Evil
Manny Olds
fill me in:
How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to going
against the will of God?
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Actually, any magic save pure chaos can be explored via the scientific
method. I have to admit that designing experiments involving Creation
mythologies may be difficult, but... "-- Tony Quirke
David Barton
> How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
> going against the will of God?
I was about to plead migraine again, but your second sentence kicks me
out entirely. I am unable to define good and evil without reference
to God. Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
is only His existence that rescues me from nihilism. So I'm afraid
you won't get anything from me. I make the refusal publicly mainly as
a mechanism for recording my opinion that the question itself is
ill-formed; evil cannot (in my opinion, of course) be defined without
recourse to God and His will.
--
Dave Barton <*>
d...@averstar.com )0(
http://www.averstar.com/~dlb
Esther Murer
>
> Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> writes:
>
> > How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
> > going against the will of God?
>
> to God. Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
> is only His existence that rescues me from nihilism. So I'm afraid
> you won't get anything from me. I make the refusal publicly mainly as
> a mechanism for recording my opinion that the question itself is
> ill-formed; evil cannot (in my opinion, of course) be defined without
> recourse to God and His will.
> --
I agree. In my view God is by definition the source of all values.
Without God not only good and evil, but concepts such as truth, love,
peace, justice, faith, trust, community, individual worth, are human
rights are meaningless.
I wish you'd amplify one sentence, Dave:
>Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
> is only His existence that rescues me from nihilism.
It would help me greatly to see a thread about postmodernism and what it
has to do with us. This is a point on which I am vastly confused.
--
Esther Greenleaf Murer
visit my websites
"Jens Bjorneboe in English"
http://home.att.net/~emurer/
"Quakers and the Arts Historical Sourcebook"
http://home.att.net/~quakart/
Manny Olds
>> How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
>> going against the will of God?
> I was about to plead migraine again, but your second sentence kicks me
> out entirely. I am unable to define good and evil without reference
> to God. Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
> is only His existence that rescues me from nihilism.
You don't see anything between Nihilism and the Will of Yahweh? Nothing
in-between or other-directed? How, then, do y'all place non-Christians (or
non-Abrahamics) relative to the idea of Evil?
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Of course as far as science is concerned, religion is neither here nor
there. Religion concerns itself largely with phenomena that are not
available to direct empirical investigation. Social sciences can study
behaviors related to religion, but that does not make social science into
a religion, nor religion into a science." -- Jim Nichols
PQ Rada
Evil exists in many guises,Lucifer being a fallen angel of light,his beauty
blinding. I have come to think of it as an "it" meaning as a being of some
kind. But more, I think it is a lapse of being close to God( or not); one may
think it harmless but it is a vernomous serpant in a basket and it can and does
bite the unwary. Separation from God is what happens and I donot want that to
ever happen.to me or mine. .
Guy Macon
>
>Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> writes:
>
>> How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
>> going against the will of God?
>
>I was about to plead migraine again, but your second sentence kicks me
>out entirely. I am unable to define good and evil without reference
>to God. Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
>you won't get anything from me. I make the refusal publicly mainly as
>a mechanism for recording my opinion that the question itself is
>ill-formed; evil cannot (in my opinion, of course) be defined without
>recourse to God and His will.
There are a bunch of secular humanists out there who seem to be able
to define Evil just fine with reference to God. I was very much able
to define Evil before I became a Christian, and I suspect that you
could as well. What I have trouble with is defining Evil without any
reference to Good.
Charley Earp
seem to have displaced or "decentered" the general assumptions of the
Enlightenment - such as rationality and progress.
David makes reference to nihilism which is the philosophical position
that there is no real meaning to human existence. Friedrich Nietzsche is
claimed as the founder of this viewpoint and is claimed by some as the
founder of post=modernism.
I don't think that the equation <post-modernism=nihilism> is an accurate
description of all "post-modern" thought. Post-modernism does seek to
challenge modern ideas deeply and radically, but not all of its
proponents wind up nihilists.
A couple of the more accessible post-modernists are Richard Rorty and J.
F. Lyotard.
I think that the 20th century does cast doubt on the certainties of the
Enlightenment, but I still have more hope in science and critical
thought than most post-modernists.
==================
Charley Earp <Char...@webtv.net>
Join the Progressive Thought & Spirituality Mailing List!
http://www.topica.com/lists/ProgTandS
esrevnI eilrahC
Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
> I am sure this has been done, somewhere,
> and I hope that an srqer can fill me in:
>
> How do you define evil? How can it be
> defined without refence to going
> against the will of God?
From God's perspective, everything is good
-- there is a time for every purpose under
heaven. Creation needs both day and night.
Evil emerges when we look at creation from
the perspective of a partial being. What is
good for the cat is evil for the mouse. What
is good for the germ or virus may be evil for
(wo)man.
However, as we grow spiritually, we find
ways to use the evil that befalls us and thus
turn it into good. For example, evil serves as
a goad, driving us from our complacency. Take
another example, apathy, which seems like an
evil because it makes it hard to organize people
against war, but which also makes it hard for
the system to organize people FOR war -- in
this case, an evil, seen from a different angle,
becomes a good.
As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
>
> --
> Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
>
> "Actually, any magic save pure chaos can be explored via the
scientific
> method. I have to admit that designing experiments involving Creation
> mythologies may be difficult, but... "-- Tony Quirke
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ECrownfiel
<old...@shell.clark.net> writes:
>David Barton <d...@hudson.wash.inmet.com> wrote:
>> Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> writes:
>
>>> How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
>>> going against the will of God?
>
>> I was about to plead migraine again, but your second sentence kicks me
>> out entirely. I am unable to define good and evil without reference
>> to God. Without reference to God, I am a hopeless post-modernist; it
>> is only His existence that rescues me from nihilism.
>
>
>You don't see anything between Nihilism and the Will of Yahweh? Nothing
>in-between or other-directed? How, then, do y'all place non-Christians (or
>non-Abrahamics) relative to the idea of Evil?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't see "believing" in God and "doing
God's will" as the same thing at all -- though a sincere attempt to follow
God's will may indeed lead one to succeed in doing it more closely. But I, for
one, believe that this is true however one conceives of God or of other notions
of the divine. Being "Abrahamic" doesn't have much to do with it. I would say
that you are seeking to follow (what I call) God's will as sincerely as I am.
The question of "who's right" is quite a different one, and I am NOT getting
into that!!! :-)
Elizabeth Crownfield
David Barton
> I wish you'd amplify one sentence, Dave:
> It would help me greatly to see a thread about postmodernism and
> what it has to do with us. This is a point on which I am vastly
> confused.
Ooops. Esther confused me by sending the post in Email as well; I
replied via Email. Unless someone really wishes to see this continued
in the public forum, I'll leave it at that. If Esther has more
questions, I give her full permission to post my reply here with her
questions.
David Barton
> You don't see anything between Nihilism and the Will of Yahweh?
> Nothing in-between or other-directed? How, then, do y'all place
> non-Christians (or non-Abrahamics) relative to the idea of Evil?
*I* see nothing between them. I place all non-Christians, and all
non-Abrahamics, in roughly the same place that I do Christians; as an
imperfect reflection of that Reality (with the provision that I think
Christians are the least imperfect among them, or I would not be a
Christian --- I would be that which I thought least imperfect). I
mean, if something is other directed, what is the Other? If
in-between, what is the In-between? What reason do I have for
preferring one person's In-between to another's?
