This is sophistry. You are seeking to be able to change the meaning of
emotionaly loaded word and use the loading to add value to that which
did not load the words. I agree that it is a common enough practice
but this is why we have a word to label this behaviour. sophistry.
To say everything is sacred is to seek to attempt to get people to
attach that feeling which they associate with the things they hold
"sacred" and make a false connection with something which does not
generate this feeling in and of itself. It's the basis of advertising
it is not the basis of language or communication.
When I say human life is sacred I am making a statement that relates
to the idea that human life is connected in a unique way to the
divine. To have someone say that everything is sacred is to misuse the
word AND to make a false connection.
When I see a reprehensible act commisioned upon an animal it does not
evolk the same emotion as an act comissioned upon a human. I hold
human life to be sacred. I hold that inflicting unecessary pain upon
an animal is wrong. These are totaly different things.
Language evolves but one finds that when the meaning of words is
sufficiently altered from their original meaning the load also goes
and the word falls into disuse. The words which are associated with
the CONCEPT/ACT will still have the loading.
The state of holding something as SACRED is not the same as the state
of believing that something should be respected. If you do not believe
in a higher power then you are unable of knowing what this state is. I
can tell you "it's like"... but "it's like" and "it is" are diferent
things too.
>So I can consider anything sacred.
You can consider anything. You would be wrong. If it is not linked
with a "religious" context the STATE that the word "sacred" embodies
cannot be achieved. You can get "like" but you can't get there.
>What I consider sacred may not be sacred
>by the preexisting requirements of certain preexisting religions, but that
>doesn't change the fact that it is sacred to ME.
True to a point. You need to associate it with your own divinity to
make it sacred. I hold that it is a physical impossibility for a human
being to hold *everything* sacred. Being in the presence of the sacred
exacts a toll. We are not equipped to percieve everything with the
level of intensity of the sacred in much the same way as we are not
equipped to experience the state of love continuously.
>I won't allow my perceptions
>of reality to be restricted and partitioned by the current "official"
>definitions in dictionaries. Just like Pirsig would not let Quality be
>restricted to a definition.
Which means that the benifits of perspecuity are absent in
conversation with you. You chose to make the word mean what you want
rather than use the word that means what you mean. Very poetic but
particularly erudite.
The language does not define the reality. When it is necessary to
diverge the meaning of the closest concept it needs to be illustrated.
Otherwise, however clever the observation, the expression is
lacking...
>
>IAN:
>That is instinct. If morality is instinct then it's a tortology. The
>whole point of MORALITY is the concept of overlaying an ethos of Good
>and Bad over the instinctive reaction. It's a necessary thing to
>happen for social organisation yet in humanity it has passed the form
>of mere instinct.
>
>Witness any number of heroic deeds in war. Where men, or women, lay
>down their lives to save the lives of people in whom they have no
>selfish gene motivation...
>
>JON:
>
>Our intuitive sense of Quality is Morality. Animals have a primitive version
>of this intuitive sense. They have a primitive version of Morality. As do
>insects, cells, atoms, etc. Humans happen to have greater intelligence and
>our intuitive sense of Morality is thus more focused and allows us to be
>capable of selfless acts. We are capable of selfless acts because our
>heightened perception of Quality tells us that these selfless acts are Moral.
But this makes morality a synonym of intellect and leaves completely
unexplained why it is so often painful to take the moral course. I
believe that my favourite exploration of this idea of native nobility
was Goldings "Lord of the Flies". Who will save us indeed.
Further I do not see how it explains that the body of knowledge of the
organism "humanity" alters what it is moral to do. As we learn that
our "perception" was incorrect in the past the course of action
changes. As in Huck Finns problem iwth depriving someone of their
property. To suggest that the hardwired behaviour of an insect is the
same as the body of knowedge of human society seems to me an absurd
assertion.
Note I say "seems". You may well be correct but at this stage in the
evolution of our species your asserted "truth" / "morality" has yet to
surface. We do what is expedient and some of us agitate to make things
that are immoral less than expedient. Witness the Greenpeace defeat of
Shell and their intentions to decommision oil rigs without regards to
environmental issues.
>
>Animals don't have this Moral obligation because their perception of Quality
>doesn't allow them to see the value of selfless acts. But the primitive Moral
>code that they do have is their intuitive sense of Quality, the same
>intuitive sense humans have, only ours is more advanced.
>
>And it should be noted that some animals DO carry out selfless acts. Examples
>abound, actually. Dogs protecting their masters. I've seen a gang of lions
>attacking a lone water buffalo, and other water buffalos, buffalos who were
>far in the distance and in no danger from the lions, came charging to the
>lone buffalo's aid. You could say these buffalos acted courageously.
>Selflessly. They saw one of their own being killed, and wanted to help it
>(and this was a full grown buffalo in danger; not a mother protecting its
>calf situation). And there are many other such examples.
Must have been an awesome sight to witness. I do not hold that we are
the only creatures *capable* of morality. Sentience is required though
the behaviour can be mimiced in other ways.
>
>IAN:
>The word sacred has a meaning. To people who believe in Gaia the earth
>could be said to be sacred. Without an association to a religion or a
>deity you cannot call anything sacred.
>
>JON:
>
>Again, you are limiting a word that points to a concept with preexisting
>definitions and preexisting categories invented by humans. Sacred doesn't
>have to have any association to religion. It can mean anything treated with
>reverence.
>
As above. I used it to, correctly, impart a state. It was then
hijacked, incorrectly, to suggest that this state should be
attributable to everything. You are correct that it does not need to
be associated to a religion but it must be related to a religion or a
deity. (Whether that belief in a deity is a falacy or not.) It is not
the same state without this connection.
>IAN:
>Things related to human need are coded into our moral ethos. This idea
>that altruism is actually a valuable survival trait. Saving the planet
>because if we don't save the planet we will die is not the same thing
>as saving the planet because it is sacred. One is actually a selfish
>act and the other is a selfless act.
>
>JON:
>
>It goes beyond just "saving the planet in order to save ourselves." The
>problem is many people just can't SEE beyond. Thanks in part to logic taking
>precedent over our deeper intuitive sense of Quality.
>
>We should learn to treat the planet right, not only because it will help us
>survive, but because it is Moral to treat the planet right. Moral for
>Morality's sake, not just for humans, but for everything. It's all about
>caring. What we care for. Our view of what we should care for is often sadly
>limiting, just like what animals care for is sadly limiting.
I hold humanity sacred. I will gladly sacrifice 10,000 insect species
(barring any foreseable environmental catastrophy) in order to raise
the "quality of life" of people. Witness the world bank project to
build a dam in india.
I will sacrifice an entire species of animal to save one child.
Ideally I can find a way to save the child that avoids any damage to
any creature but there is NO QUESTION as to which is more important
(to me). This I will do even where I know that my expectation of this
child (based upon the environment in which it will grow) is that it
will end up being another of the broken people.
I *MIGHT* sacrifice MYSELF, for something. I consider it morally wrong
for me to sacrifice someone else (or someone elses child).
>
>The planet, and other aspects of reality, is sacred in ways we don't fully
>understand. Perhaps our intuitive sense of Quality and Morality isn't focused
>enough for us to understand. Yet. And maybe some people DO understand at some
>deep level that they can't put into words, and since they can't put it into
>words, nobody cares. It's all about caring. Just as our intuitive sense of
>Morality isn't perfect, neither is the animals.
>
>We are all part of the same reality, and reality is an ocean of Morality.
>
>Jon
We are, thus far, the highest expression of the universe. There may be
equal or higher expressions elsewhere. Some things are sacred. Some
things just are.
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST