Rashomon
Pristian Violence Monitor
> The idea behind the story, Rashomon, is interesting, but I don't think
> the outworking of the story itself is very successful. I can
> understand if others disagree, but the story seems lacking in
> something vital to make it work well. The western version, 'The
> Outrage', was about the same. I was planning to read 'An Instance of
> the Fingerpost' but there were mixed reports about it, so I decided
> not to get into it, at least not right away. I do wish someone could
> build upon the idea successfully - I suppose I mean successful to my
> own liking.
>
> If anyone knows of another story build upon the same idea, I'd like to
> know about it. Especially if they think it is very good.
> Thanks
It's based on two Akutagawa stories, mainly 'IN A Grove'. It's framed
by the other story 'Rashomon' which is set during the dawn of social
chaos, where a man teeters between moral order and nihilism, choosing
the latter. At the end, the man who steals the clothes of the baby in
the movie represents abandonment to nihilism(in the short story the
man beats up an old woman pulling hair out of a dead woman and takes
her clothes) but Kurosawa the didactic humanist added a sweet touch
about the woodcutter redeeming himself by adopting the baby.
Joe Gillis
>> Outrage', was about the same.
It was NOT about the same -- it was a helluva lot funnier!! If you haven't seen
Paul Newman as ze Mehican bandido, you haven't lived!!
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I HATE inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
Howard Duck
Violence Monitor) wrote:
> It's based on two Akutagawa stories, mainly 'IN A Grove'. It's framed
> by the other story 'Rashomon' which is set during the dawn of social
> chaos, where a man teeters between moral order and nihilism, choosing
> the latter. At the end, the man who steals the clothes of the baby in
> the movie represents abandonment to nihilism(in the short story the
> man beats up an old woman pulling hair out of a dead woman and takes
> her clothes) but Kurosawa the didactic humanist added a sweet touch
> about the woodcutter redeeming himself by adopting the baby.
To be perfectly honest, that finale was probably the one satisfying
thing about the film for me. The just have justice awaiting them.
Fools are given ample opportunity to live out their foolishness so
that their judgment will be just in the end. Give them enough rope...
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
> The just have justice awaiting them.
> Fools are given ample opportunity to live out their foolishness so
> that their judgment will be just in the end. Give them enough rope..
Hi, Howard.
You dont believe that stuff, do you?...that the world (or the next world, if
any) is just? Or is it just a notion that pleases you, true or not?
steve
--
"A man was severely injured today in the Knutsford area."
Benny Hill
Aldo Pignotti
> To be perfectly honest, that finale was probably the one satisfying
> thing about the film for me. The just have justice awaiting them.
> Fools are given ample opportunity to live out their foolishness so
> that their judgment will be just in the end. Give them enough rope...
I thought the movie's strength was in it's telling. It's a well
told story, the movie is beautifully crafted.
I thought that the movie was about truth. What is truth? Can a
story be truthfully retold without the prejudices and ego of the teller
coloring his version on the event? What is revealed about the teller
by his version of an event? Looking inside each version of the story,
we see how selfish and arrogant we all are. In fact the vision is
so awful that, I think, Kuroswa tells us in the last part to not despair,
there is hope.
Francis A. Miniter
objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
compatible.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck
> On 10-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
>
> > The just have justice awaiting them.
> > Fools are given ample opportunity to live out their foolishness so
> > that their judgment will be just in the end. Give them enough rope..
>
> Hi, Howard.
>
> You dont believe that stuff, do you?...that the world (or the next world, if
> any) is just? Or is it just a notion that pleases you, true or not?
>
> steve
Yes, I do believe it, Steve. And it seems that no matter where we
begin a philosophical discussion, it must finally come back to this
basic paradigm of life.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
wrote:
> I thought the movie's strength was in it's telling. It's a well
> told story, the movie is beautifully crafted.
>
> I thought that the movie was about truth. What is truth? Can a
> story be truthfully retold without the prejudices and ego of the teller
> coloring his version on the event? What is revealed about the teller
> by his version of an event? Looking inside each version of the story,
> we see how selfish and arrogant we all are. In fact the vision is
> so awful that, I think, Kuroswa tells us in the last part to not despair,
> there is hope.
I agree. Therein lies the merit of the story. Even if I don't think
it is well crafted, I have to agree with your conclusions.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
<min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
> objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
> objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
> region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
> compatible.
>
> Francis A. Miniter
But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
faith-based approach to understanding reality. You know, 100 years
ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
reward/punishment to come. What has changed in our collective? We
are not really smarter or wiser than before. Has technology alone
changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific theory? There is nothing
certain there.
--
Howard
Mazzolata
The "basic paradigm of life" would seem to be that it's an accident, and
no-one cares. Whoever spilled something in the corner of the lab hasn't
gotten round to cleaning up the mess yet. But then, maybe a couple of
billion years is a lunch break in their time - watch out for that mop ...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to get behind the mule
in the morning and plow
Mazzolata
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:53:27 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
>>objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
>>objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
>>region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
>>compatible.
>>
>>Francis A. Miniter
>
>
> But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
> faith-based approach to understanding reality. You know, 100 years
> ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
> would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
> reward/punishment to come.
thankfully, as a species, we progress.
Lincoln Spector
"Aldo Pignotti" <aldopi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9c34a43.03121...@posting.google.com...
Kurosawa's major theme: The importance of individual charitable acts in an
otherwise cruel and indifferent universe.
The important thing in life isn't finding unknowable truth, but in caring
for others.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
not an objective examination of the world. But faith has its place in human
affairs.
Lincoln
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3fd74...@news3.prserv.net...
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
> > Hi, Howard.
> >
> > You dont believe that stuff, do you?...that the world (or the next
> > world, if
> > any) is just? Or is it just a notion that pleases you, true or not?
> >
> > steve
>
> Yes, I do believe it, Steve. And it seems that no matter where we
> begin a philosophical discussion, it must finally come back to this
> basic paradigm of life.
I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you agree?).
That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too. There is
certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world, so any belief in a next
world or in next-world-justice is really just faith. And faith is not a
path to truth, but merely a state of mind. So where does that leave you?
zleepy2
<min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
>objective reality to the opinion you express below... blah blah
blah and...
>The two approaches to the world are not compatible.
>Francis A. Miniter
Does Kurosawa's world (early last century) exist to you
or do you just see a Jungian USA/Euro-world of today ?
Japan is not a town in Kansas, especially in early 1900s
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
> One accepts concepts like a supreme being or life after death through
> faith,
> not an objective examination of the world.
Faith is, by it's very definition, baseless conviction. It is not a path to
truth, rather it is a decision to reject a search for truth and instead to
accept ones hopes and desires as if they are truth. It is just another
manifestation of mans ability and tendency to reject reason. Oddly, unlike
most other such manifestations, faith is generally considered a virtue and
not a weakness.
Mazzolata
> On 10-Dec-2003, "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
>>One accepts concepts like a supreme being or life after death through
>>faith,
>>not an objective examination of the world.
>
>
> Faith is, by it's very definition, baseless conviction. It is not a path to
> truth, rather it is a decision to reject a search for truth and instead to
> accept ones hopes and desires as if they are truth. It is just another
> manifestation of mans ability and tendency to reject reason. Oddly, unlike
> most other such manifestations, faith is generally considered a virtue and
> not a weakness.
>
> steve
Do you mind if I take this entire paragraph as my sig ;-)
(with the apostrophes, both missing and extraneous, corrected, of course!)
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
> That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too. There is
>certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
>than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world
I dunno about that. I remember sitting in the auditorium at the U.C.
Santa Barbara campus watching Tarkovsky's "Stalker," believing that I
was experiencing my own death.
--
I get tired of either sense or nonsense if I am
kept very continuously to either & like my mind
to undulate between the two as it likes best.
-- Bagehot (1858)
Howard Duck
> Faith is, by it's very definition, baseless conviction. It is not a path to
> truth, rather it is a decision to reject a search for truth and instead to
> accept ones hopes and desires as if they are truth. It is just another
> manifestation of mans ability and tendency to reject reason. Oddly, unlike
> most other such manifestations, faith is generally considered a virtue and
> not a weakness.
>
> steve
Sorry, Steve. I seriously disagree. 'Nuff said.
--
Howard
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you mind if I take this entire paragraph as my sig ;-)
>
> (with the apostrophes, both missing and extraneous, corrected, of course!)
Hmmm...I see only one apostrophe in my text, so I must have blown that one.
Shoulda left em all out, I guess. Someone once corrected me (here, in fact)
on the possessive "its" vs. the contraction "its". I never can recall which
is which.
Mazzolata
> On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you mind if I take this entire paragraph as my sig ;-)
>>
>>(with the apostrophes, both missing and extraneous, corrected, of course!)
>
>
> Hmmm...I see only one apostrophe in my text, so I must have blown that one.
> Shoulda left em all out, I guess. Someone once corrected me (here, in fact)
> on the possessive "its" vs. the contraction "its". I never can recall which
> is which.
>
> steve
Yeah, and you missed "one's" and "man's". At least you didn't put them
in with a plural "s" ! (And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
David J. Loftus
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:53:27 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
> > objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
> > objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
> > region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
> > compatible.
> >
> > Francis A. Miniter
>
> But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> which you refer to as group subjectivity,
You mustn't put words in Francis's -- or anyone else's -- mouth.
Group subjectivity is not at all the same thing as collective
unconscious. In fact, "group subjectivity" is not that accurate a
gloss on the phrase I used, and Francis endorsed, which was "shared
subjectivity."
There's nothing "unconscious" about it. It is the fact that it is
conscious, and chosen, that makes it useful, and thereby moral.
> then there is a basis for a
> faith-based approach to understanding reality.
Since your "if" was faulty, you cannot go to this "then" just yet.
> You know, 100 years
> ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
> would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
> reward/punishment to come.
Or the flatness of the earth. Or the utility and morality of
slavery.
> What has changed in our collective?
With regard to an afterlife and future rewards and punishments?
Largely a perception that most of the things we do in this life
hardly merit the attention of a higher power, let alone a rational
basis for future rewards and punishments.
> We are not really smarter or wiser than before.
What is your objective basis for saying so?
> Has technology alone changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific
> theory? There is nothing certain there.
At this point, you lose me entirely. Not sure what you're trying
to say here.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Could you at least describe for me the nexus between faith
and objectivity, or objective truth, as you see it, Howard?
David Loftus
Pristian Violence Monitor
> On 10-Dec-2003, "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>
> > One accepts concepts like a supreme being or life after death through
> > faith,
> > not an objective examination of the world.
>
> Faith is, by it's very definition, baseless conviction. It is not a path to
> truth, rather it is a decision to reject a search for truth and instead to
> accept ones hopes and desires as if they are truth. It is just another
> manifestation of mans ability and tendency to reject reason. Oddly, unlike
> most other such manifestations, faith is generally considered a virtue and
> not a weakness.
>
> steve
Faith, I think, is the instinctive that we can be saved, that life and
life's accomplishments are worthwhile.
If we only stick to reason, what's the point? We know we die,
civilizations won't last, stars burn and die, etc. Everything is vain.
Yet, why put up with all this search for knowledge, for 'truth'?
Because we have this faith within us--by which I don't necessarily
mean religious faith--that this great quest of--truth, love, beauty,
etc--are all worthwhile.
And what is beauty? To a chimp, a chimp mate is beautiful. Audrey
Hepburn means nothing to a bear. Yet, we believe in beauty, in love,
in our feelings. That's faith. Reason isn't enough.
Pristian Violence Monitor
There may be no anthromorphic justice in the universe but there are
physical laws that the universe must obey.
And, among living organisms--at least amongst them--emotions and
reason develop that gradually pushes them toward a sense of justice. I
suspect all complex life in any part of the universe have some set of
rules. Are these rules the rules of the stars and galaxies? No, but
there is something in the creation and evolution of life that pushes
us toward order. So there is justice in the universe but it's not
anthromorphic but we are part of that justice.
Does the other world exist? Every person is another world. Every
organism possesses his own universe. Every atom. There are otherworlds
all round us. What happens to light to fall into a blackhole? What
happens when life is conceived? What happens when a cup of flour, some
sour tomatoes, and cheese are transformed into pizza? Why limit the
other world to something like heaven or hell? We can only experience
one plane of reality. Our energies are constantly flowing out of our
mind and body. The food we eat transforms into flesh. When a piece of
carrot becomes a part of our heart that pumps the blood then we know
there are otherworldly things all around us?
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
Really? Please help me understand this. What would you call "its", then,
in this example:
"The train and its passengers went off the tracks."
OK, first of all do I need an apostrophe in "its"? And isnt "it" possessive
in this case? If not, what is "it"?
thanks,
Pristian Violence Monitor
> One accepts concepts like a supreme being or life after death through faith,
> not an objective examination of the world. But faith has its place in human
> affairs.
>
> Lincoln
One doesn't necessarily have to accept. He can suspect. And, without
that speculative imagination, we are nothing. The problem with
behavioralists is they've concluded personality doesn't exist because
it can't be scientifically measured. Science is great, thank god for
science, but it too has limitations based on human mental capability
and the level of technology. Had Einstein been born into a primitive
society, he would still have been a brilliant man but no physicist.
Yet, there are things we feel, intuit, imagine. Not necessarily that
these feelings or imaginations are objective observations, but these
qualities are at the heart of human knowledge, at the heart of man's
need to search further. Science is merely a tool. It is nothing
without that urge in man to seek, to know.
It's this urge that may be called faith. Faith, when it becomes dogma,
can hinder knowledge. But, without this sublime faith, in the idea of
the quest, in the idea of peering ever deeper into mysteries which we
know will only lead to yet greater mysteries, we would have no urge to
know more than what we know already. The method may be science but the
impulse behind all great human activity is faith.
A dog, no matter how well taught, can only be a dog. Humans too have
their mental limits, yet what really sets us apart is the ability to
imagine beyond what we are taught, what we can reason with the methods
available to any particular historical period. That is faith and even
when it's not analogous to objective truth, it is a human truth, the
truth of the heart, as true as anything else.