Of course, I do not impose this silly opinion on anyone else.
David Barton
> I don't think that the equation <post-modernism=nihilism> is an
> accurate description of all "post-modern" thought. Post-modernism
> does seek to challenge modern ideas deeply and radically, but not
> all of its proponents wind up nihilists.
I would agree. There is an intuitive relationship, but I am unable to
define it crisply and cleanly. They are certainly not the same; a
person can be one, the other, both, or neither.
> A couple of the more accessible post-modernists are Richard Rorty
> and J. F. Lyotard.
> I think that the 20th century does cast doubt on the certainties of
> the Enlightenment, but I still have more hope in science and
> critical thought than most post-modernists.
Certainly post-modernism is not the only response to the mechanism of
the Enlightenment (so-called). This was, of course, pointed out by
many theologians during the Enlightenment itself.
David Barton
> There are a bunch of secular humanists out there who seem to be able
> to define Evil just fine with reference to God. I was very much
> able to define Evil before I became a Christian, and I suspect that
> you could as well. What I have trouble with is defining Evil
> without any reference to Good.
Given that I have trouble defining Good without reference to God, this
doesn't help me much.
Of course, I can always take refuge in my post-modernism: good is
whatever I say it is, and therefore evil is whatever I say it is. But
then I have no reason to urge my definition on anyone in preference to
anyone else's. Without reference to a central Reality I am lost in
such arguments, and if that Reality is not God, I don't know what to
call it. If I didn't think that Christianity was the best description
of that Reality, I wouldn't be a Christian.
Manny Olds
> The question of "who's right" is quite a different one, and I am NOT getting
> into that!!! :-)
That's okay, I'd bet we each already know. I'm sure that *I* do.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
No one ought to be completely serious *all* the time. It leads to
constipation and headaches.
Manny Olds
>>Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> writes:
>>
>>> How do you define evil? How can it be defined without refence to
>>> going against the will of God?
>>
> to define Evil just fine with reference to God. I was very much able
> to define Evil before I became a Christian, and I suspect that you
> could as well. What I have trouble with is defining Evil without any
> reference to Good.
Asatruers don't believe in Evil, in the sense of something that is bad
just because it is bad.
We consider actions in terms of their effects on Wyrd, the structure of
the universe, the web that links all beings together. This is usually
modeled as the Tree of Worlds, Yggdrasil.
Things that water the roots of the tree are good to do; things that gnaw
on the limbs are bad to do. We are each responsible for making our own
thread or branch strong and also for the tree as a whole. We have evolved
standards of conduct that we believe support this goal.
We tackle that empirically. What, in the long term, seems to make the
world better to live in? What increases order and security for our
families? What choices seem to lead to good outcomes more or less
reliably, and which seem to point you down a path of worse and worse
results? What seems to strengthen the web? (We are not interested in mere
*maintenance*--we want to make the tree bigger and stronger.)
In practice, of course, you end up with a balancing process. Sometimes you
have to choose the less bad of two bad choices, or let your own fate take
a hit to weave a better patter overall. (Sorry for all the metaphor
mangling.)
I know that many people use moral relativism similar to this as an excuse
*not* to make difficult choices or to worry about what is right. But
Asatruers on the whole take this as the hard, responsible path. We each
must make moral choices, actively and consciously, and we are expected to
take responsibility for the consequences, in all nine worlds.
Asatru conversations about ethics and morals tend to sound a lot like
Talmudic scholars working over Sun Tzu, Miss Manners, and the Brothers
Grimm.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
Sometimes you give a guy a fish, sometimes you teach him to fish,
sometimes you establish a fisherman training school, and sometimes you
have to let him find his own solution.
ECrownfiel
>
>> The question of "who's right" is quite a different one, and I am NOT
>getting
>> into that!!! :-)
>
>That's okay, I'd bet we each already know. I'm sure that *I* do.
>
That's OK, I don't expect you to admit it in front of all these people.
Elizabeth
ECrownfiel
>
>> I wish you'd amplify one sentence, Dave:
>
>> It would help me greatly to see a thread about postmodernism and
>> what it has to do with us. This is a point on which I am vastly
>> confused.
>
>Ooops. Esther confused me by sending the post in Email as well; I
>replied via Email. Unless someone really wishes to see this continued
>in the public forum, I'll leave it at that. If Esther has more
>questions, I give her full permission to post my reply here with her
>questions.
I am interested to see what people might say on this one, being "vastly
confused" myself, I suppose.
Elizabeth Crownfield
Esther Murer
>
> Ooops. Esther confused me by sending the post in Email as well; I
> replied via Email. Unless someone really wishes to see this continued
> in the public forum, I'll leave it at that. If Esther has more
> questions, I give her full permission to post my reply here with her
> questions.
By public demand (or Elizabeth's, at least), here is Dave's reply to me:
"Well, let's see what I can push through my sumatriptin-hazed brain.
Post-modernism is that combination of philosophy (or lack of it),
literature, and art that states that all things are dependent upon the
observer; that there *is* no objective reality, and in particular no
objective right or wrong, but that everything is filtered through a
subjective lens. Nihilism is that philosophy which says that there
are no real moral or social principles, and no real right or wrong at
all. To me, without God, these philosophies (or, rather, conceptual
frameworks; neither one really rises to the level of a true philosophy
in my book) make perfect sense. Why am I to prefer my right and
wrong, or *anyone's* right or wrong, to anyone else's? I see no
reason whatever. The only thing I can rest on, the only rock from
which to proceed, is God, for He is the only Reality."
I daresay I'll think of some questions and comments anon, and so may
others (I hope). (I'm really enjoying this thread!)
Esther
Charley Earp
that movement. I was desparate in college for a philosophy that didn't
buy into either the hubris of modernism nor the authoritariansm of
pre-modern thought.
This made the po-mo's very interesting. I don't find Dave's
characterization dialectical enough. If po-moism is anything it is
post-hegelian, it must be more complex than the thesis, antithesis,
synthesis model.
What po-moists seem to me to be arguing is that the viewpoint of those
in power is constructed around the will to remain in power. They take a
common observation that power corrupts and apply it modern thinkers.
But, they twist this by saying that there is no pure, apolitical search
for truth. That is, even the opponents of authoritarianism participate
in the struggle for power.
Hence, po-moism denies that even the oppressed have a privileged
viewpoint from which they criticize the oppressors. They, too, imbibe
the power struggle and reconstruct it in their own image. This is most
obvious in the work of Michel Foucault, but he himself disliked the term
post-modernism.
David Barton
> Dave's comments on po-moism lead me to reflect on my own dalliances
> with that movement. I was desparate in college for a philosophy that
> didn't buy into either the hubris of modernism nor the
> authoritariansm of pre-modern thought.
> This made the po-mo's very interesting. I don't find Dave's
> characterization dialectical enough. If po-moism is anything it is
> post-hegelian, it must be more complex than the thesis, antithesis,
> synthesis model.
> What po-moists seem to me to be arguing is that the viewpoint of
> those in power is constructed around the will to remain in
> power. They take a common observation that power corrupts and apply
> it modern thinkers. But, they twist this by saying that there is no
> pure, apolitical search for truth. That is, even the opponents of
> authoritarianism participate in the struggle for power.
> Hence, po-moism denies that even the oppressed have a privileged
> viewpoint from which they criticize the oppressors. They, too,
> imbibe the power struggle and reconstruct it in their own
> image. This is most obvious in the work of Michel Foucault, but he
> himself disliked the term post-modernism.
