2112-Help
rr...@pipeline.com
In article <51qkm6$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CLeffR35 writes:
>In article <aarmstro-110...@boulder223.dialin.netone.com>,
>aarm...@netone.com (Ari Armstrong) writes:
>
>>In 2112, the hero re-discovers music but suffers a similar fate. I'd be
>>curious if "older" Rush fans know whether this is correct?
>>
>>
>
>Actually I've aways believed that the "hero" rediscovers a musical
>instrument, music had been around but it was being "provided" by the
>preists along with all of everyone's other needs as they saw fit......
>
>Roscoe
>
"We've taken care of everything/the words you hear/the songs you sing/the
pictures that give pleasure to your eye" (I hope my quote is correct). Yes,
the government was providing for all of the needs of the citizens and along
comes this interloper who discovers a barbaric beourgesis relic and wants
to make his own music. Not only that, but he has the gall to bring it to
the attention of the priests who properly deal with him in the manner
befitting anyone who isn't satisfied with the state's provisions. Yes, Neil
quite correctly reaffirmed the position that we all owe the state according
to our abilites, and each will recieve according to our needs.
A. Alex Simon III
Actually, if you read Ayn Rand (who is thanked on the album),
you would understand that side one of the album (2112) is an
anti-authoritarian statement. Ayn Rand was born in Russia
and lived through the Red Revolution, then moved to America
to write about staunch individualism. Pick up a copy of "Atlas
Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" and read the bottom line,
NOT some shallow interpretation of what somebody else
reads into a piece of literature. Therefore, the story IS NOT
about "we all owe the state according to our abilities, and each
will receive according to our needs", but we owe the state what
it desires, and will receive according to its wishes!!! Good Luck
in the learning process!!!
rr...@pipeline.com wrote in article
<51qn8i$n...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>...
Cybermonk
The priests in 2112 represent the regressive type of collective
consciousness that is destructive to the ego, to the sovereign
self-governing power of the individual. Socialists might claim to
uphold the individual better through collective action, and to
integrate the individual with the collective.
But supposing such integration is possible, it seems we need to first
go through an ego stage in which the free, self-governing individual
is upheld as the ultimate authority, the most real social and
political unit. (Some might say that in democracy, the basic social
and political unit is the family. That's relatively similar to
emphasizing the individual, compared to the aristocratic hierarchy
system.)
Actual attempts at socialism have led to regression that destroys the
individual as a self-governing, self-existent entity, rather than
leading to an integration of self-existent individuals into an
integrated whole that preserves the integrity of the parts.
The lyrics site is missing the important, vague text from the bottom
of the back of the 2112 album. This paragraph tells more about the
protagonist's original satisfaction and then his discovery of
something that shocked and awakened him and made him completely
dissatisfied with the limited, safe world permitted by the
authorities.
You can't begin to uncover the meanings in Rush lyrics until you start
looking for multiple possible meanings. "The Discovery" is
legitimately interpreted as the discovery of any and all of the
following:
o The electric guitar
o Music
o Individual freedom
o Freedom of consciousness
o The ego
o Psychedelics as a trigger of the mystic cognitive state
o Ego death and the transcendent state of consciousness -- that is,
ego transcendence
The ego can be considered a modern invention or *discovery*, that
required the death of the kingly aristocracy, in which power and
control descended from above, with God the high master and everyone
else a slave. The lower on the hierarchy, the more completely were
people considered as slaves.
But extending past even the ego is the transcendent consciousness --
the next step in our collective evolution, a step that is explored by
only the advanced few in today's primarily ego-oriented level of
development.
Neil Peart is primarily known as a mystic. To understand some of the
most important dimensions of experiencing that his lyrics allude to,
you must study mysticism and have mystic experiences. To understand
these meanings, you must question our laws and prohibitions and
refusals to explore the open horizons that are offered to us.
The priests scoff. We've been, and we've seen. Yes, we know about
that -- it's published in the Encyclopedia Britannica and the
Scientific American. It's nothing new. It's just a waste of time --
another toy, that will only help to destroy our civilized,
well-ordered world. That road is only a childish whim leading to
chaos. We will not allow it. Never mind the whimsy of transcendent
exploration, of investigating our cognitive potentials -- better to
have order and safety than risk confronting the chaos of ego death and
insanity on the consciousness frontier.
The Discovery is only of an electric guitar. But since the mid-60s,
the electric guitar has been at the center of the mystic mystery
school of our times -- the warped and altered guitar Tone has been our
cosmic express train to Thailand and the east, shooting out on its
journey into the black hole at the center of the mind, where we sleep
dreaming in our home. The electric guitar has been our brightest
beacon and carrier wave toward the vortex of transcendent experiencing
and knowledge surpassing the ego.