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, dongfon...@hotmail.com (Pristian Violence Monitor)
wrote:
> Faith, I think, is the instinctive that we can be saved, that life and
> life's accomplishments are worthwhile.
In the context of this discussion, faith is belief without evidence. Here
is definition 2 from dictionary.com
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Personally I find life to be worth living for the enjoyment and emotional
fulfillment it provides. For me, faith has no part in that calculation.
Nor do I see why it should or must for anyone else. In fact, if your life
sucks and you go on due to your faith, you may simply be suffering in vain.
> If we only stick to reason, what's the point? We know we die,
> civilizations won't last, stars burn and die, etc. Everything is vain.
Why is it in vain? If my life was all toil and tedium I might agree, but I
find that life is a blast.
> Yet, why put up with all this search for knowledge, for 'truth'?
Because I enjoy it. What more reason do I need?
> Because we have this faith within us--by which I don't necessarily
> mean religious faith--that this great quest of--truth, love, beauty,
> etc--are all worthwhile.
That really doesnt follow. These things are worthwhile because I enjoy
them, and for no deeper reason.
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>> (And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
>
>Really? Please help me understand this. What would you call "its", then,
>in this example:
>
>"The train and its passengers went off the tracks."
Possessive pronoun. Otherwise known as the genitive case & sometimes
used in combination with the dative case. However, remember not to
show your genitives on a first dative.
>OK, first of all do I need an apostrophe in "its"? And isnt "it" possessive
>in this case? If not, what is "it"?
You only need an apostrophe if you are using a contraction for "it is"
or "it has" & possibly one or two others I haven't thought of.
Howard Duck
wrote:
> But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
> faith-based approach to understanding reality. You know, 100 years
> ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
> would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
> reward/punishment to come. What has changed in our collective? We
> are not really smarter or wiser than before. Has technology alone
> changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific theory? There is nothing
> certain there.
> --
> Howard
Francis, I received a reply to this post by email, which I had thought
you meant to go to the newsgroup and sent to me by mistake. Now I'm
not sure.
Anyway, you said that 'group subjectivity' is not the same as a
'collective unconscious.' But, of course, I'm generalizing upon
Jung's idea -- I'm not talking about a shared memory and a bunch of
archetypal configurations in the unconscious. I'm saying that any
'group' is a collective; and subjectivity is a function of the
unconscious. A jury is a sampling of the broad collective. No shared
memory is implied here, but a cultural pattern of behavior and a
shared belief system -- these are largely unconscious and subjective.
To my statement that 100 years ago and beyond, the idea of a
faith-based paradigm of life, of the here and hereafter, would not
have seemed a radical thing. It would have been the norm. To which
you objected that any number of renowned thinkers of 100 years ago and
beyond rejected the notions of other-worldliness and an eternal
existence. But these were the exceptions of humanity, not the rule.
Besides which, there were also many renowned thinkers like Newton and
Pascal who did embrace other-worldliness and an eternal life. You
had, in a previous post, mentioned Plato in some context which I don't
recall; but Plato's teacher, Socrates, was very inclined toward the
other-worldly. He actually had a 'spirit guide' (as did Carl Jung).
While I don't advocate picking up spirit guides or any form of
shamanism, I do advocate looking prayerfully to a divine Creator for
enlightenment and the meaning of life. Every belief system, and even
the purely rational materialistic, must begin with some premise - some
postulate. At some point, we must make basic assumptions, whether
conscious or not. From that point we proceed with reason as well as
we are able.
--
Howard
Mazzolata
> On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>(And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
>
>
> Really? Please help me understand this. What would you call "its", then,
> in this example:
>
> "The train and its passengers went off the tracks."
>
> OK, first of all do I need an apostrophe in "its"? And isnt "it" possessive
> in this case? If not, what is "it"?
>
> thanks,
> steve
when it comes to the possessive, "its" is the exception that proves the
rule ;-) In other words, always use an apostrophe for the possessive,
except for "its" which doesn't have one.
"It's" always means "it is".
smw
steve wrote:
> On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>(And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
>
>
> Really? Please help me understand this. What would you call "its", then,
> in this example:
>
> "The train and its passengers went off the tracks."
>
> OK, first of all do I need an apostrophe in "its"? And isnt "it" possessive
> in this case? If not, what is "it"?
yes, it's possessive. But it's its, not "it's." Way to remember: his,
not hi's.
It's a damn stupid spelling convention, to be sure.
Mazzolata
> yes, it's possessive. But it's its, not "it's." Way to remember: his,
> not hi's.
>
> It's a damn stupid spelling convention, to be sure.
>
But everything backwards we don't say in English at least.
Cat
greatest danger of all. What hope is there for someone who chooses
death but says he chooses life? People debate "objective truth" but
the debate has no meaning. Whats is is and what isn't isn't. If you
believe the world is flat or if you believe the world is round, the
shape of the world stays the same. The only question for anyone is:
can you survive your beliefs?
On 9 Dec 2003 11:33:11 -0800, dongfon...@hotmail.com (Pristian
Violence Monitor) wrote:
>Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote in message news:<jfjqsvcr5l09vsu1h...@4ax.com>...
>> The idea behind the story, Rashomon, is interesting, but I don't think
>> the outworking of the story itself is very successful. I can
>> understand if others disagree, but the story seems lacking in
>> something vital to make it work well. The western version, 'The
>> Outrage', was about the same. I was planning to read 'An Instance of
>> the Fingerpost' but there were mixed reports about it, so I decided
>> not to get into it, at least not right away. I do wish someone could
>> build upon the idea successfully - I suppose I mean successful to my
>> own liking.
>>
>> If anyone knows of another story build upon the same idea, I'd like to
>> know about it. Especially if they think it is very good.
>> Thanks
>
>It's based on two Akutagawa stories, mainly 'IN A Grove'. It's framed
>by the other story 'Rashomon' which is set during the dawn of social
>chaos, where a man teeters between moral order and nihilism, choosing
>the latter. At the end, the man who steals the clothes of the baby in
>the movie represents abandonment to nihilism(in the short story the
>man beats up an old woman pulling hair out of a dead woman and takes
>her clothes) but Kurosawa the didactic humanist added a sweet touch
>about the woodcutter redeeming himself by adopting the baby.
J. Del Col
> smw wrote:
>
> > yes, it's possessive. But it's its, not "it's." Way to remember: his,
> > not hi's.
> >
> > It's a damn stupid spelling convention, to be sure.
> >
>
> But everything backwards we don't say in English at least.
Don't the Krauts either.
J. Del Col
Mazzolata
Don't you mean "Either don't the Krauts" ?
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, dongfon...@hotmail.com (Pristian Violence Monitor)
wrote:
> There may be no anthromorphic justice in the universe but there are
> physical laws that the universe must obey.
> And, among living organisms--at least amongst them--emotions and
> reason develop that gradually pushes them toward a sense of justice. I
> suspect all complex life in any part of the universe have some set of
> rules. Are these rules the rules of the stars and galaxies? No, but
> there is something in the creation and evolution of life that pushes
> us toward order. So there is justice in the universe but it's not
> anthromorphic but we are part of that justice.
Verbiage is no replacmenet for thought.
Kater Moggin
> there is something in the creation and evolution of life that pushes
> us toward order. So there is justice in the universe
Order != justice.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Mazzolata
> dongfon...@hotmail.com (Pristian Violence Monitor):
>
>
>>there is something in the creation and evolution of life that pushes
>>us toward order. So there is justice in the universe
>
>
> Order != justice.
As is clearly shown by the application of the legal system.
steve
On 10-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
> > But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> > which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
> > faith-based approach to understanding reality.
It seems that faith is required (the untestable and unsupportable theory of
the collective unconscious) to conclude that faith has value in
understanding reality. Circular and, I think, mythological.
> But, of course, I'm generalizing upon
> Jung's idea -- I'm not talking about a shared memory and a bunch of
> archetypal configurations in the unconscious. I'm saying that any
> 'group' is a collective; and subjectivity is a function of the
> unconscious.
Never read any Jung (dont think I'm missing anything of value), but the
notion of any group as a collective is a purely subjective view of that
group. Sets are ideas, not physical properties. The set of all people, the
set of all white people, the set of all women, the set of all film
buffs...these groups or "collectives" exist only as collectives because you
deem them so. To infer that they share a collective inconscious is
invention upon invention.
> To my statement that 100 years ago and beyond, the idea of a
> faith-based paradigm of life, of the here and hereafter, would not
> have seemed a radical thing. It would have been the norm. To which
> you objected that any number of renowned thinkers of 100 years ago and
> beyond rejected the notions of other-worldliness and an eternal
> existence.
What others (and people of other times) believe(d) is irrelevant. If they
left you with valid arguments, you should cite them. Simply listing their
conclusions as evidence that the conclusions have value is not an argument.
> Every belief system, and even
> the purely rational materialistic, must begin with some premise - some
> postulate. At some point, we must make basic assumptions, whether
> conscious or not. From that point we proceed with reason as well as
> we are able.
Now you are making sense. I would question, however, your choice of a
postulate. The question of what we can know with certainty was aptly
answered by DesCartes "I think therefor I am." (yes, I know he belived in a
god). All else is subject to the faults in our senses (and we cant even
know that we have senses, a physical body, etc.). Given these limitations,
I think it makes sense to take as postulates only the minimum necessary to
build a foundation. I accept that we exist as physical beings, and that we
do have a sense, flawed though it must be, of some portion of the world
around us. These and reason are our tools to discover more. This is the
minimum necessary to make examination of existence a relevant exercise.
Your postulate appears to include mine, and much more. Since we can know so
little, on what rational basis should we postulate more than necessary? Why
risk invention of falsehoods when that invention is unnecessary?
I also take (as a posulate, perhaps) that we are all equal in a moral
sense...that if we adopt moral principles, they must apply equally to all
men. But I see this as a choice among options more than a law of nature or
existence, and in defending that choice I ask others to state thier choice
along that same dimension and to suffer a comparison. Some may say there is
no morality, others may choose (as you do) to say that morality is defined
for us by a supreme being. Choices abound, but some choices are inherently
contradictory and those, I suggest, must be rejected.
Howard Duck
steve
On 11-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
> I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Huh? Do you miss the point? If you think, some entity must be experiencing
thought. You cannot think you think, unless you think.
At last that's what I think.
Think about it.
:^ )
Howard Duck
> On 11-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I think, therefore I think I am.
>
> Huh? Do you miss the point? If you think, some entity must be experiencing
> thought. You cannot think you think, unless you think.
>
> At last that's what I think.
>
> Think about it.
>
> :^ )
>
> steve
It was supposed to be a joke, Steve. <grin>
I'll tell you one thing, though I regret to have to say it, as we
speak, a new generation is being culturally adapted to new religious
ideas which are pagan. Of course, they are not really new, but rather
very old. Soon the materialistic atheist will once again be
marginalized. We are entering a post-modern era of spirituality of a
kind.
--
Howard
David J. Loftus
> Anyway, you said that 'group subjectivity' is not the same as a
> 'collective unconscious.' But, of course, I'm generalizing upon
> Jung's idea -- I'm not talking about a shared memory and a bunch of
> archetypal configurations in the unconscious. I'm saying that any
> 'group' is a collective; and subjectivity is a function of the
> unconscious.
Huh? It may be a "function" of the unconscious, but the visible
tracks of belief and action are unalterably conscious. And what
we DO is what matters, ultimately, not what we believe (or may
possess in our unconscious, about which it is possible to assert
any old thing).
> A jury is a sampling of the broad collective. No shared
> memory is implied here, but a cultural pattern of behavior and a
> shared belief system -- these are largely unconscious and subjective.
And you make this claim on what basis? Other than the recurring
hall-of-mirrors basis of faith?
> To my statement that 100 years ago and beyond, the idea of a
> faith-based paradigm of life, of the here and hereafter, would not
> have seemed a radical thing. It would have been the norm. To which
> you objected that any number of renowned thinkers of 100 years ago and
> beyond rejected the notions of other-worldliness and an eternal
> existence. But these were the exceptions of humanity, not the rule.
Which certainly has nothing to do with objective truth. It was truth
then, we may posit, because a majority of humanity agreed on it
through this process of shared subjectivity that I raised. It may
no longer rise to the level of a truth today.
> While I don't advocate picking up spirit guides or any form of
> shamanism, I do advocate looking prayerfully to a divine Creator for
> enlightenment and the meaning of life.
And where would that leave those of us to whom He/She/It says
not a word? You might respond that one must be prepared and
open, but from my perspective, the Creator's word never appears
anywhere but via other human conduits (the shared subjectivity)
or one's own "inspirations" (pure subjectivity itself).
> Every belief system, and even the purely rational materialistic,
> must begin with some premise - some postulate. At some point,
> we must make basic assumptions, whether conscious or not.
Here we agree. Where we part ways is the instant you label one
of these items "objective."
> From that point we proceed with reason as well as we are able.
But your posts seem to imply that reason is insufficient, perhaps
even detrimental. I would agree, but add that it's all we have,
really.
David Loftus
Mazzolata
> It was supposed to be a joke, Steve. <grin>
>
> I'll tell you one thing, though I regret to have to say it, as we
> speak, a new generation is being culturally adapted to new religious
> ideas which are pagan. Of course, they are not really new, but rather
> very old. Soon the materialistic atheist will once again be
> marginalized. We are entering a post-modern era of spirituality of a
> kind.
*Spirituality* is a bogus word for a warm, fuzzy, feel-good lack of
thinking. It's about on a par with shopping. Get yourself a new outfit,
a pair of shoes, and a book about angels. Maybe some really bland
lite-Jazz new-age music, and a couple of TV dinners. Read your
horoscope. Blah.
dobe...@deletesocal.rr.com
>always use an apostrophe for the possessive
Not quite always: "yours," plus all those pronouns that have ellided
or altogether dropped the apostrophe "s" inflection to indicate
possession: "my," "mine," "thy," "thine," "your," "his," "hers" &
"whose."
