From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 14:53:23 BST
Hi Johnny,
> > > 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.
Still waiting for an answer for some examples of "moral mechanisms."
As for "what most people do is moral," you might want to check out
what's going on in Zimbabwe.
> > > 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?
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."
> >Your
> >faith in determinism is like the priest's faith in God.
>
> My "faith in determinism" is comonly called Reason.
Whatever. Your faith in Reason and Determinism is like the priest's faith
in God.
> >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?
So you have experienced the effect? You do know what I'm talking
about? Different people will experience the effect in different situations.
> > > 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?
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.
> > > 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.
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.
> > > 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.
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..
> > > 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%.
What about the unexpected good that comes as a surprise?
> >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.
I thought you were a Schopenhauer fan where man is manipulated by
will not of his own making.
> 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?
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.
> >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.
You pay for the convenience of not carrying around a load of cash and of
having preapproved credit. There ain't no free lunch.
> >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.
Yeah, sure, like in North Korea. If the records are there, sooner or later
someone is going to use them.
> >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.
So you must be in favor of the President's across the board tax cut. I
am.
Platt
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 - 14:54:52 BST