Re: MD No to absolutism

From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 15:49:45 GMT

  • Next message: Erin N.: "RE: MD "linear causality""

    Hi John, Platt, others,

    (Sorry for the many parantheses, I hope you can follow the gist of this
    post.)

    > Do you believe in the 'good' of men?
    >
    > Self interest is a greater motivator, If it is seen that being good is
    > the
    > best option then thats how the majority will go. I have no doubt that
    > my
    > community would pin me to the wall if it would keep their own family
    > safe.
    > Personal freedom will be the first thing to go in our brave new world.

    To respond on the first sentence (although the other few lines is I
    think a very brief but sharp analysis): Yes. I fear that you are right:
    that people aren't good in principle; and (what I left unsaid) that
    their wrongdoings are due merely to bad conditioned habits
    (evolutionary, culturally) or due to personal trauma's in childhood, but
    indeed: that self-interest is a greater motivator than the motivation to
    act in Accordance with the Good.
    A certain mystic has said once that the whole human race suffers from a
    disease: the ego. What I know from the enlightened state, is that it
    seems that a spin-off of this state is that you're not selfish anymore.
    Hate as a feeling disappears (although everything else remains exactly
    the same, although 180 degrees reversed, as a dutch Zen-disciple has
    said). Philosophically, it all boils down to the nature of time, or
    rather: causality. Evolutionary theory is 100% a causal theory. We
    humans pride ourselves with our intellect. Abstactizing, imagining
    scenario's that might happen, was evolutionary benefitial, 'cause
    imagining cases in which you die while hunting obviously doesn't result
    in you actually dying, etc. But abstractizing means holding on to static
    concepts. So the 'I' was born. Thus, natural selection 'favored' humans
    that imagined things (and thus created static constructs, and thus the
    'I'), by creating (bad word, bad word) a positive feeling (call it
    'curiousity') when humans engaged in this imaginative thinking. (note
    that I divide subjective feelings and causal powers... to explain why I
    do so, see the 'emergence'-thread...)
    This positive feeling, the delurance of the power of the 'I', can thus
    be *causally* explained. In this light we might understand Pirsig's
    motivation to look with another pair of glasses to what we call
    'causality' (i.e. his claim that 'a has caused b' means 'b favors
    pre-condition a'). We also might understand that the enlightened state
    is all about 'living in the now', i.e. fully allowing undefinable,
    uncertain DQ to do its work.

    (I sometimes wonder if an enlightened person would care to pursue a
    career in string-theory. Theoretical physics is all about finding (or
    'creating') static constructs by which you can build up (compute) every
    known phenomenon in the physical world.)

    In summary, the selfisness of man is an artifact of some sort in the
    causal game of evolution. You can interpet the proposition 'all men are
    good in principle' in two ways. First, you can think this is a 'true'
    proposition, since you might conceive that we all were born without the
    'I' being formed yet (tabula rasa), . (and, there are humans who have
    attained enlightenment). Second, you can think this is a 'false'
    statement, because humans are so easily and massively delured to fall
    into the trap of imaginative thinking (creating s-constructs or
    absolutes, creating an 'I') once we reach the age of two: humans are a
    fluke of nature, because the game of causality drags them down in
    particular, compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

    Hm, Platt, and Kevin also, if you've come this far: I find writing these
    philophical things (good or bad) so much easier than discussing ethics
    and answering the question of what we ought to do. I'd like to delve
    deeper in intellectual ponderings, instead of creating a strong opinion
    about e.g. racial issues and decide to act in spite of all doubts and
    incomplete knowledge... But of course I think about political issues (in
    10 days, we in the Netherlands have elections again). The summary of the
    political debate in the Netherlands by GJ was a good one by the way.
    Maybe soon I'll 'stick my neck out', and give an attackable political
    opinion on certain issues in dutch society... Wim, I hope you will give
    your opinion, as Platt asked us dutchmen, on muslim groups and the whole
    of political matters in geneneral currently at hand here in Holland...

    Friendly greetings, Patrick.

    __________________________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
    http://mailplus.yahoo.com

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    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 : Sun Jan 12 2003 - 15:50:37 GMT