>"It's" always means "it is".
"It's been nice knowing you"?
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
>
> On 10-Dec-2003, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (And "it's" is never possessive, BTW).
>
> Really? Please help me understand this. What would you call "its", then,
> in this example:
>
> "The train and its passengers went off the tracks."
>
> OK, first of all do I need an apostrophe in "its"? And isnt "it"
possessive
> in this case? If not, what is "it"?
it -- nominative or objective
its -- possessive
it's -- contraction of "it is"
Maybe you should take a quick dekko at an English grammar.
--
Frank in Seattle
___________
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Francis A. Miniter
Ouch! My apologies. I did mean to post it to the group. And I have
been so busy since hitting send, that I never checked until just now. I
will forward my post to the group. Please feel free to use it.
Francis A. Miniter
Howard Duck wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:19:48 -0600, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
>>which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
>>faith-based approach to understanding reality. You know, 100 years
>>ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
>>would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
>>reward/punishment to come. What has changed in our collective? We
>>are not really smarter or wiser than before. Has technology alone
>>changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific theory? There is nothing
>>certain there.
>>--
>>Howard
>>
>>
>
>Francis, I received a reply to this post by email, which I had thought
>you meant to go to the newsgroup and sent to me by mistake. Now I'm
>not sure.
>
>
<snip>
>Howard
>
>
J. Del Col
> J. Del Col wrote:
> > Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FD7E3E8...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> >>smw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>yes, it's possessive. But it's its, not "it's." Way to remember: his,
> >>>not hi's.
> >>>
> >>> It's a damn stupid spelling convention, to be sure.
> >>>
> >>
> >>But everything backwards we don't say in English at least.
> >
> >
> > Don't the Krauts either.
> >
> >
> >
> > J. Del Col
>
> Don't you mean "Either don't the Krauts" ?
Hmmm... maybe "The Krauts either don't." But that's awfully Yodaesque.
J. Del Col
Lincoln Spector
> certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
agree?).
governments (at least not justice that you can depend on, although it
happens), not economically, and not in things like who gets cancer. But I
have noticed that good people--people who do charity work and are active in
their communities--are generally happier and better adjusted emotionally
than people who put themselves first.
> That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too. There
is
> certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
> than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world, so any belief in a
next
> world or in next-world-justice is really just faith. And faith is not a
> path to truth, but merely a state of mind. So where does that leave you?
Might faith be a path to truth? I'd say we have no empirical way of knowing
one way or the other.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
>
> On 11-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
>
> > I think I think, therefore I think I am.
>
> Huh? Do you miss the point? If you think, some entity must be
experiencing
> thought. You cannot think you think, unless you think.
>
> At last that's what I think.
>
> Think about it.
And therefore I must have a soul.
But animals do not. Of course,
He had to put Descartes before the horse.
Mazzolata
> Might faith be a path to truth? I'd say we have no empirical way of knowing
> one way or the other.
Sounds like a pretty poor rationale for faith.
It would appear that we have a reasonable theory as to what happened at
the beginning of the universe as we know it (Big Bang and all that). We
have absolutely no understanding of the catalyst for that beginning, or
even if there was a catalyst. The whole concept of "before", or "cause",
may well be meaningless in the context of the universe, our brains just
aren't up to the comprehension necessary. How do we jump from there to
"God" ?
There are several possibilies:
- this universe was created by some "intelligent entity", either
accidentally or deliberately
- this universe was not created by anything, it is part of some larger
cycle that is unknowable to us
- the concept of "creation" makes no sense in terms of what a "universe"
actually is, we just don't get it
The only rational solution is to accept our lack of understanding,
shrug, and move on. Faith in not just a creator, but an interventionist
creator that is actually monitoring this universe, has no basis in
anything more than fear and human need for an answer, any answer.
Saying there is no God is much a statement of faith as saying that there
is a God. The only truth is that we have no idea.
Robert Paulsen
>> I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
>> certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
> agree?).
> Actually, I believe there is justice in the world. Certainly not in
> governments (at least not justice that you can depend on, although it
> happens), not economically, and not in things like who gets cancer. But I
> have noticed that good people--people who do charity work and are active in
> their communities--are generally happier and better adjusted emotionally
> than people who put themselves first.
>
Or could it be that happy, well-adjusted people tend to find the time,
energy and motivation for that kind of activity?
Personal experience tells me that when I am in a "good mood" I am more
likely to be positive in my relations with others than when I am in a
foul mood.
--
Bob
Lisa Morgendunst
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message news:<3fd7c0b0$0$14946$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...> > Faith, I think, is the instinctive that we can be saved, that life and
> > life's accomplishments are worthwhile.
>
> In the context of this discussion, faith is belief without evidence. Here
> is definition 2 from dictionary.com
> "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
> Personally I find life to be worth living for the enjoyment and emotional
> fulfillment it provides. For me, faith has no part in that calculation.
> Nor do I see why it should or must for anyone else. In fact, if your life
> sucks and you go on due to your faith, you may simply be suffering in vain.
But, you believe that life is enjoyable, that emotional fulfillment
matters. If you are as rational as you think you are, perhaps you
should ask yourself the meaning of joy. Is there a logical or rational
basis for joy or that life should be joyful? Could it all be an
illusion? Yet, you faithfully cling to the primacy of your emotions,
your pleasure. What is joy? Just sensations created by secretions and
interactions of bodily chemicals. Should one rely on such feelings,
that such self-induced bodily opiates are the basis for wanting to
live? And, why should a sad or depressed life be any less valuable?
Sometimes, there's great beauty and meaning in sadness. And, it's
depression that often makes us question and philosophize about this
joy you talk about, that life is a bowl of cherries. Is it really a
bowl of cherries? Is it just an illusion? This is something that can't
be answered thru reason alone. To live for joy is to have faith in
one's happiness and what scientific basis is there for happiness and
contentment? If it can be explained as mere biochemical reactions, why
think such joy amounts to much or even qualifies as a reason for
living? Maybe what it means is we're all on self-induced narcotics.
>
> > If we only stick to reason, what's the point? We know we die,
> > civilizations won't last, stars burn and die, etc. Everything is vain.
>
> Why is it in vain? If my life was all toil and tedium I might agree, but I
> find that life is a blast.
It is vain in the great scheme of things, but of course, most of us
think in terms of days and weeks, not eons. But, if we were to really
question what the meaning of life is with reason alone, the conclusion
would be everything we strive for is pointless; it's as much a wasted
effort as ants building their empire to be destroyed near the end of
the season. Yet, we struggle on.
And we may also ask why should the suffering world go on just because
life is a blast for me. Let's say neither you nor I know hunger, nor
oppression, etc. But, what about the billions living in poverty? What
about the natural world where all animals are at war in a constant
struggle to kill and devour. Is there any moral or scientific
justification for the existence for life in this planet when except
for a relatively priveleged few among one species of animals known as
humans, life is mostly fear, misery, and agony? If we were truly
compassionate and rational in understanding the pointlessness and the
agony of most lifeforms, wouldn't it be better to blow up the entire
life with our nuclear arsenal and let all things sleep? Or, should we
let life go on when we have the power to put it out of its misery
because your or my life is a blast? We choose life because we
believe despite the pain and agony thru the ages, all over the globe,
among animalkind, it's worth the struggle, the agony, the pain, the
pointlessness. This is faith.
>
> > Yet, why put up with all this search for knowledge, for 'truth'?
>
> Because I enjoy it. What more reason do I need?
You have faith in simple pleasures, a faith strong enough to shield
from the truth of pointlessness of life, the vanity of all things in
the great scheme of things. Like an animal that goes on living to eat,
drink, and play, you believe in your programmed ability to enjoy and
take sustenance in small things. It's not rational or philosophical
but you have faith in how you've been programmed.
>
> > Because we have this faith within us--by which I don't necessarily
> > mean religious faith--that this great quest of--truth, love, beauty,
> > etc--are all worthwhile.
>
> That really doesnt follow. These things are worthwhile because I enjoy
> them, and for no deeper reason.
>
You're also showing faith in humanity because how much of science do
you really know firsthand? How many fields are you an expert in?
Yet, you believe scientific claims because of your faith in those
institutions. You swallow what they feed you because you have faith in
humanity's sincerity even though science has often been twisted by
agendas of governing regimes or ideologies whether Nazism, Stalinism,
liberalism, conservatism, Afro-centrism, feminism. Despite the fact
that everyone has biases and their private agendas, you believe in
most scientific claims not because you understand the claims firsthand
thru YOUR rational understanding but by accepting the truth as
explained to laymen by experts and specialists. I believe them too,
but our trust may not be entirely groundless yet it is somewhat based
on faith in scientists.
To accept and believe what we don't understand firsthand requires some
faith.
Lisa Morgendunst
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:53:27 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
> > objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
> > objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
> > region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
> > compatible.
> >
> > Francis A. Miniter
>
> But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
> faith-based approach to understanding reality. You know, 100 years
> ago and stretching back into the distant past, relatively few people
> would have questioned such a premise as afterlife and
> reward/punishment to come. What has changed in our collective? We
> are not really smarter or wiser than before. Has technology alone
> changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific theory? There is nothing
> certain there.
If we define 'collective' as in meaning telepathic powers, I'm not
sure there's collective unconscious. But, if we define 'collective' as
people possessing faculties and features that grew out of the same
root, then yes, there is a collective unconscious, a shared 'memory'.
There is clearly a collective CONsciousness yet this depends on
collective SUBconscious. Without that latent software with the same
program written into all of us humans, we could never gain a
collective consciousness, meaning we can all learn, feel, and think
the same things. We all end up thinking and behaving as we do because
in our deeper core we are endowed with the same programming that
allows conscious imprinting to follow along similar patterns. We think
of each of us as a separate individual but we all grew out of,
multiplied out from, the same root, we're all leaves in the same
tree. Our minds are variations of that singular prototype, just as all
microsoft programs all share the same codings.
Every man is not a singular entity but merely a reproduction of a
basic genetic formula. We all share the same ancestors. We have
evolved but the mental structure that define what we are, how much we
can think, what we can feel, etc are all determined by the African
prototype. Just as all frogs of same species follow same patterns of
behavior, so do we all. At the deepest level, we are not individuals
but multiplicities of a single human model. There are variations to
be sure, but in fact at a deeper level we are one. On an even deeper
level, we share same subconscious with frogs and other animals because
we all share the same evolutionary lineage. When Buddha sat and
contemplated he realized that beneath the surface reality of physical
definitions lies the deeper reality of formlessness turning into
countless forms, which are all however, mere permutations of the
original form(or formlessness, ie. chemical elements, energy, liquid,
gas, solid, dna molecules, etc).
If we define collective unconscious as specific memory(of say my
ancestor having killed a deer and having had a nice meal), then
there's no such thing. Of course the knowledge of one generation does
NOT pass thru the genes into the next. Of course, what we know in
Kansas is not the same as what they know in Peking. Yet, at our
subconscious roots, a Chinaman and a Kansas hayseed share the same
mental archetypes.
Some of this collective unconscious is more obvious than others. Why
do cats, who've never seen snakes, get frightened by hissing sounds?
Why do humans inherently feel nervous about snaky patterns. Because,
fear of the snake has been imprinted as an evolutionary advantage thru
countless generations. Those who werent' unnerved by that sound or
that snaky appearance tended to be less careful around snakes and got
bitten and died. So, cats and humans with inherent fear of snake-like
things had the evolutionary advantage. There is no basis for
snake-phobia for cats and humans that has never encountered or been
injured by snakes but many such cats have been shown to be extremely
nervous around snake-like objects like a belt.
Group subjectivity or any thought or feeling flows out of the
collective unconscious. If you as a person can understand another
person, it's because you share the same collective subconsicous
software. You might say you understand others thru conscious
discourse, but it's the shared subconsious that makes this possible.
Imagine two rivers meeting into one. To the casual eye it can only see
the surfaces of the water coming together but beneath the surface are
depths of water freely mixing, and this is possible because they are
of the same element. We're not talking of telepathy here but of mental
archetypes. If we didn't share this inherently same mental software,
we wouldn't be able to communicate. And beneath the collective
unconscious, there is the collective biophysical attributes. Consider
having a male and female ladybugs and having them reproduce and they
lay 100s of eggs. Are each of the new ladybugs an individual entity?
In one way, yes, but in a more fundamental way, there are replications
of the basic ladybug genetic formula, which means they share the same
behavioral patterns. Same with humans. We all share the same
instincts, albeit with variations. But at the root of our biophysical
nature and from the unconscious that rises from it which grows into
what we call the consciousness of the ego, there is unity. Because man
is so clever he seems to think 'reality' he grasps with his
intelligence sets him apart from everything but no matter great one's
knowledge(or ignorance)his unconscious shares the same attributes with
that of other human beings. Jung may be criticized for using mystical
concepts but there is hard scientific basis for this. We are all share
the same genetic programming which to a great extent determines and
limits what we can feel and think.
Lisa Morgendunst
> Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote in message news:<sqketvssgnq1pidva...@4ax.com>...
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:53:27 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> > <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I see no basis in the world on which to infer that there is any
> > > objective reality to the opinion you express below. If you espouse an
> > > objective reality standpoint, you cannot then go veering off into the
> > > region of belief and hope. The two approaches to the world are not
> > > compatible.
> > >
> > > Francis A. Miniter
> >
> > But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> > which you refer to as group subjectivity,
>
> Group subjectivity is not at all the same thing as collective
> unconscious. In fact, "group subjectivity" is not that accurate a
> gloss on the phrase I used, and Francis endorsed, which was "shared
> subjectivity."
>
> There's nothing "unconscious" about it. It is the fact that it is
> conscious, and chosen, that makes it useful, and thereby moral.