All of this is good stuff, but we need not travel all the way down the
road to post-modernism to deny the oppressed a privileged viewpoint
from which to criticize the oppressors. Christ did this for the Jews
against the Romans two thousand years ago. We need nothing more than
original sin for *that*.
As I understand it --- and I am more than willing to be corrected ---
the heart of post-modernism is the denial of any true, objective
Reality; instead, each of us constructs our own reality out of our own
viewpoint. True post-modernists go very far with this, stretching
modern physics to its limits to state that even physical events are
different for each individual observer.
This certainly avoids hubris and authoritarianism......
Esther Murer
but won't quote them).
I begin from the premise that the powers and principalities want us to
spend as much energy as possible shutting out God. They encourage us to
take the attitude, "Don't listen to God! Listen to ME! ME! ME!" Then
we will spend all our time fighting over who gets the floor. (The
ubiquity of corporation-controlled TV and its clones is a primary
manifestation of this.)
But if we are all fighting to be heard, then we will necessarily form
coalitions. So it has to be groups who do the fighting, and the
individual is expected to choose a "narrative of victimization" to
participate in. My gut feeling is that the beloved buzzword "diversity"
is about this, NEVER about encouraging the individual to seek God's help
in becoming the Christ-Self he or she is meant to be. For that would
undercut the primary objective, which is to shut out God.
That's where I'm coming from. So what, if anything, does it have to do
with modernism/vs postmodernism? I don't know; I attribute the "shutting
out God" thing to the powers and principalities, or the Adversary if you
will (this thread did start out as "Evil"). I don't suppose
postmodernists are any more intent on shutting out God than modernists,
they just use different means.
Still, it seems clear that there is a strong modernist/postmodernist
split among liberal Friends, whether they are aware of it or not. How
it affects us is a point on which I think some discussion would be
useful.
ESther
Charley Earp
truth to the oppressed viewpoint. Most of them I've read have "leftist"
tendencies, whether marxist, anarchist, or feminist. A good friend of
mine has written quite a bit on Derrida and Marxist thought.
Where they seem to have made some headway is in feminist thought. By
denying that women have a privileged ethical perspective they are trying
to lead the way for a post-feminist move to egalitarianism. Many
feminists argue that systemic sexism is still too entrenched for the
deconstruction of feminist politics.
Similar deconstructions have been made for the claims of people of color
and class struggle.
I haven't read po-moists who would argue that each physical event has an
unlimited number of perspectival meanings, but they would argue that
these events are not as straightforward as classic theories have argued.
In this they are borrowing a page from Heisenberg.
Cmgreenlnd
I think that Friends across the spectrum of belief have felt the effects first
of the modernist/fundamentalist debate, and the subsequent post-modernist (or
neo-orthodox) view.
David Tracy postulates a liberal modernist model for theology as "one that
accepts the distinctively modern committment to the values of free and open
inquiry, autonomous judgement, critical investigation of all claims to
scientific, historical, philosophical and religious truth". [Blessed Rage for
Order, pp. 25-26].
As I see post-modernism, it arises from the recognition that science doesn't
have all the answers, that sometimes the critical method leads one in circles,
too, and that not everything can be measured. Most of the physicists I know are
quite close to theologians, if not in language, in outlook.
Tracy also postulates the rise of neo-orthodoxy out of the liberal stream,
which is what I think I see among liberal Friends, just as Tracy sees it within
Roman Catholicism.
However, the advice of Tracy's mentor, Bernard Lonergan, seems apt:
"Be attentive, be intelligent, be rational, be responsible, be loving, develop,
and, if necessary, change." Lonergan, Method in Theology, 1972.
Seems like advice Friends should heed, too.
Christine M. Greenland
Horsham MM, PhYM; (affiliate, Stillwater MM, OYM)
"Give over thine own willing, give over thy own running, give over thine own
desiring to
know or be anything and sink down to the seed which God sows in the heart."
Penington.
Bill Jefferys
>As I see post-modernism, it arises from the recognition that science doesn't
>have all the answers, that sometimes the critical method leads one in circles,
>too, and that not everything can be measured. Most of the physicists I know are
>quite close to theologians, if not in language, in outlook.
I think that post-modernism goes a lot further than this, and furthermore
in a direction that Friends would not wish to travel. It is true that
science doesn't have all the answers, and science has never claimed
otherwise (though some scientists, putting on philosophers' hats, have
done so, but they are wrong.) Science, however, does have SOME answers,
which are, within the very limited domain that science allows itself to
operate within, often very GOOD answers.
As I understand it, post-modernism says that all truth is a social
construction, that no truth is better than any other truth. Yet, with
regard to science, the action of post-modernists belies their claim. The
airplane will fly you from here to there, regardless of whether you are a
feminist, an Afro-American, a racist, or a Nazi. And, as regards religious
truth, I think that most Friends affirm that there ARE absolute truths,
but maybe I am wrong.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Stephen DeGrace
Jefferys) wrote:
>I think that post-modernism goes a lot further than this, and furthermore
>in a direction that Friends would not wish to travel. It is true that
>science doesn't have all the answers, and science has never claimed
>otherwise (though some scientists, putting on philosophers' hats, have
>done so, but they are wrong.) Science, however, does have SOME answers,
>which are, within the very limited domain that science allows itself to
>operate within, often very GOOD answers.
When I was going through undergrad the professor of the one English
course I took (because I was forced to :-) ) took what I suppose could
be a post-modernist view. His whole schtick was the subjectiveness of
reality, and he tended to assign these dreadfully weird, dull stories
with no identifiable plot that worked with this view (I admit, BTW, to
being a dreadful philistine :-) ). He'd go on about how a bunch of
people seeing the same event will have completely different
recollections of the event, and the point he'd try to make was that
there was no knowable objective reality. If you follow his reasoning,
it basically works out to, "People are terrible observers, therefore
there is no objective reality for them to observe." What incredible
logic! I can see why this guy never went into science. Science is so
limited, it can't come up with amazing answers like that.
Stephen
Fred H. Williams
<snip>
> As I understand it, post-modernism says that all truth is a social
> construction, that no truth is better than any other truth.
> Yet, with
> regard to science, the action of post-modernists belies their claim. The
> airplane will fly you from here to there, regardless of whether you are a
> feminist, an Afro-American, a racist, or a Nazi. And, as regards religious
> truth, I think that most Friends affirm that there ARE absolute truths,
> but maybe I am wrong.
>
absolute truth I might be hard pressed to do so. But
many of you, I know have faith in absolute truths, and I
respect that, hence I suppose one religious truth may be
as good as another. For me, the knowledge that I can
exist with a certain amount of spiritual comfort on
shifting sands is a minor joy.
====
"We are building the house where the enemy lurks in the
dark.
The time has come to turn on the lights." -- Greg Cook
====
Fred Williams
remove NOSPAM to reply
harry...@citenet.net
Manny Olds
> I begin from the premise that the powers and principalities want us to
> spend as much energy as possible shutting out God. They encourage us to
> take the attitude, "Don't listen to God! Listen to ME! ME! ME!"
[...]
> That's where I'm coming from. So what, if anything, does it have to do
> with modernism/vs postmodernism? I don't know; I attribute the "shutting
> out God" thing to the powers and principalities, or the Adversary if you
> will (this thread did start out as "Evil").
This reminds me to thank you all for being so restrained and constructive
in our discussions.
