On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:21:50 +0000, you wrote:
>Greetings all....
>Ian - back to the sacred debate - it seems that you're using an all
>or
>nothing view of sacred. And your definition seems more limited than
>just associated with a religion -
You could say that but I would say my view is that when I stated that
I hold human life sacred the reply degraded this statement.
As an analogy, consider walking into your place of employment and,
upon being asked why you were so glum, you stated that someone close
to you had just died. How would you consider someone who replied
"Well, my budgie died last week so I know how you feel."
As to the use of the word sacred. In using it I understood that those
who have things which they hold "sacred" will get the precise meaning
from it. Those who do not hold things sacred will take the whole
respect/consideration etc from it. In math theory the word sacred
would be said to be the superset. The set of respect etc would contain
some of the attributes of the higher set...
Take the example given in reply of the Janus (?) sect. Some of whom
use brushes to ensure that they do not damage life. An unusual view
though it shows considerable commitment to a faith/belief structure.
It still does not compare with the idea of holding human life sacred.
We enact law locking people who kill others. Many of us will risk our
own lives to achieve the saving of another life.
There are cases where people do the same for animals. Diane Fosse
(sp?) comes to mind. In general though a larger proportion of people
will hold human life sacred.. At least, so I imagine...
>You used the fact that man was
>created in God's image and is therefore "sacred" while animals were
>not and therefore are not. But if all of what we dub "reality" was
>created by God - wouldn't everything be sacred (God's creation?)
>Also, one of my dictionary definitions of "sacred" is "worthy of
>respect, venerable" - wouldn't that fit Jon's assertion?
Not sure which dictionary you got that one from. I've looked at this
word in several and all versions I saw required the deity/religion.
Though they are older copies and there are more modern versions
available.
My answer to the above is the budgie illustration. If that is not
sufficient to illustrate I'll send you a photo of the mess in my flat.
I can assure you that much of what I have in here is far removed from
sacred and scary is probably a more apt description.
I consider the statement "Everything is sacred" to be hyperbole, pure
and simple. I consider the movement towards this viewpoint to be
dangerous in the extreme. It's hard not to draw the analogies with the
national socialists. There are some roads down which you do not want
to go...
>
>Also - you wrote "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. "
>
>If you really were concerned with clarity, perhaps a more readily
>understood term would have been more helpful than "perspecuity"
>(which
>my dictionary shows being spelled as "perspicuity" - not knocking
>spelling per se, but the nature of your post led me to believe that
>clarity was important.) As my girlfriend likes to say "spelling
>counts" (I hope I got my spelling right in this post - bouy wood I
>feel stupid if eye mispelled wurds now) :o)
Yeah, somehow I turned off the spell-checker on this sucker. I
*really* miss it.
With my choice of the word "perspicuity" I was being quite deliberate.
The word is such a wonderful contradiction, but any dictionary will
explain what it means. When people start suggesting that sticking to
definitions in a dictionary is poor form I like to use the word as an
illustration. The point is that *none* of us can guess the knowledge
level of the person reading our posts. Certainly not with issues as
obscure as are debated here. It would strike me as a negation of
communication to chose to use words that would not be explained in a
rather basic dictionary. (Which goes with my maxim that it's pointless
debating with a man who is not the owner of a dictionary and an
atlas.)
Even the choice of more obscure meanings of words is to be avoided. To
suggest that the dictionary is a handicap that should not be the key
to written communication is to me utter folly. YMMV
>
>Lastly, Ian - you wrote "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..."
>
>I've long held that all acts committed by men or women are done
>because they have higher rewards than costs. That there are no
>selfless acts. Try it on. Heroic deeds maybe there selfless, but
>maybe the person does what they innately perceive to bring a higher
>reward than cost. The cost of their life is easier than living with
>the fact that they could have done something and didn't.
Well, I like to say "Everything made sense to the person doing it at
the time." Which is almost, but not quite, the same thing. I have done
many things in my life that my Mom would say were "cutting off my nose
to spite my face." Boredom and insomnia have driven me to many a
desperate action come the wee small hours.
slainte,
Ian
>
>Well - it's late and I must sleep.
>
>Shalom
>
>David L
>
>
>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
>
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