Morality has no power without the depths of the unconscious. The
conscious mind can only think of one thing at a time. Yet, stored,
hidden, or lost in our brains are unbelievable amounts of knowledge
and memory. There's no way the conscious mind can rationally weigh all
these at once so we rely on our feelings. That's why it's important to
cultivate the feelings as well as intellect because it's with the
unconsious that all the knowledge that we have attained over the years
gives us the FEELING of right and wrong. Otherwise, morality would
simply be a never ending mathematical formula. The conscious mind is
untrustworthy because of its one-dimensionality. If you're with
friends and cracking jokes and having a blast, everything else fades
away. You forget that there are wars raging, that the Holocaust
happened, that some old woman's probably getting mugged somewhere. If
even in the happiest times when our conscious minds are completely
occupied with joyful or frivolous things, if there is a sense within
us that there's much more to this world than the fun you're having
with your friends, it's because your unconscious has depth your
conscious mind lacks, and this unconscious depth is always swirling
beneath your happy conscious exterior. Besides, memory's usefulness in
most cases is not their factual, nitty-gritty recording of events but
its ability to distill some essence from countless experience of life.
Moral sense grows organically, much of its subconsciously, slowly
overtime.
Lisa Morgendunst
> On 10-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
>
> > > But the fact is, Francis, that if there is a collective unconscious,
> > > which you refer to as group subjectivity, then there is a basis for a
> > > faith-based approach to understanding reality.
>
> It seems that faith is required (the untestable and unsupportable theory of
> the collective unconscious) to conclude that faith has value in
> understanding reality. Circular and, I think, mythological.
No, at the core of faith is fascination, a sense of wonderment.
Hebrews and the Ancient Greeks used different methodology but both
peoples thought the cosmos was worth pondering beyond utilitarian or
practical needs.
What is the rational need to know about other stars and galaxies?
Couldn't a rational person say why not feed the hungry on this planet?
Why spend gazillions of dollars to develop programs to chart the
universe. After all, no matter how much we know, it's not gonna do us
any good whether there's some quasar a billion light yrs from earth.
Yet, we want to know. This obsession to know and seek further is
hardly rational though reason is the tool. The impulse is our faith in
the glory of the universe. It's like what Carl Sagan said. Scientists
are not simply nerdy guys fooling around with test tubes. Scientists
use reason but their passion to know is passion shared by scientist
and spiritualist alike. I prefer scientists and I have little use for
spiritual dogma(which is an oxymoron as it's an attempt give form to
formlessness).
>
> > But, of course, I'm generalizing upon
> > Jung's idea -- I'm not talking about a shared memory and a bunch of
> > archetypal configurations in the unconscious. I'm saying that any
> > 'group' is a collective; and subjectivity is a function of the
> > unconscious.
>
> Never read any Jung (dont think I'm missing anything of value), but the
> notion of any group as a collective is a purely subjective view of that
> group. Sets are ideas, not physical properties. The set of all people, the
> set of all white people, the set of all women, the set of all film
> buffs...these groups or "collectives" exist only as collectives because you
> deem them so. To infer that they share a collective inconscious is
> invention upon invention.
Absolutely not. It's true that artificial categories may be applied to
mankind or anything. For example, there is no Trekkie in nature.
However, that certain sets share genuine 'collective' characteristics
is not fiction. That man has attributes differnt from dogs or ants is
not simply invention but observed fact. That all of mankind, because
of their shared ancestry, possess more or less the same mental
software and physical hardware cannot be denied, though variations
have developed amongst groups that developed in isolation from one
another over long periods of time under drastically different
conditions--geography, climate, diet, etc.
Lisa Morgendunst
> > faith-based paradigm of life, of the here and hereafter, would not
> > have seemed a radical thing. It would have been the norm. To which
> > you objected that any number of renowned thinkers of 100 years ago and
> > beyond rejected the notions of other-worldliness and an eternal
> > existence. But these were the exceptions of humanity, not the rule.
>
> Which certainly has nothing to do with objective truth. It was truth
> then, we may posit, because a majority of humanity agreed on it
> through this process of shared subjectivity that I raised. It may
> no longer rise to the level of a truth today.
>
merely an expansion or revision of the basic belief.
And, religions have their own working logic. For their time, they were
based on 'scientific' observation. Man saw patterns in natural
phenomena and tried to answer them as best as possible.
Science is a much better and more reliable tool but because it stops
where hard evidence stops, man cannot live on science alone. If we
put science at the center of humanity, then everyone unversed in
science has no sense of truth. Primitive societies with little or no
scientific understanding are living in complete and total darkness. I
think not. I think man's faith and imagination go long way toward
explaining much of this truth. Perhaps, much of this explanation is
mystical, symbolic, metaphorical. But, it's truth nonetheless, even a
higher truth. And, as physics progresses to the furthest reaches, it's
basically reiterating what Hindus and Taoism had said all along. The
essential truth of the cosmos can be attained intuitively,
'spiritually', and I speak as a life-long atheist.
Lisa Morgendunst
> On 10-Dec-2003, "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
>
> > One accepts concepts like a supreme being or life after death through
> > faith,
> > not an objective examination of the world.
>
> Faith is, by it's very definition, baseless conviction. It is not a path to
> truth, rather it is a decision to reject a search for truth and instead to
> accept ones hopes and desires as if they are truth. It is just another
> manifestation of mans ability and tendency to reject reason. Oddly, unlike
> most other such manifestations, faith is generally considered a virtue and
> not a weakness.
>
In Rashomon, the monk and the woodcutter are profoundly dispirited
because they feel that mankind is so deceptive or deluded that there's
no fixed truth. That being the case, can we believe any claim? All
claims are made by people, whether political, moral, historical,
scientific. Knowing what we know about man's ability to lie or to
distort truth, can we be sure that any scientist is truly dedicated to
the principles of science? What if he's changing facts and data to
further his interest or career, or to put forth his agenda or those of
his overseers? Yet, like the monk at the end of the movie we preserve
some faith in mankind. You might say it's because history has shown
that the open democratic system has been proven to work and allow man
to pursue truth as truth, though judging by the rise of political
correctness and the assault on the scientific community by feminists,
afro-centrists, creationists, etc. suggests even in our society,
search for truth is never completely unfettered from agendas. And,
even dedicated scientists get into silly debates with colleagues and
emphasize certain data over others just to further their own position
or out of ego-driven competitiveness.
At any rate, suppose you lived in a totally oppressive society where
most people were willfully ignorant, cruel, and barbarous. Would you
still believe in humanity? Would you still believe in the power of
reason? Power of goodness?
Many of us would. When even by rational observation and evidence
humanity is shown to be a pile of manure, we still believe in
humanity, in making things better.
Consider Europe during the Dark Ages. Judging by the evidence,
Christians should have called it quits. Roman Empire rotten to the
core, Germanic barbarians looting and raping... Based on evidence
there was no cause for hope for mankind yet the monasteries still held
onto the notion of man's redemption. That's faith, it's something we
feel deep inside, and it's independent of hard evidence.
Howard Duck
Morgendunst) wrote:
> Consider Europe during the Dark Ages. Judging by the evidence,
> Christians should have called it quits. Roman Empire rotten to the
> core, Germanic barbarians looting and raping... Based on evidence
> there was no cause for hope for mankind yet the monasteries still held
> onto the notion of man's redemption. That's faith, it's something we
> feel deep inside, and it's independent of hard evidence.
Please excuse my skipping over so much of your arguments. I think you
have given a good rational basis for belief systems generally. I may
disagree with your atheistic and evolutionary positions, but I do
appreciate your deeper analysis of the human psychological condition.
--
Howard
steve
> > It seems that faith is required (the untestable and unsupportable theory
> > of
> > the collective unconscious) to conclude that faith has value in
> > understanding reality. Circular and, I think, mythological.
>
> No, at the core of faith is fascination, a sense of wonderment.
> Hebrews and the Ancient Greeks used different methodology but both
> peoples thought the cosmos was worth pondering beyond utilitarian or
> practical needs.
Wow. Its been 20 years since I've had a discussion like this. I've always
found your line of reasoning to be maddening. Read on.
> What is the rational need to know about other stars and galaxies?
> Couldn't a rational person say why not feed the hungry on this planet?
OK, what you are doing here, generally, is presuming to categorize
"rational" and "irrational" value judgements. But reason does not dictate
value, it is only a process to examine ideas and observations. Value
judgements may be the result of reason, but only *after* a basis for
establishing value is adopted or accepted and reason is applied to that
basis. You presuppose that reason might tells us, in the abstract, what to
value. Regardless if a value system is emotionally driven, arbitrary, or
even just plain silly, unless it is self contradictory it does not fail a
test of reason. Further, even if you cite millions of examples of man
acting in an irrational fashion (and I'm certain you could), that would say
nothing about reason itself.
> This obsession to know and seek further is
> hardly rational though reason is the tool.
Reason is a tool...exactly.
> The impulse is our faith in
> the glory of the universe.
> It's like what Carl Sagan said. Scientists
> are not simply nerdy guys fooling around with test tubes. Scientists
> use reason but their passion to know is passion shared by scientist
> and spiritualist alike. I prefer scientists and I have little use for
> spiritual dogma(which is an oxymoron as it's an attempt give form to
> formlessness).
All this is irrelevant. Why people think and act as they do has nothing to
do with the question of faith as a path to truth. Even if all men acted as
if it were so (and many do), that would not make it so. Why or how men may
have passion for knowlege tells us nothing about faith as a tool to satisfy
that passion.
> Absolutely not. It's true that artificial categories may be applied to
> mankind or anything. For example, there is no Trekkie in nature.
> However, that certain sets share genuine 'collective' characteristics
> is not fiction.
You miss the point. Take for example, the category or group: man. The
group must be defined. No two humans are identical, so you must
subjectively choose not only the group characteristics but the tolerance for
variation. While you might say all men form a common group, I might say
that only identical men may form a group (hence each group is just a single
man). The common characteristics themselves are not self evident, they are
a product of your process of discrimination.
Further, even if two humans are indentical in terms that we can observe and
understand, they are still seperate units. To call those seperate units a
collection based on that determination is still a subjective judgment; the
judgment that indistiguishability is the basis for a collection or group.
Regardless of how you define it, it is subjective because you must define
it.
For continuity, I'm going to incorporate your other posts into this thread.
Here goes:
> But, you believe that life is enjoyable, that emotional fulfillment
> matters. If you are as rational as you think you are, perhaps you
> should ask yourself the meaning of joy. Is there a logical or rational
> basis for joy or that life should be joyful?
I feel no need to ask (though one could cetainly do that and use reason as a
tool to explore the issue). I simply accept my quest for pleasure and
avoidance of pain (pleasure and pain being defined in the broadest of terms)
as worthwhile goals because the characteristics of my physical body
(including my brain...broad terms, you see) seem to dictate that it is so.
That is no more of less logical than a rock rolling down a hillside.
>Yet, you faithfully cling to the primacy of your emotions,
> your pleasure.
It isnt faith, it's experience. The thinking entity that is me (and that is
all I can know with certainty) seems to not only observe it's own pleasure
and pain, but to value one over the other and to effect some control over
the two. I use reason to shape that control as it pleases me.
> What is joy? Just sensations created by secretions and
> interactions of bodily chemicals. Should one rely on such feelings,
> that such self-induced bodily opiates are the basis for wanting to
> live? And, why should a sad or depressed life be any less valuable?
Should we rely on such feelings? You may or may not. Make your own
decision. Ask the sad or depressed life how much it values itself. Reason
and value are not related concepts.
> Maybe what it means is we're all on self-induced narcotics.
Maybe. Whatever.
> > > If we only stick to reason, what's the point? We know we die,
> > > civilizations won't last, stars burn and die, etc. Everything is vain.
> >
> > Why is it in vain? If my life was all toil and tedium I might agree,
> > but I
> > find that life is a blast.
>
> It is vain in the great scheme of things, but of course, most of us
> think in terms of days and weeks, not eons. But, if we were to really
> question what the meaning of life is with reason alone, the conclusion
> would be everything we strive for is pointless;
This is the kind of "logic" that makes me angry. Once again, reason is not
a value system. If I value my life over all of humanity (and perhaps I do)
you cannot (rationally) say that such a conclusion is illogical. Value is
purely subjective and not subject to logical question.
And, BTW, I do think everything is pointless in the grand scheme because I
dont believe there is a grand scheme. But I still experience pleasure and
pain. Mostly pleasure.
> And we may also ask why should the suffering world go on just because
> life is a blast for me. Let's say neither you nor I know hunger, nor
> oppression, etc. But, what about the billions living in poverty?
[snip]
Here is my considered response: blah blah blah. Try addressing the
logical issues.
> > Because I enjoy it. What more reason do I need?
>
> You have faith in simple pleasures, a faith strong enough to shield
> from the truth of pointlessness of life
Oh brother. I'm quite comfortable with the pointlessness of life, thank
you. If I wasnt, *then* I would be falling back on faith.
> Like an animal that goes on living to eat,
> drink, and play, you believe in your programmed ability to enjoy and
> take sustenance in small things. It's not rational or philosophical
> but you have faith in how you've been programmed.
You are simply using the word faith in another context and with another
meaning. That's a classic error in logic. I accept how I have been
programmed, and in that sense one might say I have faith. But that says
nothing about faith as a path to truth so it does not address the topic of
the discussion.
This is why I lose patience with people in discussions like this. You seem
to prefer obfuscation and confusion to definition and clarity.
> You're also showing faith in humanity because how much of science do
> you really know firsthand? How many fields are you an expert in?
> Yet, you believe scientific claims because of your faith in those
> institutions. You swallow what they feed you because you have faith in
> humanity's sincerity even though science has often been twisted by
> agendas of governing regimes or ideologies whether Nazism, Stalinism,
> liberalism, conservatism, Afro-centrism, feminism.
From dictionary.com
Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
idea, or thing.
That is the definition you implicitely use in the above paragraph. It is
not the topic of discussion. And, incidentaly, even under that definition I
have little faith in mankind.
Here is the definition we are (or were and should be) discussing:
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
> At any rate, suppose you lived in a totally oppressive society where
> most people were willfully ignorant, cruel, and barbarous.