Mr. Neutron
In <51svqi$3...@druid.borland.com> cybe...@cybtrans.com (Cybermonk)
writes:
>The priests in 2112 represent the regressive type of collective
>consciousness that is destructive to the ego, to the sovereign
>self-governing power of the individual. Socialists might claim to
>uphold the individual better through collective action, and to
>integrate the individual with the collective.
>
>But supposing such integration is possible, it seems we need to first
>go through an ego stage in which the free, self-governing individual
>is upheld as the ultimate authority, the most real social and
>political unit. (Some might say that in democracy, the basic social
>and political unit is the family. That's relatively similar to
>emphasizing the individual, compared to the aristocratic hierarchy
>system.)
>
>Actual attempts at socialism have led to regression that destroys the
>individual as a self-governing, self-existent entity, rather than
>leading to an integration of self-existent individuals into an
>integrated whole that preserves the integrity of the parts.
I think all modern ideologies neglect a basic biological fact of human
existence - people are individuals, but they are also an integral part
of a group. The human species evolved as a social cooperative. No
prehistoric individual could have survivied alone. Humans hunted in
groups because they were not stong or fast enough to hunt on their own.
It took group planning and execution for a successful hunt. Of
course, with advances in technology, it is now possible for one person
to survive alone, with guns and ammo to kill food, living in a
sheltered tent in the wilderness. Then again, who built the guns? Who
manufactured the ammo? Who produced the tent?
The "rugged individual" is a myth, cooked up by politicians to score
points. Look around you and count all the things that you use and take
for granted, and ask yourself how many of those things did you provide
for yourself with no help from anyone? Your computer? Your car? Your
house? Did you build all these things yourself? Even if you assembled
your own computer or built your own house, where did you get the
microprocessor and the lumber?
I may be belaboring the point, but I think it's important to realize
how interdependent we are.
Jeremy
http://www.netcom.com/~budazach/neutron.html
Mr. Neutron, Birmingham's only original progressive pop band
Cybermonk
buda...@ix.netcom.com(Mr. Neutron) wrote:
>In <51svqi$3...@druid.borland.com> cybe...@cybtrans.com (Cybermonk)
>writes:
>>
>>The priests in the album _2112_ represent the regressive type of collective
>>consciousness that is destructive to the ego, to the sovereign
>>self-governing power of the individual. Socialists might claim to
>>uphold the individual better through collective action, and to
>>integrate the individual with the collective.
>>
>>But supposing such integration is possible, it seems we need to first
>>go through an ego stage in which the free, self-governing individual
>>is upheld as the ultimate authority, the most real social and
>>political unit. (Some might say that in democracy, the basic social
>>and political unit is the family. That's relatively similar to
>>emphasizing the individual, compared to the aristocratic hierarchy
>>system.)
>>
>>Actual attempts at socialism have led to regression that destroys the
>>individual as a self-governing, self-existent entity, rather than
>>leading to an integration of self-existent individuals into an
>>integrated whole that preserves the integrity of the parts.
>I think all modern ideologies neglect a basic biological fact of human
>existence - people are individuals, but they are also an integral part
>of a group. The human species evolved as a social cooperative. No
>prehistoric individual could have survived alone. Humans hunted in
>groups because they were not stong or fast enough to hunt on their own.
> It took group planning and execution for a successful hunt. Of
>course, with advances in technology, it is now possible for one person
>to survive alone, with guns and ammo to kill food, living in a
>sheltered tent in the wilderness. Then again, who built the guns? Who
>manufactured the ammo? Who produced the tent?
>The "rugged individual" is a myth, cooked up by politicians to score
>points. Look around you and count all the things that you use and take
>for granted, and ask yourself how many of those things did you provide
>for yourself with no help from anyone? Your computer? Your car? Your
>house? Did you build all these things yourself? Even if you assembled
>your own computer or built your own house, where did you get the
>microprocessor and the lumber?
>I may be belaboring the point, but I think it's important to realize
>how interdependent we are.
>Jeremy
>http://www.netcom.com/~budazach/neutron.html
Democracy supports the individual more than do collectivism or the
aristocratic and theocratic hierarchy. None of these three systems
claim to support absolute individualism, but democracy enables the
existence of people as individuals *in addition to* their roles in the
group. Democracy, collectivism, and the aristocratic and theocratic
hierarchy all recognize group consciousness, but only democracy
recognized and supports individual consciousness *as well* as group
consciousness.
If the authorities tightly control every aspect of people's lives,
then the people are living as social units but not *also* as
individual units. The desirable goal is to integrate the individual
and the group in a way that preserves the individual as a entity that
is as self-contained, free-thinking, and independent as possible.
This amounts to freedom of consciousness, consciousness at the level
of the individual, not just a group consciousness that completely
dominates each mind.