This is absolutely the first time I can recall someone on this group
drawing a line connecting my beliefs to The Adversary or to Evil, and it
is done in the nicest and most indirect way possible. Considering what the
Bible has to say about polytheism, I could have expected much rougher
treatment.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The American ideal is not that we all agree with each other, or even like
each other, every minute of the day. It is rather that we will respect
each other's rights, especially the right to be different, and that, at
the end of the day, we will understand that we are one people, one
country, and one community, and that our well-being is inextricably bound
up with the well-being of each and every one of our fellow citizens."
-- Arthur J. Kropp, former Surgeon General
Esther Murer
>
Many
> feminists argue that systemic sexism is still too entrenched for the
> deconstruction of feminist politics.
>
> Similar deconstructions have been made for the claims of people of color
> and class struggle.
>
--
Esther Murer
>
> As I understand it, post-modernism says that all truth is a social
> construction, that no truth is better than any other truth. Yet, with
> regard to science, the action of post-modernists belies their claim. The
> airplane will fly you from here to there, regardless of whether you are a
> feminist, an Afro-American, a racist, or a Nazi. And, as regards religious
> truth, I think that most Friends affirm that there ARE absolute truths,
> but maybe I am wrong.
Speaking for myself, I affirm that there is such a thing as Truth -- a
fundmental goodness, meaning, and integrity in the scheme of things,
which we can choose to attune ourselves to, or not. I don't think any
of us can have more than the dimmest intuitions about its nature, which
we are limited to speaking of metaphorically. Biblical metaphors
include the OT Sophia/Wisdom and the NT Logos (which some NT writers
identify with Christ).
I find it important to believe in such a unifying force, and to consider
my actions under its umbrella, as it were. Elaine Prevallet wrote
something to the effect that "there is AN AGENDA", and that my own
agenda is only an infinitismal part of a vast moving scene.
To regard all truth as a social construction seems to me to fall into
the "post hoc, ego propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this
--sorry, my Latin is stronger than my Postmoese :-)) fallacy. I choose
rather to believe in "ante hoc, ergo huius gratia" (before this,
therefore for the sake of this) -- meaning that the particular
circumstances of our lives are given to us as preparation for our unique
tasks in the scheme of things. (A book that spoke to my condition was
James Hillman's _The Soul's Code_.)
Esther
>
> --
> Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
> Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
> I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
> Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
> Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
--
Cmgreenlnd
>Would somebody please define >"deconstruction" in words of one syllable?
If construction is building (either an edifice or a philosophical idea), I'd
presume that "deconstruction" is taking apart what one has built. I'll let the
philosophers expand on this working definition.
Charley Earp
philosophy. One common summary of deconstruction goes, "Texts undo
themselves through the conceptual hierarchies within which they
subsist." I know this is polysyllabic jargon, I'll make an effort to
break it down.
Take the classic idea that we must adhere to the spirit of the law and
not the letter. A deconstruction of this would argue that it is not
possible to accurately reconstruct the "spirit" of the law without
creating a new "letter" that must then be "spiritualized." One could say
that meaning is not straightforward, but always going through endless
iterations and that any attempt to escape the complex letter of meaning
in order to find the simple spirit is naive and an example of
intellectual self-deception.
To make it more personal, while you may think you know what you mean
when you speak, your words have an unpredictable impression on your
hearers. The deconstructionist would say that your intention is not the
most reliable source of your real meaning.
Thus, a deconstructionist would consider systematic theology, the
attempt to render the complex meaning of the biblical message coherent
and logical, is doomed, since language contains unavoidable
multiplicities of meaning.
Starbuck
expected much rougher treatment.<<<
Yeah.. well... I was just starting to lay the wood for the bonefire... and
then I realized that my matches were all wet.
<BG>
:-)
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
Don A. Smith
> I think that post-modernism goes a lot further than this, and furthermore
> in a direction that Friends would not wish to travel. It is true that
> science doesn't have all the answers, and science has never claimed
> otherwise (though some scientists, putting on philosophers' hats, have
> done so, but they are wrong.) Science, however, does have SOME answers,
> which are, within the very limited domain that science allows itself to
> operate within, often very GOOD answers.
This is going to sound trite, but I think it depends on the kinds of
questions you are asking. Ever since Kuhn (or perhaps earlier),
scientists have been questioning the link between scientific theory
as a social construct and scientific theory as an accurate description
of the "true" nature of the world. No scientist would disagree that
when you measure the speed of light, you get 2.99792458e8 m/s. That
is True. However, the struggle with a unified theory of QED and GR
should hopefully teach us that the models we use to interpret the
results of experiment represent approximations of the real world.
If and when a successful unified theory is developed, it may show that
the implications of an Einsteinian view of gravity are as misleading
outside their sphere of accuracy as the Newtonian view was outside its
regime. However, as you say, a plane will fly us from here to there,
and we can send satellites with stunning accuracy to distances millions
of miles away. You don't even need Einstein for that.
I never studied "post-modernism" per se. My college teachers generally
mentioned it with disdain (one professor dismissed deconstructionism
by pointing out that mail generally arrived where it was supposed to
go, so the postal service people must be unpacking the texts accurately),
but on the other hand, I took a course in hermeneutics where we studied
(among other things) how different historians interpreted the Bay of Pigs
fiasco as the result of individuals' choices and actions, cultural trends,
and beaurocratic institutions. Each historian was working with the same
data, but they saw very different processes going on. Likewise, we looked
at the history of science and saw how people have historically biased
their results through the way their preconceptions led them to frame the
questions they were asking. We also learned how new information is
always interpreted within the context of one's life experience to date,
thus becoming a part of the context for the next set of new experiences.
Hence, one can never imagine something *wholly* outside one's experience,
and the models one does construct about the world around us *have* to be
rooted in and shaped by what we have seen of the world so far.
If that much is post-modern, then I think it's pretty self-evidently
correct, when you think about it. However, to go further and say that
just because our brains have to work by constructing subjective models
of the outside world, that there then is no coherent, objective outside
world... that's nonsense, in the opinion of this Astrophysicist Quaker.
No matter what your culture, religion, biases, or politics, you will
measure the same speed of light and you will fall if you jump off a cliff.
We may well disagree on the *meaning* of these events, but the events
themselves are objectively true.
Whoops, I have to go. Be seeing you,
Don Smith, PhD (as of two weeks ago, yahoo!!!)
Cmgreenlnd
Hearty congratulations for successfully completing all the hard work of
research, writing and thesis defense that a Ph.D. entails.
Blessings,
Bill Jefferys
#Bill Jefferys said:
#
#> I think that post-modernism goes a lot further than this, and furthermore
#> in a direction that Friends would not wish to travel. It is true that
#> science doesn't have all the answers, and science has never claimed
#> otherwise (though some scientists, putting on philosophers' hats, have
#> done so, but they are wrong.) Science, however, does have SOME answers,
#> which are, within the very limited domain that science allows itself to
#> operate within, often very GOOD answers.
#
#This is going to sound trite, but I think it depends on the kinds of
#questions you are asking. Ever since Kuhn (or perhaps earlier),
#scientists have been questioning the link between scientific theory
#as a social construct and scientific theory as an accurate description
#of the "true" nature of the world. No scientist would disagree that
#when you measure the speed of light, you get 2.99792458e8 m/s. That
#is True. However, the struggle with a unified theory of QED and GR
#should hopefully teach us that the models we use to interpret the
#results of experiment represent approximations of the real world.
