From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 04:25:09 BST
Hi Platt,
> > The
> > "shoulds" should be followed, not questioned. The prevailing culture
>wants
> > a better life as much as anyone, and there are all sorts of moral
> > mechanisms to achieve that without wholesale abandonment of morality in
> > general.
>
>Like what?
You must not get what i'm saying. In general, it's moral to think and work
and do things to make lfe better. Most people do that. You don't have to
say that what most people would do is bad or that we shouldn't do what we
should do in order to improve things. What most people do is moral, and
improving things is also what most people would do, even though it may lead
to changes in what most people do. As long as it is done within the Tao, as
CS Lewis described in Abolition of Man, it is fine. What's not OK is to
abandon the Tao (morality) in the course of changing it.
> > >So the universe was created from an "expectation of meaning." That's a
>new
> > >one on me, too.
> >
> > I know you just answered this, but where do you feel the universe came
>from
> > again? And why?
>
>From the principle of good. Why? Because it's good.
But if Good was the Singularity that the universe came from, why did it not
just stay a singularity, why did it become the universe? Was pure Good not
good enough?
> > I hate to shatter your illusion, but it is entirely reasonable. You
>like
> > Rachmaninov and not Eminem for REASONS. I don't know what they are, you
> > don't even know what they are, but they are there.
>
>If you don't know what they are, how do you know they are there? You
>faith in determinism is like the priest's faith in God.
My "faith in determinism" is comonly called Reason.
>That's partially true. What I'm emphasizing is not my personal history
>but the "effect." If you've never experienced the effect, no one can
>explain it to you. Satchmo Louis Armstrong is quoted as saying, "What
>we play is life." Does that make any sense to you?
Why do some people experience the effect but others seem less receptive?
> > Huh? What is the sense of beauty innate to?
>
>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?
> > The only paintings that are
> > Rembrandts are the ones that were produced by the static patterns that
>were
> > Rembrandt. We like them if they agree with our static patterns, which
>we
> > mostly share, but not all of us do, some of us don't like Rembrandt or
> > think they is any good at all, we like Paul Klee much more. I won't
>accept
> > that there is just some mystical innate beauty just because you refuse
>to
> > investigate the source of it.
>
>Ok, you tell me the source. You've admitted it exists.
Static patterns. A long history of experiencing art and learning about art.
> > Basically, I am saying that this is a reasonable universe. Everything
> > happens for a reason. New things, if all were known, would be entirely
> > predictable.
>
>No free will?
Check that Schopenhauer book out of the library. Basically, the man is
free, but the will is not. THe will is shapable, if the will to shape the
will is there.
> > Everything is patterns interacting. There are no isolated patterns. A
> > bird attempts to do its pattern, a worm attempts to do its.
>
>Why?
Because they should.
> > All patterns tend to maintain their pattern, because it is good
> > when they do, but in the course of trying to do their pattern, other
> > patterns get thwarted.
>
>"Because it is good when they do." Now we're getting somewhere.
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%.
> > >Oh, oh. Enter good old stale, static left-wing political thinking.
> >
> > Do you deny you've been marketed to?
>
>I love being marketed to. I learn of new products and services I might
>want to improve my life.
You underestimate how much of your will is a direct result of marketing.
It's all a direct result of the world around you (there is nothing that
comes from "us"), the question is should it be corporations changing you
will for their benefit, or culture and morality shaping you will for culture
and morality's benefit?
>Hey, nobody says you have to use a credit card (except the car rental
>people). As for eliminating the income for a national sales tax, I'm for
>it.
Few places give you a cash discount, we pay that 2% even if we use cash.
The merchant doesn't pay it though, so they're happy.
>Big Brother prying into every banking transaction? It's already bad
>enough that the Feds force banks to report your dividend income.
I see it happening anonymously, all within the secure system. Exactly who
and under what circumstances people would be authorized to view transactions
would be tightly controlled, built in to the program.
>Are you a socialist at heart? When you say things like, "We should get this
>money," who is the "we?"
People that pay taxes, so they/we don't have to pay so much taxes.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 04:25:51 BST