Rush and Rand promote consciousness for the individual as a balanced
complement to a reasonable form of group consciousness. This is as
opposed to Kant's extremist systematization of morality as altruism,
"do nothing for yourself, do everything for the good of others".
Rand differs from Rush in that she was closed-minded toward mystic
experiencing and insight. She didn't like the idea of ego
transcendence. Mystic cults tend to destroy the ego, regressing,
rather than preserving the ego and correcting its errors. Most
mysticism as practiced *has* been half-baked and regressive. The
disease of mysticism is a stance that is authoritarian, anti-rational,
and promotes perpetual war with(in) the ego. But these perennial
historical flaws of mysticism are no refutation of the
ego-transcendent truths mysticism has occasionally glimpsed.
Modernity was the age of the individual. In the post-modern age, the
modernist conception of "the individual" is suspect because the
person, society, language, and consciousness are clearly known to be
structurally interdependent. Assumptions about the perfectly isolated
individual have been throroughly refuted. After building up our sense
of independence for a couple centuries, it has become clear that we
are all enmeshed in structures of dependency and mutual engagement.
But we have certainly become more individually independent, in some
important sense, than we were under the system of aristocratic and
theocratic hierarchy. We have become individuals, every one the King
of his house. But just as the unthinkable and the impossible
happened, just as the all-powerful Kings all fell and now kneel before
us masses of individuals, so must the ego be discovered to be less
than the ultimate level of consciousness, and less than ultimately
legitimate and true.
Though the kingly system was destroyed, government remained. The King
function was reshaped, and His power of governing was generally
distributed among every citizen. When the egoic structures of
consciousness are discovered to be logically flawed, corrupt, and
imperfect, the ego function must be preserved and reshaped, not simply
destroyed. If the pop mystic insists that there is no ego, that the
ego is only a lie and deceit, or if the moralist insists that the self
must be rejected absolutely and strenuously, then the mature ego who
is transforming to the ego-*transcendent* level of consciousness must
refute these simple stances.
The ego and its functions must be preserved and honored, and merely
re-shaped, rather than annihilated and absolutely rejected. To
transcend the ego is to preserve and newly re-integrate the ego into a
broader scope that includes all dimensions of the world, not to
annihilate the ego in order to clear space for some more sophisticated
consciousness that was merely obscured by the ego. A more
sophisticated society than ours would recognize and support not only
group consciousness, not only individual consciousness, and not only
spiritual, transcendent, ego-transcendent consciousness, but all these
forms in a balanced combination that preserves each as a distinct,
legitimate realm.
======================================================
The 3 imbalances from exclusive consciousness: an imbalance toward
group, individual, transcendent consciousness:
1. The attempt for sophisticated group-consciousness through rejecting
diminished individual or ego-transcendent consciousness, and through
rejecting ego-transcendent cosmic unity:
The collectivists would eliminate individual consciousness and
ego-transcendent consciousness in their effort to promote group
consciousness. They would claim to be "transcending" ego by
*eliminating* ego. They would fail to preserve and integrate ego.
The only real way to transcend ego is to uphold key aspects of
individualist thinking.
2. The attempt for individual consciousness through rejecting group
consciousness, and through rejecting ego-transcendent awareness:
The individualists tend to make the mistake of rejecting group
consciousness completely. They lose the ability and the daily
language to think in terms beyond their own personal,
narrowly-conceived profit-and-loss reckonings (Christopher Lasch -
_The Cult of Narcissism_). And they are alienated from awareness of
the cosmic unity that produces their being, their will, their every
thought and action. These are the isolated existential units, cut off
from the lower and higher levels of consciousness -- the
individualists are cut of from both the lower group consciousness and
from the higher cosmic or ego-transcendent consciousness.
3. The attempt for transcendent consciousness through rejecting group
consciousness, and through rejecting the individualist consciouness of
the ego
The escapist spiritualists are neither attuned to group consciousness
nor individual cognition. They seek to rise to awareness of cosmic
unity by leaving society and firmly rejecting the ego.
======================================================
You cannot have fully mature group consciousness, individual
consciousness, or ego-transcendent consciousness until you have all
three, integrated. For example, the most full and sophisticated group
consciousness can only happen when the members of society have fully
mature individual consciousness as well. And the ego can never really
develop fully until the logical distortions of the egoic way of
thinking have been worked through and integrated.
Rush transcends Rand, as ego-transcendence transcends the individual
of modernity. Rush includes Rand but corrects her exclusive respect
for the ego, in order to extend the ego beyond itself into higher
unity and into the level of consciousness exceeding ego-consciousness
or individual consciousness.
==========================
The song "Discovery" is about the discovery of an electric guitar.
This discovery is rejected by the priests, who are the authorities
governing and overprotecting the entire society.