#If and when a successful unified theory is developed, it may show that
#the implications of an Einsteinian view of gravity are as misleading
#outside their sphere of accuracy as the Newtonian view was outside its
#regime. However, as you say, a plane will fly us from here to there,
#and we can send satellites with stunning accuracy to distances millions
#of miles away. You don't even need Einstein for that.
As G.E.P. Box wrote, "All models are wrong; some models are useful." But
that is of course fundamental to a good understanding of what science is
and does. The problem with POMO interpretations of science is that they go
much further than this: One can have "feminist" science, "third-world"
science as well as "white-male-WASP" science, and they can make
incompatible claims, and _all can be equally good_, since it's just
"socially constructed." In real science, on the other hand, better models
will displace less adequate models, and there will be agreement amongst
female scientist, third-world scientists, and white-male-WASP scientists
(and the rest) that the better model is the better model, so long as the
data are not inconclusive. So, General Relativity may be (I would say,
certainly will be!) displaced by something better, but if this happens
scientists will agree that (1) It is still valid in the limiting cases
where the better theory and GR agree...and such limiting cases will exist,
just as limiting cases between GR and Newtonian mechanics exist, and (2)
GR is inadequate in the other areas where the new theory does a better
job, and (3) the new theory itself may at some time be replaced by
something better still. Nothing Kuhn says contradicts this. Unfortunately,
POMO writers often misread Kuhn and other philosophers of science to push
their agenda of relativism.
You are, of course, aware of the Sokal _Social Text_ affair?
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
See also the Postmodernism Generator, which generates each time a
completely random brand-new POMO article:
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/postmodern
[BTW, one does not "measure" the speed of light any more, since it is now
a defined constant in the SI system: 299792458 m/sec. The meter is now a
derived unit.]
#If that much is post-modern, then I think it's pretty self-evidently
#correct, when you think about it. However, to go further and say that
#just because our brains have to work by constructing subjective models
#of the outside world, that there then is no coherent, objective outside
#world... that's nonsense, in the opinion of this Astrophysicist Quaker.
#No matter what your culture, religion, biases, or politics, you will
#measure the same speed of light and you will fall if you jump off a cliff.
#We may well disagree on the *meaning* of these events, but the events
#themselves are objectively true.
My point is that in the end, scientists will ultimately agree on the best
way to model the events as well (e.g., the underlying hypotheses),
independently of the scientist's religion, ethnicity, gender, political
persuasion, etc. This does take time, and when the evidence is
inconclusive as it often is, there will be division of opinion. But when
the critical experiment is done or the critical data obtained, these
divisions will disappear. When I was in graduate school, both steady-state
and big-bang cosmologies were viable cosmological candidates. The evidence
was inconclusive. When Penzias and Wilson discovered the 3 K CMBR,
steady-state was almost universally recognized as dead. Only a few (Hoyle
being the main one, and steady-state was HIS baby), clung to steady-state.
I think we agree.
#Don Smith, PhD (as of two weeks ago, yahoo!!!)
Congratulations. Perhaps we'll see each other at an AAS meeting in the
near future.
Bill
Dave Moorman
(Don A. Smith) wrote:
>Don Smith, PhD (as of two weeks ago, yahoo!!!)
Congratulations, Don. May you recieve untold blessings!
Dave
--
Dave Moorman
Downers Grove
Illinois USA
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~dmoorman/index.html
Bruce Chenoweth
>> I think that post-modernism goes a lot further than this, and
> We may well disagree on the *meaning* of these events, but the events
> Don Smith, PhD (as of two weeks ago, yahoo!!!)
I cannot imagine someone saying, "All truth is a social construction,
that no truth is better than any other truth."
I would think the argument would go - we are culturally biased and have
partial knowledge. There may be a few universal truths, but they must
conform to rules that are demonstrated by the mail always getting
through and people not generally walk off cliffs. I see myself as a
seeker of more truth than I knew today. What road would I "not wish to
travel"?
--
Very truly yours,
Mother Chenoweth's Little Prince
http://www.wwjd.net/chenoweth/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Don A. Smith
>job, and (3) the new theory itself may at some time be replaced by
>something better still. Nothing Kuhn says contradicts this. Unfortunately,
>POMO writers often misread Kuhn and other philosophers of science to push
>their agenda of relativism.
Sure. I thought this is what I was saying. They go too far. I didn't
think I was disagreeing with you; just musing on the theme.
>You are, of course, aware of the Sokal _Social Text_ affair?
Sure.
>[BTW, one does not "measure" the speed of light any more, since it is now
>a defined constant in the SI system: 299792458 m/sec. The meter is now a
>derived unit.]
Fine, then have everybody use the speed of light to measure a meter. I don't
care; they'll still get the same answer. Or don't use SI. It doesn't change
my point, and a skeptic would say, "well, why should I take the Standards'
word for it?" A set of such skeptics could use furlongs per fortnight for
all I care: no matter what their cultural biases, they'll get the same speed.
>I think we agree.
Yup.
>Congratulations. Perhaps we'll see each other at an AAS meeting in the
>near future.
Well, I'll be in Atlanta. Our group is winning the Rossi Prize.
Perhaps I'll see you there.
Don
Bill Jefferys
#>Congratulations. Perhaps we'll see each other at an AAS meeting in the
#>near future.
#
#Well, I'll be in Atlanta. Our group is winning the Rossi Prize.
#Perhaps I'll see you there.
Cool. Congratulations again! Bill
Guy Macon
>Thus, a deconstructionist would consider systematic theology, the
>attempt to render the complex meaning of the biblical message coherent
>and logical, is doomed, since language contains unavoidable
>multiplicities of meaning.
...Which is why I am writing *my* systematic theology in C++.
Manny Olds
>>This is absolutely the first time I can recall someone on this group
>>drawing a line connecting my beliefs to The Adversary or to Evil, and it
>>is done in the nicest and most indirect way possible. Considering what the
>>Bible has to say about polytheism, I could have expected much rougher
>>treatment.
> Polytheism is no problem. if you REALLY want to have your beliefs
> connected to The Adversary or to Evil, just profess conservative
> republican ideas!
> (I am not a conservative or a republican. I am a libertarian)
I am a *registered* Libertarian. I wouldn't say I am a corner-dweller (in
the social / financial regulation scatter plot) but I definitely spend
most of my time in that quadrant.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Actually, any magic save pure chaos can be explored via the scientific
method. I have to admit that designing experiments involving Creation
mythologies may be difficult, but... "-- Tony Quirke
Guy Macon
>
>On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 14:31:37 -0600, bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu (Bill
>Jefferys) wrote:
>
>>science doesn't have all the answers, and science has never claimed
>
>course I took (because I was forced to :-) ) took what I suppose could
>be a post-modernist view. His whole schtick was the subjectiveness of
>reality, and he tended to assign these dreadfully weird, dull stories
>with no identifiable plot that worked with this view (I admit, BTW, to
>being a dreadful philistine :-) ). He'd go on about how a bunch of
>people seeing the same event will have completely different
>recollections of the event, and the point he'd try to make was that
>there was no knowable objective reality. If you follow his reasoning,
>it basically works out to, "People are terrible observers, therefore
>there is no objective reality for them to observe." What incredible
>logic! I can see why this guy never went into science. Science is so
>limited, it can't come up with amazing answers like that.
