From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 22:58:01 BST
Hello Mr West,
People come to be republicans or democrats because of the experiences they
have. There is a reason for everything. A republican can't just will
himself to be a democrat. This is why people try to have persuasive
political arguments - they are trying to become the reason for someone's
will to change. Otherwise, if there was free will, we wouldn't bother,
because even after a great argument, a person would ignore you, ignore the
quality, and choose arbitrariliy. Elections would all be equal 50/50
splits, with a random winner each time. I like to think that we choose who
we think is higher quality.
(And I wouldn't be the first to point out that the choice between Bush and
Gore wasn't much of a choice, and the american people had very little say in
what their choice was - it was the Giant that chose our president, for its
benefit. If I had free will, and existed in my own world, Alan Keyes would
be president. But I don't, so i had to choose Bush, I didn't have a
choice.)
Johnny
>From: August West <augustwestd@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD Free Will
>Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:12:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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 - 22:58:29 BST