What sort of Discovery is this, that takes place back in the cave that
looks out from behind a shimmering, glassy waterfall of perception?
In the mystic altered state of super-logical ego-transcendent insight,
you experience guidance systems breakdown, a struggle to resist, to
exist as a cybernetically self-governing, self-controlling individual
who originates his own choices. You feel a pulse of dying ego-power
in your clenching, plastic fist that is warping and unreal, viewed
through the fish-eye lens of your amplified awareness. You cry out
for supplication in the hope that a compassionate controller would
rescue you from the vortex of realization. Your gaze upon the
shocking truth is caught and held and you are lashed helpless to the
mast of the space-time matrix. "Oh save my ship of freedom", S.O.S.,
you signal, kneeling and bowing your head and praying to the father of
all moving parts, all cybernetic systems, as you cringe and dodge from
knowledge of the enemy within.
The Discovery is of the logical loop in the cybernetics of
self-control. This comprehension, when integrated, amounts to
ego-transcendent consciousness. The experiencing that brings this
knowledge of cybernetics is accessed using the most effective key,
brewed in '43, which is forbidden and tabooed by the authorities and
by the society they control. A key that has always been most highly
respected by electric guitarists since the dawn of distortion pedals.
"Le Snow Dog is victorious
over the limitation of consciousness by
ignorance, prejudice, and fear."
-- This signal is transmitted out into the cybersea, the
information-and-control space navigated by the cybernetically
self-steering helmsman journeying into the heart of the logical black
hole of ego, to discover the cybernetic source of self-control, to
Discover the Truth about his nature as a freely self-governing system
produced by and trapped in the spacetime lattice.
Cybermonk
The priests are not exactly Randian collectivists, but rather, they
represent our system of fearful lawmakers, governors, and masses, who
consider safety for the status quo more important than the freedom of
the adventurous explorers and intellectual innovators. The album 2112
is not anti-collectivism, but rather, pro-freedom for the exceptional
individual. The priests represent whatever forces block mental
exploration and consciousness expansion, whether these forces are the
strong forms of collectivism the Rand refutes, or merely the averaging
and dumbing-down, limiting effects of our democracy and its coddling,
consciousness-stunting prohibitions in the name of safety for
citizens, society, country, and status quo.
On the issue of synthetic consciousness expansion, is Ayn Rand one of
the priests?
Cybermonk
The album 2112 is considered the greatest album by Rush, and one of
the greatest and most lofty classic rock albums. The words are
included, "With acknowledgment to the genius of Ayn Rand."
That is a schizophrenic complement, with multiple implications, some
of which battle each other. The band was too proudly independent, as
she would wish, to "dedicate" the album to anyone. Anyway, she
probably would not have completely appreciated the gesture of
dedicating such a thing to her -- a raucus hard rock album filled with
lyrics about becoming a helpless puppet with a mystic 3rd eye, who
finds himself disoriented and controlled by a giant boy, and lyrics
about "seeing what your fate has in store" in a place where space
collides with time.
Further, the band must have been aware that to "acknowledge a genius"
can be interpreted as a Zen coding of "to recognize that someone's
ego-homunculus is essentially illusory". At the same time they call
her a genius, they smirkingly point out that she is in a state of
complete delusion! For all of her trumpeting of the self-centered
individual as opposed to radical altruistic collectivism, the
individual, the ego, is a very distorted construction teetering on a
logical precipice. Individualism might be a sound political system,
but the political system of God-graced kings fell, and the ego stands
on ground that is hardlier any sturdier. To acknowledge Ayn Rand's
homunculus is to highlight the limitations of her entire system of
political philosophy. Rand herself is not enlightened, and in fact is
against mysticism. Her political philosophy is completely alienated
from ego-transcendent Truth and is certainly weaker and more
vulnerable because of this glaring absence of higher knowledge.
The song "Bastille Day" on _Caress of Steel_ warns us that the kings
fell, and so shall King Ego, upon which Rand's entire system of
philosophy is founded. Yet this is not to say that her political
philosophy is wrong, or is incompatible with enlightenment. Upholding
the egoic individual is a necessary prerequisite to ego transcendence,
and when the mind transcends the ego, the ego is still very much
needed.
Cybermonk
To put it in more common, vulgar, vague, and loaded terms, the
Discovery is of mystic enlightenment through LSD. But this cliched
expression slips and fails to convey the heart of mystic
enlightenment, which is insight into self-control cybernetics,
self-steering, free will, and fate. These problematic themes, and
allusions to other altered-state experiences and cognitive phenomena,
weave almost all throughout the lyrical catalog of Rush. Such
allusions are a standard double-entendre technique in acid-influenced
rock ever since the mid-60s. But Rush is more firmly committed to
this theme of double-entendre encoding than any other group.