I was an engineer at a time-lapse video recorder manufacturer once
(the kind that records slowly so that the tape doesn't run out so
soon - banks and stores use them on security cameras). We always had
a few cameras and video recorders running in our lab, which allowed
us to replay anything that happened. A couple of us started looking
at the replay whenever our reccolection of what happened or what was
said differed. I found two very interesting things:
[1] What was on the tape usually differed from what any of the
eyewitnesses said would be on the tape.
[2] We had to record the eyewitnesses as they said what would be
on the tape. If we didn't do this, two people who had different
memories of what happened would both claim that the tape proved
their version to be the accurate one.
[3] We had to make the eye witnesses go into great detail about what
would be on the tape, with someone else paraphrasing the statement
and the eyewitness agreeing that the paraphrase was accurate.
If we didn't do this, the eyewitness would often claim that we
had all misunderstood or misinterpeted what he said.
My conclusion is that most people's memories of conversations and
events shift from moment to moment as they recieve new information.
I therefore agree with the statement "People are terrible observers."
the conclusion, "therefore there is no objective reality for them
to observe." is way past being illogical. It is just plain stupid.
Guy Macon
>Would somebody please define "deconstruction" in words of one syllable?
No.
Guy Macon
>
>>Would somebody please define "deconstruction" in words of one syllable?
>
>No.
I can. however, parrot a few websites. I will give my opinion at the
end of this. (These are excerpts - see the URLs for full text) -Guy
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/deconstruction.html
DECONSTRUCTION: What is it?
Deconstruction: A school of philosophy that originated in France in the
late 1960s, has had an enormous impact on Anglo-American criticism.
Largely the creation of its chief proponent Jacques Derrida,
deconstruction upends the Western metaphysical tradition. It represents a
complex response to a variety of theoretical and philosophical movements
of the 20th century, most notably Husserlian phenomenology, Saussurean
and French structuralism, and Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis.
[First paragraph of a seven-page explanation in the Encyclopedia of
Contemporary Literary Theory (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1993).]
Deconstruction: Rarely has a critical theory attracted the sort of dread
and hysteria that deconstruction has incited since its inception in 1967.
[Beginning of an eleven-page entry in A Dictionary of Critical Theory
(New York: Greenwood Press, 1991).]
Then there is this... -Guy
http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/deconstruction.html
ENGL 4F70, Contemporary Literary Theory, Brock University
Deconstruction: Some Assumptions
Copyright 1996 by John Lye. This text may be freely
used, with attribution, for non-profit purposes.
Deconstruction is a poststructuralist theory, based largely but not
exclusively on the writings of the Paris-based Jacques Derrida. It is in
the first instance a philosophical theory and a theory directed towards
the (re)reading of philosophical writings. Its impact on literature,
mediated in North America largely through the influences of theorists at
Yale University, is based in part on the fact that deconstruction sees all
writing as a complex historical, cultural process rooted in the relations
of texts to each other and in the institutions and conventions of writing,
in part on the sophistication and intensity of its sense that human
knowledge is not as controllable or as cogent as Western thought would
have it and that language operates in subtle and often contradictory ways,
so that certainty will always elude us.
Structuralist groundworks
Reality as we understand it is constructed of certain deep structural
principles or organizations which may be configured differently on the
level of experienced life, as we both operate and interpet them
differently. Language, for instance, is compose of basic resources
(langue) from which individual instances of its use are drawn (parole);
cultures are formed through basic relations of economic production (the
Marxist conception of the 'base'), but these may appear differently as
cultures (economies, in the economic and more general sense) configure
their ideas and arrangements (the 'superstructure'). The idea is that
there are basic structures which are operationalized according to certain
transformative rules in relation to the particulars of specific
situations.
There is no unmediated knowledge of 'reality': knowledge is symbolic;
what we 'know' are signs; signs gain their meaning from their distinction
from other signs. Therefore there is no knowledge of 'reality', but only
of symbolized, constructed experience. Our 'knowing of our experience' is
itself then mediated knowing, which is the only thing knowing can be.
There is no 'pure' knowledge of reality except, as the early theorist of
semiotics Charles Sanders Pierce suggests, at an instantaneous and
inarticulable level: one can, Pierce says, experience, but not know,
reality-in-itself. This is not to say that this experience of the real is
not real; it is: we live in a real world. But we live particularly in our
codification, our system of signs. If we cannot translate any experience
into symbolic form then we cannot 'know' it in a way that is useful to us;
if we do know, then our knowledge is only knowledge through our codes and
our signifying systems--that is, mediated knowledge. (as when we might
experience an earthquake without immediately knowing what it is, and so
for a moment experience only something like disoriented panic).
All texts are mediated (are only the process of mediation), in many ways:
they are mediated by language, they are mediated by cultural systems,
including ideologies and symbols, they are mediated by the conventions of
genres, they are mediated by the world of intertextuality which is
textuality's only true home, they are mediated by the structure of ideas
and practices which we call reading (there is no 'pure reading', there is
only reading according to some tradition, for some purpose). Texts are
mediated in their construction, in their communication, and in their
reception. Texts cannot, by definition, simply transfer an author's ideas.
Had enough? if not, try these web pages... -Guy
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/deccar1.htm
http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/derrida/rorty.html
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/deconstruct.htm
Here is Guy Macon's take on all of this; The idea that we can't perfectly
transmit meaning is true, but trivial. The idea that the obvious fact
that we can't perfectly transmit meaning means that we can't transmit
meaning at all is silly. The use of deconstructionism to examine the
limits of what we can know is useful. The use of deconstructionism to
try to get people to accept theories that have holes in them big enough
to drive a truck through is evil. If you accept the principles of
deconstructionism, you can then use those principles to refute
deconstructionism. Deconstructionism is interesting to ponder, but
in my opinion Descartes gave a much better answer to the issues the
deconstructionists talk about. Your results may vary. -Guy
For more on Descartes, see:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exhibitions/Mind/Descartes.html
Guy Macon
Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason,
and Seeking Truth in the Sciences
René Descartes (1596-1650)
http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
Chapter 1
Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for
every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even
who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually
desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess. And in
this it is not likely that all are mistaken the conviction is rather to be
held as testifying that the power of judging aright and of distinguishing
truth from error, which is properly what is called good sense or reason,
is by nature equal in all men; and that the diversity of our opinions,
consequently, does not arise from some being endowed with a larger share of
reason than others, but solely from this, that we conduct our thoughts
along different ways, and do not fix our attention on the same objects. For
to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is
rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest
excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who
travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep
always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.
For myself, I have never fancied my mind to be in any respect more perfect
than those of the generality; on the contrary, I have often wished that I
were equal to some others in promptitude of thought, or in clearness and
distinctness of imagination, or in fullness and readiness of memory. And
besides these, I know of no other qualities that contribute to the
perfection of the mind; for as to the reason or sense, inasmuch as it is
that alone which constitutes us men, and distinguishes us from the brutes,
I am disposed to believe that it is to be found complete in each
individual; and on this point to adopt the common opinion of philosophers,
who say that the difference of greater and less holds only among the
accidents, and not among the forms or natures of individuals of the same
species.