Not much of a stretch....go on...
> Would you
> still believe in humanity? Would you still believe in the power of
> reason? Power of goodness?
It's irrelevant what I might believe under those circumstances. And I have
never believed in the "power of goodness"...dont even know what that is
supposed to mean.
Care to address the topic at hand?
voidtech
"For it is by self-forgetting that one finds." -St. Francis
steve
On 12-Dec-2003, "Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote:
> > I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
> > certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
> agree?).
> Actually, I believe there is justice in the world. Certainly not in
> governments (at least not justice that you can depend on, although it
> happens), not economically, and not in things like who gets cancer. But I
> have noticed that good people--people who do charity work and are active
> in
> their communities--are generally happier and better adjusted emotionally
> than people who put themselves first.
You set the justice bar pretty low. And...I might add...economics, cancer,
happiness, charity...all of these are affected by the level of justice in
the world, but they are not direct measures or indicators.
> > That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too.
> > There
> is
> > certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
> > than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world, so any belief in a
> next
> > world or in next-world-justice is really just faith. And faith is not a
> > path to truth, but merely a state of mind. So where does that leave
> > you?
> Might faith be a path to truth? I'd say we have no empirical way of
> knowing
> one way or the other.
Hmmm...I'd say if you have faith that your car will run without gas and it
conks out, well, then you have your answer.
Lisa Morgendunst
> On 14-Dec-2003, lisamor...@yahoo.com (Lisa Morgendunst) wrote:
>
> > > It seems that faith is required (the untestable and unsupportable theory
> > > of
> > > the collective unconscious) to conclude that faith has value in
> > > understanding reality. Circular and, I think, mythological.
> >
> > No, at the core of faith is fascination, a sense of wonderment.
> > Hebrews and the Ancient Greeks used different methodology but both
> > peoples thought the cosmos was worth pondering beyond utilitarian or
> > practical needs.
>
> Wow. Its been 20 years since I've had a discussion like this. I've always
> found your line of reasoning to be maddening. Read on.
>
> > What is the rational need to know about other stars and galaxies?
> > Couldn't a rational person say why not feed the hungry on this planet?
>
> OK, what you are doing here, generally, is presuming to categorize
> "rational" and "irrational" value judgements. But reason does not dictate
> value, it is only a process to examine ideas and observations. Value
> judgements may be the result of reason, but only *after* a basis for
> establishing value is adopted or accepted and reason is applied to that
> basis. You presuppose that reason might tells us, in the abstract, what to
> value. Regardless if a value system is emotionally driven, arbitrary, or
> even just plain silly, unless it is self contradictory it does not fail a
> test of reason. Further, even if you cite millions of examples of man
> acting in an irrational fashion (and I'm certain you could), that would say
> nothing about reason itself.
You miss the point. I agree with your definition of reason. My point
is at the core of our being is faith, not reason. We don't simply live
rationally, we choose to utilize our power of reason specifically to
espouse certain values and accomplish certain goals. And, I speak not
about conventional moral values. I speak about that 'spirit' in us
that seeks something beyond human values, practical knowledge. I say
this need to understand the mystery--whether thru science, religion,
etc--is a matter of faith. Reason can be used in a gazillion ways.
Yet, we choose certain priorities; some are practical, some are
impractical, yet why would we need to know impractical things when we
must surely know that reason has its limitations against the infinite
mystery of the universe? Because we believe this search is worth the
quest, because we have faith in the value of knowledge no matter what
practical benefits it might reap. So while I've been an atheist for
every second of my life, I believe at the core of our being is faith,
not reason. I believe scientists are not merely whores selling their
skills to governments and corporations but people who want to get a
little closer to the grand mystery which they will always remain a
grand mystery. Some stop halfways, got tired of this search, and
settle for simple definition of God. But, the very impulse to seek, to
search, to go beyond what's of practical value, this quality that
distinguishes us from fish and reptiles is something called faith.
>
> > This obsession to know and seek further is
> > hardly rational though reason is the tool.
>
> Reason is a tool...exactly.
>
> > The impulse is our faith in
> > the glory of the universe.
> > It's like what Carl Sagan said. Scientists
> > are not simply nerdy guys fooling around with test tubes. Scientists
> > use reason but their passion to know is passion shared by scientist
> > and spiritualist alike. I prefer scientists and I have little use for
> > spiritual dogma(which is an oxymoron as it's an attempt give form to
> > formlessness).
>
> All this is irrelevant. Why people think and act as they do has nothing to
> do with the question of faith as a path to truth. Even if all men acted as
> if it were so (and many do), that would not make it so. Why or how men may
> have passion for knowlege tells us nothing about faith as a tool to satisfy
> that passion.
I'm not arguing faith should be a tool. I'm saying the energizing
force within us is faith, not reason. If we create a superduper
computer with reasonsing power far beyond human capacity, it will
still not seek to calculate or reason tasks other than what it's
given. Yet, there's something more to us, something more than
intelligence. At the core of our being is a sense of wonderment, the
ability to appreciate beauty, contemplate the very concept of mystery,
to ponder the grand scale of the universe. This ability to say WOW!!!
is the stuff of faith. It's what drives us toward religion, toward
science, toward whatever whether reason or imagination, that makes our
life more meaningful than as intelligent ants or organic machines
milling about, that makes us keep searching for something beyond what
we already know.
>
> > Absolutely not. It's true that artificial categories may be applied to
> > mankind or anything. For example, there is no Trekkie in nature.
> > However, that certain sets share genuine 'collective' characteristics
> > is not fiction.
>
> You miss the point. Take for example, the category or group: man. The
> group must be defined. No two humans are identical, so you must
> subjectively choose not only the group characteristics but the tolerance for
> variation. While you might say all men form a common group, I might say
> that only identical men may form a group (hence each group is just a single
> man). The common characteristics themselves are not self evident, they are
> a product of your process of discrimination.
> Further, even if two humans are indentical in terms that we can observe and
> understand, they are still seperate units. To call those seperate units a
> collection based on that determination is still a subjective judgment; the
> judgment that indistiguishability is the basis for a collection or group.
> Regardless of how you define it, it is subjective because you must define
> it.
It's not subjective at all because these categories are not arbitrary
but derive from observation of objective reality. If we take a pitcher
of water and pour it into 10 different cups, we can still say every
cup holds water, that it's a collective of ten cups of water.
Similarly, humans all flowed out of the same African ancestor. What we
are is determined by the objective fact of our genetic make-up, not
subjective category of arbitrary distinctions. It's possible that
someone could put himself and a bear and a worm in the same category,
and yes, subjectively they would a constitute a collective. But,
certain collective categories are not arbitrary but based on fact.
And, being part of a collective doesn't mean being identical with
every other unit within the collective. Every man is different from
other men but every man shares the basic characteristics with all
other men.
Granted, collective categories can be arbitrary or flawed, like
Aristotle's classification of all animal life as air creatures, land
creatures, and water creatures. It's irrational to argue therefore
that all categories are subjectively arbitrary.
>
> For continuity, I'm going to incorporate your other posts into this thread.
> Here goes:
>
> > But, you believe that life is enjoyable, that emotional fulfillment
> > matters. If you are as rational as you think you are, perhaps you
> > should ask yourself the meaning of joy. Is there a logical or rational
> > basis for joy or that life should be joyful?
>
> I feel no need to ask (though one could cetainly do that and use reason as a
> tool to explore the issue). I simply accept my quest for pleasure and
> avoidance of pain (pleasure and pain being defined in the broadest of terms)
> as worthwhile goals because the characteristics of my physical body
> (including my brain...broad terms, you see) seem to dictate that it is so.
> That is no more of less logical than a rock rolling down a hillside.
Yet, obviously you don't simply believe in the primacy of pleasure, in
hedonism. Obviously, you're well-educated. If you only cared about
pleasure since you were a kid, you probably would have preferred to
stay home and watch tv all day than go to school and sit thru boring
classes and then get on the schoolbus and do your homework, etc.
There must have been something in you that valued something other than
pleasure, sense of decency, thirst for knowledge, values of sacrifice.
There are probably things you don't enjoy yet do anyway. I'll bet you
sometimes like being challenged. Let's say you are a weenie, a poor
athletic specimen. But, despite the fact that you know you're gonna
get your ass whupped, you still run into the field and dribble that
basketball or throw that football because there's something in you
that says life should be more than sitting on one's ass and feeling
pleasurable. I'll bet you're reading my posts and thinking, 'man, how
stupid can this broad possibly be! Her dumbass shit is driving me
crazy'. Yet, you have faith in humanity because you feel it's
important to set me straight even though it won't do you nor me nor
the world any good. You can just ignore my ridiculous posts and save
yourself the headache and to sit in a corner with a babe sitting on
your lap while drinking champagne cocktails but you still drag your
butt to the computer to set me straight because you believe that it's
important to spread truth as you see it. This impulse isn't rational
but the stuff of faith.
>
> >Yet, you faithfully cling to the primacy of your emotions,
> > your pleasure.
>
> It isnt faith, it's experience. The thinking entity that is me (and that is
> all I can know with certainty) seems to not only observe it's own pleasure
> and pain, but to value one over the other and to effect some control over
> the two. I use reason to shape that control as it pleases me.
But if you really really thought long and hard, you'd realize that
your position or philosophy of life is no more reasonable than any
other. One can argue in a million ways what's the good or bad life.
Yet, most of us instinctively feel what life should be about whether
we are philsophers or the bagboy at a grocery store. You think you are
in control of yourself but you are simply the product of a process
that took billions of years. What do you really know? What do I really
know? What can we really learn from reason alone in our brief time on
this planet? If anything links us to something other than this short,
little life, it's our capacity for wonderment. What most of us think
of as pleasure and pain are puny Pavlovian stuff. The real, awesome
pleasure comes when we transcend the narrow limitations of what we
are. At Grateful Dead concerts, when those hippies felt one with
cosmic flow of the universe thru music and dance, that's pleasure, and
faith has something to do with it.
>
> > What is joy? Just sensations created by secretions and
> > interactions of bodily chemicals. Should one rely on such feelings,
> > that such self-induced bodily opiates are the basis for wanting to
> > live? And, why should a sad or depressed life be any less valuable?
>
> Should we rely on such feelings? You may or may not. Make your own
> decision. Ask the sad or depressed life how much it values itself. Reason
> and value are not related concepts.
But, being human we cannot separate the two. We are not some purely
logical entities made of pure energy in those stupid Star Trek
episodes. I'm not saying reason is based on faith. I'm saying we
humans, though we use and live by reason, are enervated by something
deeper, something like quasi-faith. This quasi-faith goes beyond human
values and reason. It's the lifeforce as well as the sublime ability
to wonder, to apprciate beauty, to have a sense of the sacred. Maybe
this feeling is purely some bio-chemical trick, maybe it has nothing
to do with any truth. But, it is THE energizing force at the core of
human life. Without it, reason would have no purpose. It's like that
Godard film Alphaville or Lucas's THX 1138. We cannot live on reason
or pleasure alone. We need a sense of beauty, of wonderment beyond
human values, beyond logical restrictions. It's like Lemmy Caution and
Anna Karina driving out of Alphaville embracing the concept of love.
It's like THX escaping the subterrean world of science and technology
to recover that sense of cosmic wonderment. Suppose you had been a
human guinea pig and they raised you in a lab setting and allowed you
to utilize your reason in your limited enclosed setting and also
provided you with alot of pleasure. I'll bet there will still be
something within you, an impulse you don't really understand, but
which keeps you asking is there something more to life than this?
The way I see it, there are two kinds of faiths. The obedient dogmatic
faith which has Adam not eat the apple. But, there's another kind of
faith, the sense of wonderment that keeps pushing man beyond all
limitations of received wisdom, logic and reason, his lot in life.
This irrational impulse is what makes us human.
>
> > Maybe what it means is we're all on self-induced narcotics.
>
> Maybe. Whatever.
>
> > > > If we only stick to reason, what's the point? We know we die,
> > > > civilizations won't last, stars burn and die, etc. Everything is vain.
> > >
> > > Why is it in vain? If my life was all toil and tedium I might agree,
> > > but I
> > > find that life is a blast.
> >
> > It is vain in the great scheme of things, but of course, most of us
> > think in terms of days and weeks, not eons. But, if we were to really
> > question what the meaning of life is with reason alone, the conclusion
> > would be everything we strive for is pointless;
>
> This is the kind of "logic" that makes me angry. Once again, reason is not
> a value system. If I value my life over all of humanity (and perhaps I do)
> you cannot (rationally) say that such a conclusion is illogical. Value is
> purely subjective and not subject to logical question.
When dealing with life, there can never be pure reason or pure logic.
Valuing your life over all humanity would be illogical if your
philsophy of life(and we all have a philosophy of life)posits the
value of human life. Besies, logic and reason are, in and of
themselves, nothing. They only have value as tools in helping us
understand reality. We use reason and logic in philsophical, moral,
and poltical discourse. Reason and logic are even used in relgious
discussions though hardline religions do not apply reason and logic on
the premises of those religions.
The fact is we don't simply live with physics or chemistry formulas
floating around our minds. We use reason and logic on all facets of
life, but the reason why we find life worthwhile despite the fact that
it can be reasoned or logically argued otherwise is a matter of faith.
Also, reason isn't only a tool or method, it too is a value. We apply
reason in all areas of life because of its usefulness, its
reliability. And, the reason why reason is so valued is because after
1000s of yrs of human history mankind has valued reason over other
values because it's been proven that reason is more valuable to
mankind than other values; so what this shows is the respect for
reason itself derives from our sense of human value. But, our sense of
human value derives from something akin to faith, not reason.
>
> And, BTW, I do think everything is pointless in the grand scheme because I
> dont believe there is a grand scheme. But I still experience pleasure and
> pain. Mostly pleasure.