The bad guys, the priests, are the prohibitionists. The album
portrays anti-prohibitionism as a profoundly important cosmic quest in
the name of discovering the Truth about ourselves and becoming
enlightened.
Wind in my head, shifting and drifting; every nerve aware, I commit my
weekly crime, priests in pursuit.
To decode these allusions, which is high fun, study mysticism, study
books about psychedelics, study the lyrics, and get Experienced.
"Zen and the Problem of Control" in _This Is It_ by Alan Watts.
_The Way of Zen_ -- Alan Watts.
_High Priest_ -- Timothy Leary.
_The Psychedelics Encyclopedia_ by Peter Stafford.
http://archive.uwp.edu/pub/music/lyrics/r/rush/
Also search for "zen" and "psychedelic" at Amazon Books:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ats-query-page/
This is a major theme or aspect of classic rock from the mid-60s to
mid-70s, but consistently the underlying theme for Rush. The Grateful
Dead gets all the public recognition as an acid culture, but they
don't actually allude to altered state phenomena frequently in their
lyrics like Rush. Rush lyrics are especially crafted and encoded for
intellectual acid mystics like Neil.
This Discovery requires battling against prohibition, as well as
delusion. The battle against delusion happens in the album _Caress of
Steel_. When writing this album, Neil was already enlightened and
wrote clearly about the cognitive phenomena and experiences involved
in the Discovery in most of the songs, particularly "No One At the
Bridge".
The only song on the album that is not *dense* with allusions to
mystic altered state phenomena is about the monk-like goings-on above
the top of his head - "I think I'm going bald". "I 'looked in the
mirror' today, my eyes [sung 'my I'] just didn't seem so 'bright'.
What price, peace of mind?-- take a piece of my mind." That's the
song with the fewest allusions to altered state or mystic experiences.
At the other extreme is "No One at the Bridge", with clear Zen
references such as "there's no one there to steer."
_2112_ is the battle against prohibition, with far fewer references to
battling delusion. Since _Caress of Steel_ is about victory over
delusion, it's a much loftier album than _2112_, which is merely about
battling the prohibition promoted by the Average.
The Discovery is of mystic enlightenment through LSD.
Tom Robertson
cybe...@cybtrans.com (Cybermonk) wrote:
>Rush and Rand promote consciousness for the individual as a balanced
>complement to a reasonable form of group consciousness. This is as
>opposed to Kant's extremist systematization of morality as altruism,
>"do nothing for yourself, do everything for the good of others".
My impression of Kant is that he put duty above self, not others ahead
of self. Duty is compatible with recognizing that one's primary
responsibility is to oneself.
Tony Grundon (achileus)
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
> My impression of Kant is that he put duty above self, not others ahead
> of self. Duty is compatible with recognizing that one's primary
> responsibility is to oneself.
You just named one of the greatest dangers of Kant's ideas. He
invalidated the GOODNESS of free choice (and invalidated self-preservation).
To paraphrase Kant- "If you do something good because you choose to do it
then it is not moral, if you do something because it is your duty, that
is moral. If you sustain your life because you WANT to, that is not moral.
If you do it because it is your DUTY that is moral."
In other words, if you want to die but keep yourself alive miserably you
are moral because you follow duty. If you want to live and keep yourself
alive by Choice, that is bad.
Sounds like Kant was an evil man.
*****************--$--**********************
I always recommend "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "The Voice of
Reason", both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. These books will give you
promise of a bright future - Tony Grundon
Tony Grundon is one of the 362 founders of
humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Check your newsreader for that excellant newsgroup.
--------------
Jared N. Landrum
"A. Alex Simon III" <asi...@csra.net> wrote:
>Actually, if you read Ayn Rand (who is thanked on the album),
>you would understand that side one of the album (2112) is an
>anti-authoritarian statement.
More specifically, read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. This is the book that 2112 is
more directly based off. I think the key question here is the one of
individualism.
jeff
It sounds like he was Victorian.
Although that does introduce the aspect of intention into the question of
morality and not just action and non-action.
Jeff
zach gemmill
In article 7...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com, buda...@ix.netcom.com(Mr. Neutron) writes:
>
>
> I think all modern ideologies neglect a basic biological fact of human
> existence - people are individuals, but they are also an integral part
> of a group. The human species evolved as a social cooperative. No
> groups because they were not stong or fast enough to hunt on their own.
> It took group planning and execution for a successful hunt. Of
> course, with advances in technology, it is now possible for one person
> to survive alone, with guns and ammo to kill food, living in a
> sheltered tent in the wilderness. Then again, who built the guns? Who
> manufactured the ammo?
Eh? No one survived on their own before firearms were invented? Come on...
> Who produced the tent?
Um, I don't think tent-making took a lot of R&D. Besides, no one said that
a lone individual had to make a tent from scratch.
