From: August West (augustwestd@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 21:12:57 BST
Mr. Moral...
Stike that.. reverse it.. isn't reason where morality
comes from? I can choose to be moral aren't morals
thought out?
If lightning could vote it would always vote the same
because it cannot reason.. You ever think that you
might be irrational?.. irrationality exists within
reason. Reason isn't absoulte because there is a
choice involved.. Morals aren't absoulte because there
is a choice involved... the choice is to follow the
code.. yes or no; if yes, how?
I'm not saying that humans make random choices, but I
am saying that they have the choice to. I am saying
that humans vote FOR A CANDIDATE FOR DIFFERENT
REASONS.
That reason is a choice, not every man on earth has
this right! Some people live under dictatorships, some
under communism. Thier morality is different.
Morality isn't absoulte. It is a choice, if it were
not a choice then people wouldn't be able to steal or
lie or murder or do whatever amoral or non moral. You
wouldn't have a choice. Morality is there to govern
your choices and protect other's rights. Lightning's
choice is absoulte, it can only obey its properties,
it will always follow the path of least resistance.
I preceed morality because I choose whether to follow
it or not.
-August
--- johnny moral <johnnymoral@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi August,
>
> Do you think people voted for Bush or Gore randomly?
> Except for a few
> hundred elderly Florida voters in one district,
> every voter's choice had
> some reason for it: it was based on their viewpoints
> and politics. If a
> choice had a reason and wasn't random, then it was
> DETERMINED by the reason.
> Everything that happens happens for a reason,
> including people's choices.
> The reasons for everything are found in morality.
> And morality preceeds us.
> We can't escape previous history or absolve
> ourselves from future history.
>
> Humans didn't choose morality as a system to govern
> ourselves, morality
> chose humans and created humans and government and
> systems and everything.
> The sort of morality you are talking about
> colloquially is better described
> as ethics or prudence, and it isn't really morality
> at all. There has been
> a tragic and dangerous loss of meaning to the word
> 'morality', which is why
> I am so hopeful about the MoQ, which restores
> sovereignity and precedence to
> the word (or, the Word).
>
> Johnny
>
>
>
>
> >From: August West <augustwestd@yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >Subject: Re: MD Free Will
> >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 13:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Johnny, Pi, All,
> >Pirsig says in Zen and the Art... that when you
> break
> >everything in the universe down to its simplest
> form
> >then you get mind, matter, and quality.
> >
> >Human choice and the choices that lightning makes
> to
> >follow its path of least resistance are
> different....
> >very different. Humans have a choice to chose.
> That
> >is, an individual has a choice to decide what
> course
> >they chose. I can chose to be moral, I can chose
> to
> >think, I can chose to act on wim, I can chose to
> vote
> >for someone other than Bush, Bush can chose to
> ignore
> >the fact that he lost the election and be my
> president
> >anyway. Bush can chose to go to war, or that it is
> >not a good time. Humans have no automatic course of
> >action, this is a property (quality) of a human.
> >Johnny, here is an example:
> >1. People in the United States had to choose a
> >president, they did this by voting.
> >2. Some people voted for Gore, they thought this
> would
> >bring the best quality for the country.
> >3. Some people voted for Bush, they thought this
> would
> >bring the best quality for the country.
> >4. Gore won.
> >5. Bush .. I don't wanna say... (Leo Strauss.. the
> >GOP's philosopher, should check it out.. fricken
> >scary!)
> >
> >Lightning, has a set "plan of action". It cannot
> >chose how it will chose, it can only chose what its
> >properties dictate it chose, the path of least
> >resistance.
> >
> >Humans and Nature do interact with quality in
> differnt
> >ways.
> >
> >Humans chose morality as a system to govern
> themselves
> >because of our choice to chose properties
> (quality),
> >which are not automatic, like lightning's, for
> >example. We, as individuals, and as humans chose to
> >obey or not to obey.
> >
> >-August
> >
> >--- johnny moral <johnnymoral@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Pi and August,
> > >
> > > >The point you bring up about "free will"
> deserves a
> > > new thread because it
> > > >is too much of a tangent. In short, as I
> understand
> > > it, under MOQ, human
> > > >choice and the choices a lightning makes are
> not
> > > very different. Just
> > > >because we can predict path of a lightining
> bolt
> > > with some accuracy does
> > > >not imply that it does not have a choice. A
> > > lightining bolt "chooses" a
> > > >path of highest quality and so do each of us.
> But
> > > let us start a new
> > > >thread if anyone would like to examine this
> tangent
> > > in more detail.
> > >
> > > While I don't think free will is tangential to a
> > > "man-made or natural?"
> > > thread at all, I'm very happy to start a thread
> > > about this. I think this
> > > topic is misunderstood a lot here, and that
> means
> > > morality is misunderstood
> > > and belittled. Understanding that what we
> choose to
> > > do is dependent on
> > > Quality (aka Morality, Reality) is key to
> properly
> > > respecting quality and
> > > morality. Believing in free will insults
> Quality
> > > and removes yourself from
> > > history.
> > >
> > > I think you are right Pi that lightning and
> human
> > > choices are not different.
> > > They both choose the path of highest perceived
> > > quality at the moment of
> > > choosing. Note though, that what they perceive
> is
> > > dependent on the quality,
> > > not on them (the quality creates the perceiver
> and
> > > the perceived). Thus, at
> > > the moment of choosing, they are both bound to
> > > choose the path that quality
> > > (morality) presents to them. Lightning can not
> > > choose any path but the one
> > > that appears best, and neither can we. We can
> > > deliberate longer than
> > > lightning, but in the final analysis, the action
> > > that we do is always what
> > > appears best, it is what we want to do most at
> that
> > > moment.
> > >
> > > I recommend Jonathan Edwards (or books about
> him) as
> > > he is the brightest
> > > light on the subject, and absolutely up to date
> and
> > > compatible with the MoQ.
> > > I'm going to type in some excerpts from some
> books
> > > about him (James
> > > Carse's in particular, Sang Hyun Lee's also)
> soon
> > > that ought to leave
> > > MoQ'ers mouths agape.
> > >
> > > BTW, it's Edwards 300th birthday this year! I
> think
> > > I will try to attend
> > > this symposium:
> > >
> > > http://www.yale.edu/wje/html/JE-300.html
> > >
> > > Johnny
> > >
> > > >Hi August,
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for bringing up that example. What I am
> > > trying to point out is that
> > > >the tree is *not* the same whether you see it
> or
> > > not! It is completely
> > > >dependent on the viewer. I believe it was in
> LILA
> > > where Pirsig mentioned
> > > >that when we blink, the reason we don't think
> that
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
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 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 21:13:38 BST