Yet, there is no logical basis for your belief in pleasure. There's a
biological basis for pleasure but if we applied logic to ourselves,
why should we trust or put value on our biochemically induced
sensations? If you're truly logical and rational, you should be
extremely suspicious of pleasure. If you fall in love, you should say
I don't really love and it's not really pleasure but simply how I've
been genetically programmed to go pant pant at the opposite sex which
releases body chemicals in my body which make me all hungry and
desperate for sex and want to feel all this pleasure. Why surrender to
this irrational impulse? Why not reason like Buddha and understand
that all this pleasure and such are all illusions or tricks of the
biochemical network?
If you live according to experience as you claim, the last thing you
should trust is your biochemical impulses. That's pure animalism. And,
reason is merely an impersonal tool that can be applied in a gazillion
ways. The enervating impulse in human, that makes us different, isn't
mere biochemistry or mere reason but a strange combination of the two
that creates something akin to faith.
>
> > And we may also ask why should the suffering world go on just because
> > life is a blast for me. Let's say neither you nor I know hunger, nor
> > oppression, etc. But, what about the billions living in poverty?
> [snip]
>
> Here is my considered response: blah blah blah. Try addressing the
> logical issues.
Such issues are logical within the moral framework of man, logical
argument being, IF we believe in justice for all humanity, THEN our
primary goal should be alleviate worldly suffering. We could probably
use all our power of science for improvment of mankind but we also
spend a great deal of money on research just to know. This need to
know isn't just a matter of reason but of great passion.
>
> > > Because I enjoy it. What more reason do I need?
> >
> > You have faith in simple pleasures, a faith strong enough to shield
> > from the truth of pointlessness of life
>
> Oh brother. I'm quite comfortable with the pointlessness of life, thank
> you. If I wasnt, *then* I would be falling back on faith.
Your mind accepts that world is pointless but your heart doesn't. If
your heart did, you'd commit suicide. There's still something coarsing
underneath you that believes in the great wonder of the universe even
though it remains a mystery. You can put on the cool cat mannerisms
but we know you are a seeker like the rest of us. You want us to
believe that you're hip and aloof, and so trendy and so chic, etc yet
deep inside you have faith in mankind and the world.
>
> > Like an animal that goes on living to eat,
> > drink, and play, you believe in your programmed ability to enjoy and
> > take sustenance in small things. It's not rational or philosophical
> > but you have faith in how you've been programmed.
>
> You are simply using the word faith in another context and with another
> meaning. That's a classic error in logic. I accept how I have been
> programmed, and in that sense one might say I have faith. But that says
> nothing about faith as a path to truth so it does not address the topic of
> the discussion.
Faith is the springboard of truth, not the WAY of truth. Faith is the
rocketfuel that sends a spacecraft into orbit. Once in orbit, it can
rely on itself. We are not laidback computeroids. We have passion that
burns within us, even within the heart of trendy, chic, aloof, cool
cat hedonist posturing dudes like yourself.
>
> This is why I lose patience with people in discussions like this. You seem
> to prefer obfuscation and confusion to definition and clarity.
The core of being cannot be understood thru clear definitions. There
are qualities about life that cannot be dissected. Take love for
instance. We can analyze it according to biochemical analysis but the
meaning remains elusive.
Remember AI, when William Hurt asks the sexaroid woman to describe
love? Well, that's one definition but the real thing is beyond clear,
rational understanding. Same goes for why we live, what enervates from
in our conscious and dreamstate.
Besides, as recent advances in physics have taught us, the hindus and
Taoists were right all along. What we call logic and reason in our
three dimensional universe is gooberstumpel in other dimensions. I say
it's faith that gives us an intuition of world outside our own; I say
it's faith that pushed man, thru religion, thru science, to where we
are right now in physics. Thanks to faith, we know at the basic root
of all reality are rubberbands.
>
> > You're also showing faith in humanity because how much of science do
> > you really know firsthand? How many fields are you an expert in?
> > Yet, you believe scientific claims because of your faith in those
> > institutions. You swallow what they feed you because you have faith in
> > humanity's sincerity even though science has often been twisted by
> > agendas of governing regimes or ideologies whether Nazism, Stalinism,
> > liberalism, conservatism, Afro-centrism, feminism.
>
> From dictionary.com
>
> Faith:
> 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
> idea, or thing.
> That is the definition you implicitely use in the above paragraph. It is
> not the topic of discussion. And, incidentaly, even under that definition I
> have little faith in mankind.
> Here is the definition we are (or were and should be) discussing:
> 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith is accepting limitations, that though we are creatures capable
of reason, at the core of our beliefs and actions is faith in mankind,
faith in the value of the human endeavor, faith in knowledge, faith in
the stoic determination to go on in one small corner of a vast,
absurd universe. Faith is also challenging limitations. Faith doesn't
prove or disprove reality but it gives us the strength to live and to
seek. Faith gives us the power to visualize the holy grail; no, not
the literal holy grail but a sense of something deep and mysterious
that we must seek in life despite knowing the grand truth is forever
out of reach. This holy grail can be art, science, love, the best
pizza you ever baked, but this need to reach out further is the power
of faith.
>
Howard Duck
> Hmmm...I'd say if you have faith that your car will run without gas and it
> conks out, well, then you have your answer.
Faith doesn't work that way or on that level. Faith is not magic.
Faith has to do with more general and far-reaching aspects of life.
It's more like: if I run out of gas in some critical situation at some
point, then will I, 1) have the resources to get more, 2) be able to
rely on something or someone else to get where I'm going, 3) have some
other option which I cannot now foresee?
In any case, if your faith is in the Bible, then you say: All thing
work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called
according to His purpose -- Don't worry about anything; but in all
things let your prayer request be known to God, and the peace of God
will keep your heart and mind through Jesus Christ. But it doesn't
say: Hey, God's gonna drop a load of gas on you when you run out.
--
Howard
Howard Duck
you sound as though you think mathematics holds all the keys to
understanding life. Your definitions and your evaluations all tend to
be rationalistic in the way that is taught in academic math. I recall
a math class in fundamental topology in which the axiom of choice was
raised, which implies that an uncountable set may be well-ordered. I
said that if we transfer the language into symbolic logic, it implies
that every statement may be classified as true or false. But then I
asked about oxymorons and all self-contradictory statements. The
teacher's reply was that we do not admit such statements as being
"statements." Ha! Thus, we only win our rationalistic arguments by
defining certain limited parameters and boundaries upon what we will
accept as truth.
--
Howard
steve
Far from disrespect, I consider your characterization something of a
compliment. But I dont consider math (logic) to necessarily hold all the
keys to understanding life, I just believe that it is the only possibility.
If some keys are simply missing, we may never unlock the secrets. It is
obvious to me that much of life is beyond our concievable powers of
observation and subject only to inference and deduction. If we are right,
we may never know it with scientific certainty.
And we agree. The claim that all statements are either true of false is
obviously false. (I assume your talking about something like "This statement
is false.") If one finds a contradiction then its time to rethink the
issue. Defining the problem away is a cheap trick. You wont catch me doing
that.
But I suspect that your mapping between that contention (strictly true or
false) and the topology axiom is flawed and that the math holds. I dont
know anything about that area of math, but a tiny error in the mapping could
have dire implications.
steve
On 16-Dec-2003, lisamor...@yahoo.com (Lisa Morgendunst) wrote:
> You miss the point. I agree with your definition of reason. My point
> is at the core of our being is faith, not reason. We don't simply live
> rationally, we choose to utilize our power of reason specifically to
> espouse certain values and accomplish certain goals.
You continue to insist that reason implies values. I agree we use reason as
you describe. Yet we can do just that *and* live rationally. If I like to
have sex with hot chicks (and lets just imagine that I do), even if I dont
(logically) examine that desire (whatever that might mean) but simply weigh
that goal against all factors that influence my life, and indulge when the
opportunity arises and I perceive it to be in my overall best interest, I
live rationally. You seem to insist that I must logically support that
desire in some manner; determine through reason that sex with hot chicks is
a worthy goal. That exercise is not a requirement to live rationally.
If, on the other hand, I simply rape at will with no concern for the
consequences that I am likely to suffer, I live irrationally.
> And, I speak not
> about conventional moral values. I speak about that 'spirit' in us
> that seeks something beyond human values, practical knowledge. I say
> this need to understand the mystery--whether thru science, religion,
> etc--is a matter of faith.
Well...you could call it that...but we arent discussing the same issue. I
agree that men (and obviously from this discussion we are both included)
seek knowlege and adventure beyond the material gains that might justify
these quests if life was measured in terms of animal conforts or in simple
material gain and loss. But the error here is yours in defining pleasure in
such narrow terms. I am enjoying this discussion though it taxes my energy,
potentially costs me money, and reduces my persuit of creature comforts.
For thinking animals, pleasure is a often a complex process. If I enjoy
climbing everest (and lets just imagine that I sure as hell wouldnt), that
toil and suffering comes under the broad definition of pleasure.
So it seems we agree.
> Because we believe this search is worth the
> quest, because we have faith in the value of knowledge no matter what
> practical benefits it might reap.
We do not have faith in the value of knowlege, but rather *we value*
knowlege. Value is purely subjective. And if we value something, it is
rational to persue that something. It is quite reasonable and interesting
to ask just why we value knowlege beyond it's immediate practical
application. But I dont think tossing around the word "faith" tells us
anything about the answer. I suggest that the answer lies in our biology,
and our fascination with questions and answers is part of the biological
advantage that caused us to advance beyond all other animals.
> I'm not arguing faith should be a tool. I'm saying the energizing
> force within us is faith, not reason. If we create a superduper
> computer with reasonsing power far beyond human capacity, it will
> still not seek to calculate or reason tasks other than what it's
> given.
I've been saying essentially the same thing all along.
> Yet, there's something more to us, something more than
> intelligence. At the core of our being is a sense of wonderment, the
> ability to appreciate beauty, contemplate the very concept of mystery,
> to ponder the grand scale of the universe. This ability to say WOW!!!
> is the stuff of faith. It's what drives us toward religion, toward
> science, toward whatever whether reason or imagination, that makes our
> life more meaningful than as intelligent ants or organic machines
> milling about, that makes us keep searching for something beyond what
> we already know.
OK. We agree in concept, but why call that intangible drive "faith"? Dont
you risk confusing an examination of mans nature with the language of
sprituality? And you do this in the context of a discussion that initially
pitted reason against religious faith, making tha confusion all the more
likely. And, I must add, you continue to use the word faith under several
definitions. "We have faith in the value of knowlege"..."The ability to say
'Wow!' is the stuff of faith." You're a moving target.
> It's not subjective at all because these categories are not arbitrary
> but derive from observation of objective reality
The derivation is the subjective part.
> If we take a pitcher
> of water and pour it into 10 different cups, we can still say every
> cup holds water, that it's a collective of ten cups of water.
Yes, we can say that. It is our subjective choice to consider the seperate
cups a group. But they are not identical. Do they contain the same water?
Same number of molecules? Same convection currents? Do they occupy the
same physical space? You choose to ignore these differences and group them
by their like characteristics. You make the group by your definition.
> Similarly, humans all flowed out of the same African ancestor. What we
> are is determined by the objective fact of our genetic make-up, not
> subjective category of arbitrary distinctions.
You define "humans". You then define humans as a group. You group them by
your definition.
> It's possible that
> someone could put himself and a bear and a worm in the same category,
> and yes, subjectively they would a constitute a collective. But,
> certain collective categories are not arbitrary but based on fact.
I can define that collective based on fact. Put them all in the same room,
and I will define the collective as living creatures at least as large as a
worm occupying that room. Fact. Group. Subjective definition.
> > I feel no need to ask (though one could cetainly do that and use reason
> > as a
> > tool to explore the issue). I simply accept my quest for pleasure and
> > avoidance of pain (pleasure and pain being defined in the broadest of
> > terms)
> > as worthwhile goals because the characteristics of my physical body
> > (including my brain...broad terms, you see) seem to dictate that it is
> > so.
> > That is no more of less logical than a rock rolling down a hillside.
>
> Yet, obviously you don't simply believe in the primacy of pleasure, in
> hedonism.
I do not define pleasre in such narrow terms.
> I'll bet you
> sometimes like being challenged. Let's say you are a weenie, a poor
> athletic specimen.
Come here and say that! ;^))
Yes, I love a challenge. The conquest gives me pleasure.
> I'll bet you're reading my posts and thinking, 'man, how
> stupid can this broad possibly be! Her dumbass shit is driving me
> crazy'.
No, I'm thinking...Gaza in drag.
> This impulse isn't rational
> but the stuff of faith.
Theres that word again...
> But if you really really thought long and hard, you'd realize that
> your position or philosophy of life is no more reasonable than any
> other
Actually I disagree. My philosophy is devoid (so far as I have determined)
of contradiction. I dont see that level of quality in all philosophies.
> You think you are
> in control of yourself but you are simply the product of a process
> that took billions of years. What do you really know? What do I really
> know? What can we really learn from reason alone in our brief time on
> this planet?
If we can learn anything, it is from the application of reason. But I
agree, we know almost nothing with certainty.
> > Reason
> > and value are not related concepts.
>
> But, being human we cannot separate the two. We are not some purely
> logical entities made of pure energy in those stupid Star Trek
> episodes.
That's not a necessary condition to seperate value and reason.
Sorry, dude, but my reason tells me if I dont get some work done I'll lose
my ability to have sex with hot chicks. I think we've covered it, but if
you have more to say, I'll get to it soon enough.
later,
Howard Duck
> But I suspect that your mapping between that contention (strictly true or
> false) and the topology axiom is flawed and that the math holds. I dont
> know anything about that area of math, but a tiny error in the mapping could
> have dire implications.
Not at all; everyone agreed that the translation from the axiom of
choice into the pure logic statement is correct. The thing is that
pure math is not concerned with practical realities - it is a science
of logical puzzles (of sorts). The so-called axiom of choice is
accepted simply because it cannot be proven to conflict with the other
accepted axioms. Godel apparently showed that it can not be proven
one way or the other. The thing about it is, that it means, in
effect, that all the numbers between 0 and 1 may be ordered in such a
way that if you choose one such number (say pi minus 3), then you may
know exactly what number must follow. That is clearly an absurd
proposition, nevertheless, it is accepted as an unprovable fact of
topological logic.