> The "rugged individual" is a myth, cooked up by politicians to score
> points.
I think your statement sounds like something a politician would say.
> Look around you and count all the things that you use and take
> for granted, and ask yourself how many of those things did you provide
> for yourself with no help from anyone? Your computer? Your car? Your
> house? Did you build all these things yourself? Even if you assembled
> your own computer or built your own house, where did you get the
> microprocessor and the lumber?
You are arguing something completely different! I don't think anyone is
stupid enough to deny that technological advances don't just pop into
existence. There is an *enormous* amount of science and engineering that
makes it happen. *This has nothing to do with being self-reliant*. When
the term "rugged individualism" is brought up, I think it means that it
is not the government's responsibility to hold everyone's hands to make
sure they become productive citizens. People need to be proactive, not lazy.
Zach
Tom Robertson
"Tony Grundon (achileus)" <fre...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Tom Robertson wrote:
>> My impression of Kant is that he put duty above self, not others ahead
>> of self. Duty is compatible with recognizing that one's primary
>> responsibility is to oneself.
>You just named one of the greatest dangers of Kant's ideas. He
>invalidated the GOODNESS of free choice (and invalidated self-preservation).
Free choice, by itself, is neither good nor evil. Only the
consequences of an act make it have moral value.
>To paraphrase Kant- "If you do something good because you choose to do it
>then it is not moral, if you do something because it is your duty, that
>is moral.
I do not see the difference between a good act and an act of duty. I
do not understand what could be meant by doing an act "because you
choose to do it." Acts cannot be done for no reason or with no
motive. If he was saying that personal preferences interfere with the
doing of one's duty, I agree. The only way to be objectively moral is
to do away with all self-centeredness. Only in acentrism is there
objectivity. That each individual is primarily responsible for
oneself is compatible with doing this.
>If you sustain your life because you WANT to, that is not moral.
>If you do it because it is your DUTY that is moral."
>In other words, if you want to die but keep yourself alive miserably you
>are moral because you follow duty.
This assumes that it is one's duty to stay alive while miserable. I
do not see this as necessarily true.
Tom Robertson
jeff <afn0...@afn.org> wrote:
>It sounds like he was Victorian.
>Although that does introduce the aspect of intention into the question of
>morality and not just action and non-action.
Morality has to do with actions and their consequences. Spirituality
has to do with intentions. Spirituality is more crucial, since
intentions cause actions.
Craig Meiners
In article <DEADBEEFdbruder-...@news.surfsouth.com>, DEADBEE...@surfsouth.com (Don Bruder) says:
><shakes head sadly>
>Another example of someone taking a tiny little snippet and turning it
>into a mountain of pseudo-significant crap. Am I the only Rush fan who
>just enjoys the music without trying to analyze it to death?!?
>
Don't worry. there are many of us out there that think the same way.
This Cybermonk guy just likes to spout his intelligence. Heck he even
gets on us for not spelling correctly in our posts. I guess we just
aren't smart enough to lick his boots. But that is okay.
I'm sure someone appreciates it and this is a newsgroup so he can post
what he thinks. I tend to not read much of it because it puts me to
sleep and if I get caught sleeping on the job, my manager will laugh at
me. I guess that I just have a simple mind.
Yeah, I don't think that Neil knows anything more than the rest of
us. His lyrics are great and make the music that much better but I don't
really think that I am going to find the secrets of the universe in his
words. It's like what David Gilmore said on Division Bell, "Do you think
that I know something you don't know? If I promised you the answer, would
you go?" Neil is a human who has a good way of expressing himself. Some
songs mean a lot to me just because they relate some of the same thoughts
I have had. I have better things to do with my time than find every
possible and impossible meaning of a rock song. But some people probably
get off on it. Different strokes...
achi...@imap2.asu.edu
15120.184...@general2.asu.edu> <5299gk$e...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Distribution:
Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: I do not see the difference between a good act and an act of duty. I
: do not understand what could be meant by doing an act "because you
: choose to do it." Acts cannot be done for no reason or with no
: motive. If he was saying that personal preferences interfere with the
: doing of one's duty, I agree. The only way to be objectively moral is
: to do away with all self-centeredness.
In other words the only way to be moral is to live for others. I
disagree, you should live for your own goals and your own survival (see
my sig file). As long as you do not violate the rights of others it is
GOOD to work to better your OWN life.
: Only in acentrism is there
: objectivity.
Wrong, how can you be objective by adopting 'others' as your standard of
value?
: This assumes that it is one's duty to stay alive while miserable. I
: do not see this as necessarily true.
Then you disagree with Kant. When I studied Kant in philosophy class one
of his primary arguments for duty was as follows: "if you sustain your
life despite the desire to end it you are moral, because you follow
duty. It is a duty to sustain your life" - Immanuel Kant.