I will not hesitate, however, to avow my belief that it has been my
singular good fortune to have very early in life fallen in with certain
tracks which have conducted me to considerations and maxims, of which I
have formed a method that gives me the means, as I think, of gradually
augmenting my knowledge, and of raising it by little and little to the
highest point which the mediocrity of my talents and the brief duration of
my life will permit me to reach. For I have already reaped from it such
fruits that, although I have been accustomed to think lowly enough of
myself, and although when I look with the eye of a philosopher at the
varied courses and pursuits of mankind at large, I find scarcely one which
does not appear in vain and useless, I nevertheless derive the highest
satisfaction from the progress I conceive myself to have already made in
the search after truth, and cannot help entertaining such expectations of
the future as to believe that if, among the occupations of men as men,
there is any one really excellent and important, it is that which I have
chosen.
After all, it is possible I may be mistaken; and it is but a little copper
and glass, perhaps, that I take for gold and diamonds. I know how very
liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves, and also how much
the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favor.
But I shall endeavor in this discourse to describe the paths I have
followed, and to delineate my life as in a picture, in order that each one
may also be able to judge of them for himself, and that in the general
opinion entertained of them, as gathered from current report, I myself may
have a new help towards instruction to be added to those I have been in the
habit of employing.
My present design, then, is not to teach the method which each ought to
follow for the right conduct of his reason, but solely to describe the way
in which I have endeavored to conduct my own. They who set themselves to
give precepts must of course regard themselves as possessed of greater
skill than those to whom they prescribe; and if they err in the slightest
particular, they subject themselves to censure. But as this tract is put
forth merely as a history, or, if you will, as a tale, in which, amid some
examples worthy of imitation, there will be found, perhaps, as many more
which it were advisable not to follow, I hope it will prove useful to some
without being hurtful to any, and that my openness will find some favor
with all.
From my childhood, I have been familiar with letters; and as I was given to
believe that by their help a clear and certain knowledge of all that is
useful in life might be acquired, I was ardently desirous of instruction.
But as soon as I had finished the entire course of study, at the close of
which it is customary to be admitted into the order of the learned, I
completely changed my opinion. For I found myself involved in so many
doubts and errors, that I was convinced I had advanced no farther in all my
attempts at learning, than the discovery at every turn of my own ignorance.
And yet I was studying in one of the most celebrated schools in Europe, in
which I thought there must be learned men, if such were anywhere to be
found. I had been taught all that others learned there; and not contented
with the sciences actually taught us, I had, in addition, read all the
books that had fallen into my hands, treating of such branches as are
esteemed the most curious and rare. I knew the judgment which others had
formed of me; and I did not find that I was considered inferior to my
fellows, although there were among them some who were already marked out to
fill the places of our instructors. And, in fine, our age appeared to me as
flourishing, and as fertile in powerful minds as any preceding one. I was
thus led to take the liberty of judging of all other men by myself, and of
concluding that there was no science in existence that was of such a nature
as I had previously been given to believe.
I still continued, however, to hold in esteem the studies of the schools.
I was aware that the languages taught in them are necessary to the
understanding of the writings of the ancients; that the grace of fable
stirs the mind; that the memorable deeds of history elevate it; and, if
read with discretion, aid in forming the judgment; that the perusal of all
excellent books is, as it were, to interview with the noblest men of past
ages, who have written them, and even a studied interview, in which are
discovered to us only their choicest thoughts; that eloquence has
incomparable force and beauty; that poesy has its ravishing graces and
delights; that in the mathematics there are many refined discoveries
eminently suited to gratify the inquisitive, as well as further all the
arts an lessen the labour of man; that numerous highly useful precepts and
exhortations to virtue are contained in treatises on morals; that theology
points out the path to heaven; that philosophy affords the means of
discoursing with an appearance of truth on all matters, and commands the
admiration of the more simple; that jurisprudence, medicine, and the other
sciences, secure for their cultivators honors and riches; and, in fine,
that it is useful to bestow some attention upon all, even upon those
abounding the most in superstition and error, that we may be in a position
to determine their real value, and guard against being deceived.
But I believed that I had already given sufficient time to languages, and
likewise to the reading of the writings of the ancients, to their histories
and fables. For to hold converse with those of other ages and to travel,
are almost the same thing. It is useful to know something of the manners of
different nations, that we may be enabled to form a more correct judgment
regarding our own, and be prevented from thinking that everything contrary
to our customs is ridiculous and irrational, a conclusion usually come to
by those whose experience has been limited to their own country. On the
other hand, when too much time is occupied in traveling, we become
strangers to our native country; and the over curious in the customs of the
past are generally ignorant of those of the present. Besides, fictitious
narratives lead us to imagine the possibility of many events that are
impossible; and even the most faithful histories, if they do not wholly
misrepresent matters, or exaggerate their importance to render the account
of them more worthy of perusal, omit, at least, almost always the meanest
and least striking of the attendant circumstances; hence it happens that
the remainder does not represent the truth, and that such as regulate their
conduct by examples drawn from this source, are apt to fall into the
extravagances of the knight-errants of romance, and to entertain projects
that exceed their powers.
I esteemed eloquence highly, and was in raptures with poesy; but I thought
that both were gifts of nature rather than fruits of study. Those in whom
the faculty of reason is predominant, and who most skillfully dispose their
thoughts with a view to render them clear and intelligible, are always the
best able to persuade others of the truth of what they lay down, though
they should speak only in the language of Lower Brittany, and be wholly
ignorant of the rules of rhetoric; and those whose minds are stored with
the most agreeable fancies, and who can give expression to them with the
greatest embellishment and harmony, are still the best poets, though
unacquainted with the art of poetry.
I was especially delighted with the mathematics, on account of the
certitude and evidence of their reasonings; but I had not as yet a precise
knowledge of their true use; and thinking that they but contributed to the
advancement of the mechanical arts, I was astonished that foundations, so
strong and solid, should have had no loftier superstructure reared on them.
On the other hand, I compared the disquisitions of the ancient moralists to
very towering and magnificent palaces with no better foundation than sand
and mud: they laud the virtues very highly, and exhibit them as estimable
far above anything on earth; but they give us no adequate criterion of
virtue, and frequently that which they designate with so fine a name is but
apathy, or pride, or despair, or parricide.
I revered our theology, and aspired as much as any one to reach heaven: but
being given assuredly to understand that the way is not less open to the
most ignorant than to the most learned, and that the revealed truths which
lead to heaven are above our comprehension, I did not presume to subject
them to the impotency of my reason; and I thought that in order competently
to undertake their examination, there was need of some special help from
heaven, and of being more than man.
Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been
cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there
is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and
nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate
that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further,
when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single
matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true,
I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable.
As to the other sciences, inasmuch as these borrow their principles from
philosophy, I judged that no solid superstructures could be reared on
foundations so infirm; and neither the honor nor the gain held out by them
was sufficient to determine me to their cultivation: for I was not, thank
Heaven, in a condition which compelled me to make merchandise of science
for the bettering of my fortune; and though I might not profess to scorn
glory as a cynic, I yet made very slight account of that honor which I
hoped to acquire only through fictitious titles. And, in fine, of false
sciences I thought I knew the worth sufficiently to escape being deceived
by the professions of an alchemist, the predictions of an astrologer, the
impostures of a magician, or by the artifices and boasting of any of those
who profess to know things of which they are ignorant.