--
Howard
Snaker
> I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
> certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you agree?).
One cannot imagine an unjust world unless one has a concept of what a
just one is. This concept of justice is evidence of its existence.
> That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too. There is
> certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
> than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world, so any belief in a next
> world or in next-world-justice is really just faith.
Your concept of a next world is evidence of its existence. Your
desire for things not of this world is your soul's remembering the
elements that satisfied it.
> And faith is not a
> path to truth, but merely a state of mind. So where does that leave you?
>
Faith is the only truth. Divine revelation erases faith. Without
faith, everything you know or do is false.
Snaker
>
> Saying there is no God is much a statement of faith as saying that there
> is a God. The only truth is that we have no idea.
Where did you get that concept of God? A race of beings without eyes
or any ability to see would never come up with the concept of "dark".
Snaker
Define happy and well-adjusted. Not putting ourselves first is always
a struggle or accidental.
Snaker
> Hmmm...I'd say if you have faith that your car will run without gas and it
> conks out, well, then you have your answer.
>
Faith is not a temptation of fate.
Snaker
>
> slavery.
>
The Earth was never flat, just smaller. Slavery was a preferable place
to be when the apocalypse was perceived to be imminent.
> With regard to an afterlife and future rewards and punishments?
> Largely a perception that most of the things we do in this life
> hardly merit the attention of a higher power, let alone a rational
> basis for future rewards and punishments.
There are no future rewards and punishments. There are only current,
self-inflicted rewards and punishments to prepare us for the future.
Judgement is not a force from without but an act of our own freewill
from within.
>
> > We are not really smarter or wiser than before.
>
> What is your objective basis for saying so?
>
Subjectively, that good wisdom and ideas of the past have been
discarded. Objectively, something objective outside himself,
something larger than himself, tells him that this is true.
>
> > Has technology alone changed us this much? Gadgetry? Scientific
> > theory? There is nothing certain there.
>
> At this point, you lose me entirely. Not sure what you're trying
> to say here.
>
Progress can only be measured technologically. Progress cannot be
measured culturally or spiritually.
Snaker
> Morality has no power without the depths of the unconscious. The
> conscious mind can only think of one thing at a time. Yet, stored,
> hidden, or lost in our brains are unbelievable amounts of knowledge
> and memory. There's no way the conscious mind can rationally weigh all
> these at once so we rely on our feelings. That's why it's important to
> cultivate the feelings as well as intellect because it's with the
> unconsious that all the knowledge that we have attained over the years
and beyond our years
> gives us the FEELING of right and wrong.
This feeling of right and wrong comes from outside us. Otherwise we
would never be able to measure it.
> Moral sense grows organically, much of its subconsciously, slowly
> overtime.
It is subconscious, but it was not created through socialization.
steve
On 16-Dec-2003, sna...@angelfire.com (Snaker) wrote:
> > I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
> > certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
> > agree?).
>
> One cannot imagine an unjust world unless one has a concept of what a
> just one is. This concept of justice is evidence of its existence.
Nonsense. The world is not without elements of justice, but it is anything
but universal and complete. And the concept MUST precede the practice, or
there could be no practical justice.
> > That leaves only the next world, if any. That's a big "if", too. There
> > is
> > certainly no evidence (or none that I would call convincing or even more
> > than vaguely suggestive) that there is a next world, so any belief in a
> > next
> > world or in next-world-justice is really just faith.
>
> Your concept of a next world is evidence of its existence. Your
> desire for things not of this world is your soul's remembering the
> elements that satisfied it.
Huh?
> > And faith is not a
> > path to truth, but merely a state of mind. So where does that leave
> > you?
> >
>
> Faith is the only truth. Divine revelation erases faith. Without
> faith, everything you know or do is false.
I suspect you're just taking me for a ride, here.
steve
On 16-Dec-2003, Howard Duck <hbd...@geusnet.com> wrote:
> Not at all; everyone agreed that the translation from the axiom of
> choice into the pure logic statement is correct.
I'll take your word for it. It's not important to my argument either way.
> The thing is that
> pure math is not concerned with practical realities - it is a science
> of logical puzzles (of sorts).
...with myriad practical applications.
Lisa Morgendunst
> On 16-Dec-2003, lisamor...@yahoo.com (Lisa Morgendunst) wrote:
>
>
> > You miss the point. I agree with your definition of reason. My point
> > is at the core of our being is faith, not reason. We don't simply live
> > rationally, we choose to utilize our power of reason specifically to
> > espouse certain values and accomplish certain goals.
>
> You continue to insist that reason implies values. I agree we use reason as
> you describe. Yet we can do just that *and* live rationally. If I like to
> have sex with hot chicks (and lets just imagine that I do), even if I dont
> (logically) examine that desire (whatever that might mean) but simply weigh
> that goal against all factors that influence my life, and indulge when the
> opportunity arises and I perceive it to be in my overall best interest, I
> live rationally. You seem to insist that I must logically support that
> desire in some manner; determine through reason that sex with hot chicks is
> a worthy goal. That exercise is not a requirement to live rationally.
No, I'm not saying you have to logically support sleeping with hot
chicks. I'm saying if you examined your life purely according to
logical or rational scrutiny, everything you're inclined to do has no
meaning. While logic doesn't have to support our lifeforce, our
lifeforce doesn't have to support logic. At its basic root, the force
within man justifies itself. As life justifies itself it is based on
an intrinsic faith on itself.
>
> If, on the other hand, I simply rape at will with no concern for the
> consequences that I am likely to suffer, I live irrationally.
It depends. If one wants thrill and adventure in life, maybe serial
rape is the way to go, even at the risk, or especially for the
possible consequences. Or, perhaps if you're the leader of a barbarian
tribe given to raping conquered womenfolk, it might even be something
that wins you respect among your men.
Anyway, the basis for morality is faith, not reason. All life wants to
protect or preserve itself. Most animal kind only knows
self-preservation. Some higher forms of animals understand the concept
of close-knit group-preservation, like dolphins, chimps, wolves.
Humans have theorized this basic impulse into a moral formula: All of
life wants to live, therefore the other guy must want to live just as
much as me, so I must respect his life just as I respect mine. If
there wasn't this strong sense for self-preservation, this passionate
embrace of one's own life that goes beyond reason, then morality
wouldn't be possible. Morality is a rational outgrowth of this
impulse to live, but you need that impulse, that faith in life, to
begin with.
>
> > Because we believe this search is worth the
> > quest, because we have faith in the value of knowledge no matter what
> > practical benefits it might reap.
>
> We do not have faith in the value of knowlege, but rather *we value*
> knowlege. Value is purely subjective. And if we value something, it is
> rational to persue that something. It is quite reasonable and interesting
> to ask just why we value knowlege beyond it's immediate practical
> application. But I dont think tossing around the word "faith" tells us
> anything about the answer. I suggest that the answer lies in our biology,
> and our fascination with questions and answers is part of the biological
> advantage that caused us to advance beyond all other animals.
But, value also connotes practicality, utility, anthro-centric
worthiness. When man steps outside of his humanself and realizes that
according to the cosmos everything is no more valuable than the other,
that's when we find ourselves in tune with the cosmic truth. This is
related to faith. Take a pile of manure and compare it with a pile of
fresh fruits. You say yuck to one pile while gladly taking home the
other pile. Yet, would "God"(or some such cosmic consciousness) value
one over the other? No, he would know that caca turns to fruits and
fruits turn into poop in a never ending cycle. That this notion of
value is purely pragmatic for all lifeforms. To fish, water has value
as home. To us it has value as labation but not as home. We value
oxygen but bacteria find it deadly. When we seek the highest forms of
knowledge, we are going beyond the concept of value. We want to touch
a tip of the universe just like a hippie wants to touch an Indian.
.
>
> > If we take a pitcher
> > of water and pour it into 10 different cups, we can still say every
> > cup holds water, that it's a collective of ten cups of water.
>
> Yes, we can say that. It is our subjective choice to consider the seperate
> cups a group. But they are not identical. Do they contain the same water?
> Same number of molecules? Same convection currents? Do they occupy the
> same physical space? You choose to ignore these differences and group them
> by their like characteristics. You make the group by your definition.
They possess the same molecular structure. Also, grouping all those of
water doesn't mean they are THE same of the SAME stuff.
>
> > It's possible that
> > someone could put himself and a bear and a worm in the same category,
> > and yes, subjectively they would a constitute a collective. But,
> > certain collective categories are not arbitrary but based on fact.
>
> I can define that collective based on fact. Put them all in the same room,
> and I will define the collective as living creatures at least as large as a
> worm occupying that room. Fact. Group. Subjective definition.
It is a subjective observation based on factual reality. Yes, they are
all living creatures. And, if we keep going, we can be categorized as
stardust. However, we be wrong to categorize humans and animals as
belonging to the same group as some primitive societies have done,
arguing, for example, that bears are men. One Catholic missionary who
went to Japan wrote a book literally claiming that Japanese people
were a species of monkeys. That's purely subjective with no basis in
reality.
Mazzolata
So, based in this, hyperspace travel, time travel, mutiple parallel
universes, and all the other wonders of science fiction, must actually
exist, because we feeble humans would not otherwise have the capacity to
invent them.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to get behind the mule
in the morning and plow
madkevin
> Snaker wrote:
> > Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FDA258...@hotmail.com>...
> >
> >>Saying there is no God is much a statement of faith as saying that there
> >>is a God. The only truth is that we have no idea.
> >
> >
> > Where did you get that concept of God? A race of beings without eyes
> > or any ability to see would never come up with the concept of "dark".
>
> So, based in this, hyperspace travel, time travel, mutiple parallel
> universes, and all the other wonders of science fiction, must actually
> exist, because we feeble humans would not otherwise have the capacity to
> invent them.
Not just that, but elves and dryads and The Devil, complete with red face paint
and a little pitchfork and a fondness for brimstone. It is at this precise point
that theology melds itself seamlessly into a Heinlein novel.
Kevin "The Neighbour Of The Beast" Cogliano
Francis A. Miniter
>"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message news:<3fd7687f$0$14947
>
>
>
>>I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
>>certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you agree?).
>>
>>
>
>One cannot imagine an unjust world unless one has a concept of what a
>just one is. This concept of justice is evidence of its existence.
>
>
>
The argument is fallacious. It is in the same category as the medieval
"proof" of God's existence that went: Because you can conceive of a
perfect being, and can conceive that the perfect being could exist, that
perfect being has to exist otherwise it would not be perfect.
Francis A. Miniter
Snaker
news:3fdf7...@news3.prserv.net...
> The argument is fallacious. It is in the same category as the medieval
> "proof" of God's existence that went: Because you can conceive of a
> perfect being, and can conceive that the perfect being could exist, that
> perfect being has to exist otherwise it would not be perfect.
>
How do you know that the argument is fallacious?
Snaker
news:2vadnehNrIG...@golden.net...
All have reference points. God does not.
Snaker
>
> On 16-Dec-2003, sna...@angelfire.com (Snaker) wrote:
>
> > > I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There is
> > > certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
> > > agree?).
> >
> > One cannot imagine an unjust world unless one has a concept of what a
> > just one is. This concept of justice is evidence of its existence.
>
> Nonsense. The world is not without elements of justice, but it is anything
> but universal and complete. And the concept MUST precede the practice, or
> there could be no practical justice.
>
You: There is no justice in the world
Me: How do you know the world is unjust unless you have a concept of
justice? Therefore justice must exist.
You: Nonsense. There IS justice in the world.
Me: Fascinating
David J. Loftus
> lisamor...@yahoo.com (Lisa Morgendunst) wrote in message news:<2780a446.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Morality has no power without the depths of the unconscious. The
> > conscious mind can only think of one thing at a time. Yet, stored,
> > hidden, or lost in our brains are unbelievable amounts of knowledge
> > and memory. There's no way the conscious mind can rationally weigh all
> > these at once so we rely on our feelings. That's why it's important to
> > cultivate the feelings as well as intellect because it's with the
> > unconsious that all the knowledge that we have attained over the years
>
> and beyond our years
>
> > gives us the FEELING of right and wrong.
>
> This feeling of right and wrong comes from outside us. Otherwise we
> would never be able to measure it.
Who can measure it?
How is it measured?
> > Moral sense grows organically, much of its subconsciously, slowly
> > overtime.
>
> It is subconscious, but it was not created through socialization.
How do you know?
David Loftus
steve
On 16-Dec-2003, "Snaker" <sna...@angelfire.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm baffled as to why you would say that ("basic paradigm"). There
> > > > is
> > > > certainly no evidence that there is justice in this world (dont you
> > > > agree?).
> > >
> > > One cannot imagine an unjust world unless one has a concept of what a
> > > just one is. This concept of justice is evidence of its existence.
> >
> > Nonsense. The world is not without elements of justice, but it is
> > anything
> > but universal and complete. And the concept MUST precede the practice,
> > or
> > there could be no practical justice.
> >
>
> You: There is no justice in the world
> Me: How do you know the world is unjust unless you have a concept of
> justice? Therefore justice must exist.
> You: Nonsense. There IS justice in the world.
> Me: Fascinating
I see what you mean. Yes, in a sense I put my foot in it, though your
characterization is less than complete.
Let me clarify: There are instances of justice being meted out or upheld,
but they are few, far between, and, for most people, hopelessly unreliable.
By that measure, it is not a just world.
Lisa Morgendunst
>
> > Morality has no power without the depths of the unconscious. The
> > conscious mind can only think of one thing at a time. Yet, stored,
> > hidden, or lost in our brains are unbelievable amounts of knowledge
> > and memory. There's no way the conscious mind can rationally weigh all
> > these at once so we rely on our feelings. That's why it's important to
> > cultivate the feelings as well as intellect because it's with the
> > unconsious that all the knowledge that we have attained over the years
>
> and beyond our years
>
> > gives us the FEELING of right and wrong.