Kant said that sustaining your own life was a DUTY.
It seems both you and I disagree with Kant on that issue.
--
*******************--*******************
I always recommend the books "Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal" and "The
Voice of Reason", both by Ayn Rand, to everyone I meet. Reading these books
will give you promise of a bright future - [5;37mTony Grundon [0;0m
--------------- ----------------
--------------- ----------------
------- See the Ayn Rand website: http://www.aynrand.org/-----------
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist
is a man who says: "I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense." An
individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights
of man - his own and those of others. - Ayn Rand
-------
I've joined the Voter's Boycott. I will not vote for any politician till
they stand up for (and define) Individual Rights. Every freedom needs a
definition.
Tom Robertson
achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: I do not see the difference between a good act and an act of duty. I
>: do not understand what could be meant by doing an act "because you
>: choose to do it." Acts cannot be done for no reason or with no
>: motive. If he was saying that personal preferences interfere with the
>: doing of one's duty, I agree. The only way to be objectively moral is
>: to do away with all self-centeredness.
>In other words the only way to be moral is to live for others.
From where did you get this?
>: Only in acentrism is there objectivity.
>Wrong, how can you be objective by adopting 'others' as your standard of
>value?
A self-centered individual cannot be objective. Only one who values
truth more than self can be objective. What relevance does "adopting
others as your standard" have to anything that I wrote?
Aaron Boyden
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Tony Grundon (achileus) wrote:
> In other words, if you want to die but keep yourself alive miserably you
> are moral because you follow duty. If you want to live and keep yourself
> alive by Choice, that is bad.
It is not bad on Kant's account to want to do something. Kant did not
require duties to be unpleasant. Whether something is pleasant or not
was, for Kant, irrelevant. I am not a Kantian myself (for example, I
share the view you imply on suicide), but it's easy enough to criticize
him on the basis of what he actually said; there's no need to make a
straw man of him.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Todd Howe
>achi...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
>>Tom Robertson (mdm...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
This argument places truth in opposition to one's self, which leads to
the conclusion that truth is harmful. How can one arrive at the
conclusion that it is against one's interest to pursue the truth?
(I realize that Tom qualified his statement by stating that it is only
one who values truth *more* than self, rather than *instead* of self,
but I don't see any difference between those distinctions since to
value truth even only a bit more than your own life, is to accede the
notion that truth is a bit harmful to one's life, sometimes - which
isn't true as a principle. Barring accidents or force by others,
honesty is always the best policy.)
_/\_ Todd Howe _/\_ th...@io.org _/\_ http://www.io.org/~thowe _________
New on my home pages - A Field Guide to Objectivism -
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true - provided it is consistent with
the laws of nature." -- Michael Faraday
Tom Robertson
th...@io.org (Todd Howe) wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:39:50 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
>Robertson ) wrote:
>>A self-centered individual cannot be objective. Only one who values
>>truth more than self can be objective.
>This argument places truth in opposition to one's self, which leads to
>the conclusion that truth is harmful.
Truth is often in opposition to self. If I work for you as your
accountant, and, in counting a certain amount of cash, I count it to
be $100 and if I tell you there was only $80 and pocket the other $20,
I have gained by lying. This type of situation is common. I have
sacrificed truth in favor of self, and therefore I have cost myself
objectivity. Not admitting errors, preferring to save face, is
another common example of this type.
>How can one arrive at the
>conclusion that it is against one's interest to pursue the truth?
Putting self ahead of truth is what is harmful. To pursue truth, it
must be valued more than self. Dishonesty is the result of valuing
self ahead of truth.
Jim Klein
I haven't followed this thread, but happened to catch this, and
couldn't let it slide by:
In <52sp5g$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson ) writes:
>Truth is often in opposition to self.
Truth is NEVER in opposition to self. However you define "self", it is
(or is within) an organism which has physical and mental faculties
designed for its furtherance. Furtherance can not possibly be served
by choosing to improperly acknowledge reality, which is what denying
truth would be. The only way out of this, it seems to me, is to say
that death is really the purpose of the organism. And if that's the
case, there's no reason to bother with truth, falseness, self, or any
other notion. The only thing to do then would be to die.
>If I work for you as your accountant, and, in counting a certain
>amount of cash, I count it to be $100 and if I tell you there was only
>$80 and pocket the other $20, I have gained by lying.
Of course, morally, you haven't served yourself or gained anything
except some green paper. Adherence to the truth can easily be shown to
be in your best interest, overall. But that doesn't matter here,
because you haven't really lied to yourself...YOU know that there was
$100 there!
>This type of situation is common. I have sacrificed truth in favor of
>self, and therefore I have cost myself objectivity.