>
> This feeling of right and wrong comes from outside us. Otherwise we
> would never be able to measure it.
The FEELING of right and wrong comes from within us and becomes
established as morality thru social interaction. But, even social
interaction involves half inside, half outside. Without the inside,
there is no outside.
For example, let's consider the simplest organism. If you try to prick
a single cell organism under a microscope, it tries to run. It has a
life force that favors survival over extinction. All animal lifeforms
are like that. Even plants strive for life and survival. What are
barks for? For protection. What are leaves for? To create plant food
from sunlight. Indeed, why do flowers lean toward the sun?
So life FEELS the need to live, to survive. Among more complex
organisms, this feeling becomes conscious. They KNOW they want to live
if nothing else. Even a frog knows it wants to eat and survive and not
die. Among even more complex organisms like dogs, dolphins,
chimpanzees, etc. this knowledge has grown into sentiment. Even though
a dog cannot formulate moral rules based on its feelings, it's aware
of that this feeling is shared by other dogs within the pack.
Chimpanzees and elephants within the group or herd also share a degree
of altruism. Yet, because of their intellectual limitations, they
cannot turn this sentiment into morality. Now, humans throughout most
of history have also functioned primarily on sentiment. Of course,
even primitive societies have moral systems but it's within the tribe,
and doesn't apply to enemy tribes. Even civilizations distinguished
between themselves and barbarians. Mankind reached the highest form of
morality with Buddha and Jesus who said you don't have to belong to my
tribe to be my fellow brother.
Anyway, without this intrinsic feeling for self-preservation, which is
the basis for sentiment, there would be no morality. Without the
self-preservationary lifeforce, social interaction would mean nothing
morally. If you have no impulse to preserve yourself, what does it
matter if I walk up to you and kick you? What harm have I done? You
don't feel it's wrong so why is it wrong to me? It'd be me kicking a
pebble. Yet, it's wrong because I instinctively recognize that I
wouldn't want someone to kick me; from there I may use reason and
realize that other people probably feel the same way. So while
morality reaches its finished form within society, its root source is
the self-preservationary lifeforce, which is why the notion of
complete selflessness is a fallacy. We can be 'selfless' and care for
others because we ourselves know what it means to suffer. The power
of Christianity is this emphasis on God having to be one of us, to
feel what we feel--the humiliation, the pain, the suffering--to truly
understand man. In other words, not only man is saved but God is saved
by casting away his aloofness(the notion that he's infallible and
invulnerable)and going thru what he put Job through. Which is why God
of Christianity is the God of love whereas the God of Judaism is more
ambivalent(albeit far more complex and intellectually and
metaphysically challenging).
>
> > Moral sense grows organically, much of its subconsciously, slowly
> > overtime.
>
> It is subconscious, but it was not created through socialization.
You mean it 'was created through socialization', don't you? At least,
I thought that was your point.
Francis A. Miniter
Logicians call it the Existential Fallacy. You can read about it in any
elementary logic book. No advanced reading required. Just because
Douglas Adams could conceive of a President of the Galaxy does not mean
one exists.
Francis A. Miniter
Snaker
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
news:3fdfd...@news1.prserv.net...
> Logicians call it the Existential Fallacy. You can read about it in any
> elementary logic book. No advanced reading required. Just because
> Douglas Adams could conceive of a President of the Galaxy does not mean
> one exists.
>
A galaxy exists. A president exists. Therefore, the concept of the
president of a galaxy can exist. Early man had no such reference to invent
the concept of God. God exists independent of man's imagination.
Snaker
"David J. Loftus" <dlo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:62894d4c.03121...@posting.google.com...
>
> Who can measure it?
>
> How is it measured?
>
Exactly. We cannot measure this, which is why that "feeling" of what is
right and wrong comes from outside us.
>
> > > Moral sense grows organically, much of its subconsciously, slowly
> > > overtime.
> >
> > It is subconscious, but it was not created through socialization.
>
> How do you know?
>
Because we argue in order to persuade. If there weren't a standard outside
of society to measure the rightness or wrongness of each society, we
wouldn't argue, we would just kill each other until one society remains.
David E. Latane
Old nobodaddy aloft,
Farted & belched & coughed.
D. Latane
Snaker
self-preservationary lifeforce. We're not constantly running from danger.
Many times we run toward it, on purpose. And it turns out to be the right
thing. This action comes from something greater than society. It cannot be
society itself. It is something that measures societies, that tells us that
one is preferable to another. Otherwise, how would we know that our society
is preferable to the barbarians, or Nazi Germany's, or Iraq's. Why not live
an let live? My society's fine, why not let them have their own? Something
outside.
steve
On 17-Dec-2003, "Snaker" <sna...@angelfire.com> wrote:
> >
> > How is it measured?
> >
>
> Exactly. We cannot measure this, which is why that "feeling" of what is
> right and wrong comes from outside us.
Snaker-dude, you have a real talent for drawing conclusions that do not
follow. If it cant be measured it must come from outside? Explain how that
logic works?
David E. Latane
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Snaker wrote:
> Man is the only creature that continually acts against that
> self-preservationary lifeforce. We're not constantly running from danger.
> Many times we run toward it, on purpose.
Do the words "Jack Russell" mean anything to you?
D. Latane
steve
On 16-Dec-2003, lisamor...@yahoo.com (Lisa Morgendunst) wrote:
> No, I'm not saying you have to logically support sleeping with hot
> chicks. I'm saying if you examined your life purely according to
> logical or rational scrutiny, everything you're inclined to do has no
> meaning.
We agree. I give it meaning because I place value on it. There is no
objective value.
> While logic doesn't have to support our lifeforce, our
> lifeforce doesn't have to support logic. At its basic root, the force
> within man justifies itself. As life justifies itself it is based on
> an intrinsic faith on itself.
These words convey no meaning to me. "A life justifies itself"? What does
that mean? I dont have to "justify myself" to live. I dont need "faith" to
value myself. Self worth is a part of our biological nature just as it is
for all living creatures. That is how and why we go on.
> > If, on the other hand, I simply rape at will with no concern for the
> > consequences that I am likely to suffer, I live irrationally.
>
> It depends. If one wants thrill and adventure in life, maybe serial
> rape is the way to go, even at the risk, or especially for the
> possible consequences.
Please read more carefully. "with no concern for the consequences"
addresses that issue. If I get off on danger, clearly I take the
consequences into account and, in fact, find them attractive. So, once
again, we agree.
> Anyway, the basis for morality is faith, not reason.
You have a glimmer of a point here as that statement is probably true for
most people who actually practice morality of some sort. But the basis for
my moral framework is the belief in ownership of the self. I dont take that
on faith, but consider it the most attractive of the several logically
consistent possibilities. I adopt that principle, not as objective truth
but as the most attractive logically defensible option. I'll go into it if
you like, but the point is that my moral framework is not related to faith
under any of it's definitions.
> Humans have theorized this basic impulse into a moral formula: All of
> life wants to live, therefore the other guy must want to live just as
> much as me, so I must respect his life just as I respect mine.
This doesnt follow. You need to show that the desire to live confers a
right to life or your argument is nothing more than a gratuitous statement.
> If
> there wasn't this strong sense for self-preservation, this passionate
> embrace of one's own life that goes beyond reason
Once again, it doesnt follow. How is a passionate embrace of life beyond
reason? Isnt it the hight of reason? If you value yourself, then you must
have a desire to preserve your life (and, to short circuit an anticipated
response, if your life is miserable you probably wont value yourself)?
Arent these two equivalent?
> > We do not have faith in the value of knowlege, but rather *we value*
> > knowlege. Value is purely subjective. And if we value something, it is
> > rational to persue that something. It is quite reasonable and
> > interesting
> > to ask just why we value knowlege beyond it's immediate practical
> > application. But I dont think tossing around the word "faith" tells us
> > anything about the answer. I suggest that the answer lies in our
> > biology,
> > and our fascination with questions and answers is part of the biological
> > advantage that caused us to advance beyond all other animals.
>
> But, value also connotes practicality, utility, anthro-centric
> worthiness
Practicality and utility...yes, if I understand you (and I may not). Anthro
centric worthiness...not at all sure what you mean.
> That this notion of
> value is purely pragmatic for all lifeforms. To fish, water has value
> as home. To us it has value as labation but not as home. We value
> oxygen but bacteria find it deadly. When we seek the highest forms of
> knowledge, we are going beyond the concept of value.
Yes, we clearly go beyond *that* concept of value, i.e. immediate practical
utility. Your insistence that "value" meets that banal definition is
essential to your argument. Consider the possibility that value is a
biologically driven attribute. It may simply be our evolutionary advantage
that we value knowlege and discovery in the abstract. That tendency may be
no different in concept (but very different in power and effect) than the
instinct to eat and to procreate. By ascribing the high minded concept of
"faith" to man you are in danger of masking mans true nature. Isnt it
better to begin by asking why man acts as he does rather than to dismiss
that action with the fuzzy (and I find it very fuzzy as you present it)
notion of faith?
> > I can define that collective based on fact. Put them all in the same
> > room,
> > and I will define the collective as living creatures at least as large
> > as a
> > worm occupying that room. Fact. Group. Subjective definition.
>
> It is a subjective observation based on factual reality. Yes, they are
> all living creatures. And, if we keep going, we can be categorized as
> stardust. However, we be wrong to categorize humans and animals as
> belonging to the same group as some primitive societies have done,
> arguing, for example, that bears are men.
If you were interested in eating some meat, categorizing bears and men as
one group might make a lot of sense. Ask a wolfpack. You cant get around
it. Grouping ios a subjective activity regardless of the "objective" nature
of your selection criteria. Even to say all identicle items (if such a thing
were truely possible) form a group is to subjectively choose identity as a
grouping characteristic. Identity (if possible) would be an objective fact.
Grouping by identity is a subjective choice.
> One Catholic missionary who
> went to Japan wrote a book literally claiming that Japanese people
> were a species of monkeys. That's purely subjective with no basis in
> reality.
Given the scientific definition of "monkey" I'm sure he made a mistake.
Absent that definition, I'm sure he could concoct a group that included
monkeys and Japanese people (or any people we could name) with some logical
justification. The group is in the definition. That some definitions seem
self evident and others seem hopelessly contrived does not make them
logically distinct. If the members of the group fit the definition, they
are that group by virtue of that definition.
Francis A. Miniter
>"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
>news:3fdfd...@news1.prserv.net...
>
>
>
>>Logicians call it the Existential Fallacy. You can read about it in any
>>elementary logic book. No advanced reading required. Just because
>>Douglas Adams could conceive of a President of the Galaxy does not mean
>>one exists.
>>
>>
>>
>
>A galaxy exists. A president exists. Therefore, the concept of the
>president of a galaxy can exist.
>
But not the president of the galaxy.
>Early man had no such reference to invent
>the concept of God.
>
They couldn't see the starts and moon? They didn't mesure the turning
of the seasons in the night sky? It does your argument no good if you
make flippant statements.
> God exists independent of man's imagination.
>
>
>
So you say. But based on the quality of your arguments, it is less than
likely.
Francis A. Miniter
David J. Loftus
To me, perfection seems an easy concept to arrive at without
referring to anything external to human existence and daily
reality. "Man, I'm tired of having to replace my tools/fix
my leaky roof/explain repeated misunderstandings with my
spouse; imagine if I never had to do those things, and they
always worked as I desired. Bingo, perfection!"
In some cases, the concept of perfection appears to me to
rest on imperfect -- or better say, incomplete -- perception.
The straight edges of a quartz crystal would seem to present
to the human eye an example of order and perfection, but if we
were to take a much closer look, we might find lots of messy
molecules or atoms sticking out and ruining the line. Yes? No?
David Loftus
madkevin
"Snaker" <sna...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:bro15l$5dcu9$1...@ID-155241.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Not just that, but elves and dryads and The Devil, complete with red face
> paint
> > and a little pitchfork and a fondness for brimstone. It is at this precise
> point
> > that theology melds itself seamlessly into a Heinlein novel.
> >
>
> All have reference points. God does not.
Define "reference point".
Kevin "Will The Circle Be Unbroken?" Cogliano
Susan Cohen
"David E. Latane" <dla...@mail1.vcu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.4.33.031217...@neptune.vcu.edu...
Sounds more like monkeys, to me.
Susan
cave fish
Oh, by 'outside' you mean outside not only of the self but of society,
from divinity.
I would argue that this selflessness comes from within. Perhaps from
some divine source too but hell if I know.
But, it certainly also comes from within. We sometimes risk our lives
for the sake of others. But, this concern for others grows out of our
understanding of selfhood. It is, indeed, an expansion of self-hood,
based on a broader conception of selfhood, no longer defined as the
self, family, or community, but embracing all of mankind. But, without
this experience of the self, there is no sense of the other or all.
Even 'selfless' people's impulses dervives fundamentally from the
self. Indeed, selfless people have expanded their self-concern to
others to the extent that what's good for others have become good for
him.
Your understanding that others care for themselves comes from your
experience of caring for yourself. You may have had the intellectual
and emotional power to transcend the strictures of your ego, but your
concern for others is rooted in and flowed out of the concern for the
self.
Because we know hunger, pain, suffering through experience or
observation(for example, when you see a burn victim, your subconscious
imagines your skin burnt and painful) it's possible for us to
understand hunger, pain, suffering in others. Selflessness is an
intellectual/emotional outgrowth of self-centeredness. And, it's a
quality that exists not only in humans but in dogs and elephants who
have also been observed risking their own well-being to help others of
its own kind, except these animals don't have the intellectual ability
to philsophize these feelings into a value system that may take on a
life of its own and falsely be misinterpreted as being independent of
life experience.
Similar false dichotomy is one between body and spirit. One cannot
exist without the other. We should think of unity, the gestalt of the
matter. When we come up with clear divisions as in
science(biochemistry) or religion(good vs bad, man and god, body and
soul) we understand only half way. We must think of the summation of
our being and when we do so, we realize the notion of within and
without are inadequate to understanding the true complexity of the
matter.