Mishmosh. You haven't sacrificed truth in the example; you've only
chosen to mislead somebody else about it. And you certainly didn't do
it "in favor of self", as in the long run you will suffer for it.
>Not admitting errors, preferring to save face, is another common
>example of this type.
When you do this, you're serving neither truth nor self.
>Putting self ahead of truth is what is harmful. To pursue truth, it
>must be valued more than self.
But you, of all people, should recognize that there's no truth greater
than self. You're creating a dichotomy where none exists.
>Dishonesty is the result of valuing self ahead of truth.
I can't accuse you of being dishonest here, because I think that you
really believe this. All I can say is that you serve neither truth nor
yourself with such a notion. It's just plain wrong.
Sorry if these comments were off-topic for the thread.
jk
MaverickJB
In article <52t1fp$2...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
rum...@ix.netcom.com(Jim Klein ) writes:
> there's no truth greater
>than self.
Now, to ponder that one, I think I'd need your definition of "self". -
Jack
email at maver...@aol.com...internet site at
http://members.aol.com/maverickjb/zencastl.htm..."just a Zen cowboy from
Cheyenne"
Gregg Jaeger
In article <52sp5g$d...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson ) writes:
>th...@io.org (Todd Howe) wrote:
>>On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:39:50 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
>>Robertson ) wrote:
>>>A self-centered individual cannot be objective. Only one who values
>>>truth more than self can be objective.
>>This argument places truth in opposition to one's self, which leads to
>>the conclusion that truth is harmful.
>Truth is often in opposition to self.
Sure, but not always. Hence the falsity of the statement.
Gregg
--
Homepage: http://acs.bu.edu:8001/~jaeger/
MaverickJB
> Adherence to the truth can easily be shown to
>be in your best interest, overall.
Really? Is the fact that adhering to the truth can be so "easily"
demonstrated to be in our own best interest the reason why nobody ever
lies anymore? Oh, but wait - people still do lie, don't they? Oh, but I
guess it's only very occasionally. Hm, no, wait a minute again - I think
practically everybody still lies quite frequently...gosh, I guess they
must have all just missed that simple showing of how the truth is on their
own best interest, huh?
> But that doesn't matter here,
>because you haven't really lied to yourself...YOU know that there was
>$100 there!
That sounds a lot like something I would try to say to my Mom when she
caught me in this lie - "Well, I wasn't REALLY lying, because I knew the
truth...".
>You haven't sacrificed truth in the example; you've only
>chosen to mislead somebody else about it. And you certainly didn't do
>it "in favor of self", as in the long run you will suffer for it.
I'm not certain that the fact that they will suffer for it in the long run
means they didn't do it "in favor of self". Perhaps that just means it
didn't work out the way they wanted it to. If hit someone with the intent
of hurting them, but it doesn't hurt them because I hit their wooden leg -
it in fact hurts me, does that mean I didn't really do it to hurt them?
Todd Howe
On Wed, 02 Oct 1996 03:56:16 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
Robertson ) wrote:
>th...@io.org (Todd Howe) wrote:
>>On Sat, 28 Sep 1996 16:39:50 GMT, mdm...@worldnet.att.net (Tom
>>Robertson ) wrote:
>>>A self-centered individual cannot be objective. Only one who values
>>>truth more than self can be objective.
>>This argument places truth in opposition to one's self, which leads to
>>the conclusion that truth is harmful.
>Truth is often in opposition to self. If I work for you as your
>accountant, and, in counting a certain amount of cash, I count it to
>be $100 and if I tell you there was only $80 and pocket the other $20,
>I have gained by lying. This type of situation is common. I have
>sacrificed truth in favor of self, and therefore I have cost myself
>objectivity. Not admitting errors, preferring to save face, is
>another common example of this type.
As an example, this follows the pattern of those actions which, while
they may appear to win the battle, go a long way towards losing the
war.
Is it in your best interest to: live with the fear of being caught? To
know that you are a thief? The reason that this action is emphatically
NOT in your self interest is that it compromises any ethical
principles you may previously have held, and this sort of action,
continued over a span of time, makes it more and more difficult to
live your life successfully by making other people a threat to you
(your lies may be discovered) and by setting your own mind at odds
with existence (naturally, one would begin inventing all sorts of
rationalizations to justify the lies, which induces a certain kind of
nasty intellectual habit of resenting the truth) - one sets off down
the road to ruin, so to speak.
Even on the level of this one individual incident, truth proves to be
in your best interest. If you do lie, you take an entirely unnecessary
risk, a gamble that could ruin your entire career as an accountant.
In this light, do you still maintain that truth can be a threat to
your self-interest if you don't place it in that position yourself?
Some obscure Israeli prophet said it best - what does a man gain if he
wins the world and loses his own soul?