For these reasons, as soon as my age permitted me to pass from under the
control of my instructors, I entirey abandoned the study of letters, and
resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of myself,
or of the great book of the world. I spent the remainder of my youth in
traveling, in visiting courts and armies, in holding intercourse with men
of different dispositions and ranks, in collecting varied experience, in
proving myself in the different situations into which fortune threw me,
and, above all, in making such reflection on the matter of my experience as
to secure my improvement. For it occurred to me that I should find much
more truth in the reasonings of each individual with reference to the
affairs in which he is personally interested, and the issue of which must
presently punish him if he has judged amiss, than in those conducted by a
man of letters in his study, regarding speculative matters that are of no
practical moment, and followed by no consequences to himself, farther,
perhaps, than that they foster his vanity the better the more remote they
are from common sense; requiring, as they must in this case, the exercise
of greater ingenuity and art to render them probable. In addition, I had
always a most earnest desire to know how to distinguish the true from the
false, in order that I might be able clearly to discriminate the right path
in life, and proceed in it with confidence.
It is true that, while busied only in considering the manners of other men,
I found here, too, scarce any ground for settled conviction, and remarked
hardly less contradiction among them than in the opinions of the
philosophers. So that the greatest advantage I derived from the study
consisted in this, that, observing many things which, however extravagant
and ridiculous to our apprehension, are yet by common consent received and
approved by other great nations, I learned to entertain too decided a
belief in regard to nothing of the truth of which I had been persuaded
merely by example and custom; and thus I gradually extricated myself from
many errors powerful enough to darken our natural intelligence, and
incapacitate us in great measure from listening to reason. But after I had
been occupied several years in thus studying the book of the world, and in
essaying to gather some experience, I at length resolved to make myself an
object of study, and to employ all the powers of my mind in choosing the
paths I ought to follow, an undertaking which was accompanied with greater
success than it would have been had I never quitted my country or my books.
End of Chapter 1. For the rest of this book, go to:
http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
Stephen DeGrace
>
>
>Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason,
>and Seeking Truth in the Sciences
>
>René Descartes (1596-1650)
I'm not _entirely_ certain why you posted this, but thanks, it was
great reading!
Stephen
ala...@mindspring.com
esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7pft30$29u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <IGxu3.374$Eu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>
> > I am sure this has been done, somewhere,
> > and I hope that an srqer can fill me in:
> >
> > How do you define evil? How can it be
> > defined without refence to going
> > against the will of God?
>
> From God's perspective, everything is good
> -- there is a time for every purpose under
> heaven. Creation needs both day and night.
>
> Evil emerges when we look at creation from
> the perspective of a partial being. What is
> good for the cat is evil for the mouse. What
> is good for the germ or virus may be evil for
> (wo)man.
Evil is at the level of intent for me. The limitations of the physical world
are can lead to fatal competitions--I believe these are not under God's
control.
> However, as we grow spiritually, we find
> ways to use the evil that befalls us and thus
> turn it into good. For example, evil serves as
> a goad, driving us from our complacency. Take
> another example, apathy, which seems like an
> evil because it makes it hard to organize people
> against war, but which also makes it hard for
> the system to organize people FOR war -- in
> this case, an evil, seen from a different angle,
> becomes a good.
>
> As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That which does not kill me,
only makes me stronger."
While Nietzsche had to be right about some things, I think the reference to
"evil" makes a big difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was beyond
good and evil--Emerson had better watch the company that he keeps.
Esther Murer
>
>
> > As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> > which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
> This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That which does not kill me,
> only makes me stronger."
> While Nietzsche had to be right about some things, I think the reference to
> "evil" makes a big difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was beyond
> good and evil--Emerson had better watch the company that he keeps.
Nietzsche considered Emerson one of his best friends. In _Twilight of
the Idols_ (I think) he says something like "he cheers me up in even the
worst moments." I once had occasion to preruse a German study of
Nietzsche's marginal notes in his copy of Emerson's essays --
fascinating. I didn't have time to get more than a surface impression,
but N. seems to have gotten, inter alia, the idea of naming his prophet
Zarathrustra from Emerson: Emerson makes mention of "Zertusht or
Zoroaster" and N. has written in the margin: "Das ist es!" The Superman
idea seems to owe something to E's essays on Heroism and Character, if I
recall aright.
As Larry Ingle would say, For what it's worth.
Esther
ala...@mindspring.com
> In article <7qed52$2s9$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7pft30$29u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <IGxu3.374$Eu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> > > Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
> > Evil is at the level of intent
> > for me.
>
Passion must be involved for Evil to come into play. Any individual who acts
may do harm with intent or without. A guard who protects from intruders may
intentionally inflict pain, suffering, or even death, as part of his/her
duties, but this is not Evil. There is no insatiable, self-aggrandizing,
hunger or fixation in the guard's acts; it is the egoistic element of
unbound self that turns a Charles Manson into someone who is Evil.
> I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
> Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
> had good and honest intentions. These people have
> good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
> them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
> country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
To day that the results were a disaster does not lead to the same conclusion
about NATO's leadership as about Slobodan Milosevic.
At a higher level, it is plausible that U.S. strategic interests were not
involved, but only the stature of the president. If this was true, I would
border on Evil intent, also.
> Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> his caring, his love.
This may be neurotic behavior, but I don't see how Love and Evil can
co-exist.
> As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
> intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
> more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
In the Panthenon of the Gods there is representation for many emotions.
[...]
> > > As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> > > which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
>
> > This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That
> > which does not kill me, only makes me stronger."
> > While Nietzsche had to be right about some things,
> > I think the reference to "evil" makes a big
> > difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was
> > beyond good and evil -- Emerson had better watch
> > the company that he keeps.
>
> I'm not familiar with Nietzsche, but I suspect that
> many parallels between Nietzsche and Emerson could be
> found. Emerson extolled the self-reliant individual,
> and Nietzsche did the same, I believe. Nietzsche,
> like Emerson, was a philosophical idealist. Where,
> in your opinion, did Nietzsche go wrong, if indeed he
> did?
Nietzsche seems undeniably to have been an atheist. Interestingly, I don't
remember much love in his writings.
Alan Roth
esrevnI eilrahC
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7pft30$29u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <IGxu3.374$Eu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> > Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
> >
> > > and I hope that an srqer can fill me in:
> > >
> > > How do you define evil? How can it be
> > > defined without refence to going
> > > against the will of God?
> >
> > From God's perspective, everything is good
> > -- there is a time for every purpose under
> > heaven. Creation needs both day and night.
> >
> > Evil emerges when we look at creation from
> > the perspective of a partial being. What is
> > good for the cat is evil for the mouse. What
> > is good for the germ or virus may be evil for
> > (wo)man.
> Evil is at the level of intent
> for me.
Elaborate, please.
I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
had good and honest intentions. These people have
good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
his caring, his love.
As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
> The limitations of the physical world are can
> lead to fatal competitions -- I believe these are
> not under God's control.
>
> > However, as we grow spiritually, we find
> > ways to use the evil that befalls us and thus
> > turn it into good. For example, evil serves as
> > a goad, driving us from our complacency. Take
> > another example, apathy, which seems like an
> > evil because it makes it hard to organize people
> > against war, but which also makes it hard for
> > the system to organize people FOR war -- in
> > this case, an evil, seen from a different angle,
> > becomes a good.
> >
> > As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> > which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
> This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That
> which does not kill me, only makes me stronger."
> While Nietzsche had to be right about some things,
> I think the reference to "evil" makes a big
> difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was
> beyond good and evil -- Emerson had better watch
> the company that he keeps.
I'm not familiar with Nietzsche, but I suspect that
many parallels between Nietzsche and Emerson could be
found. Emerson extolled the self-reliant individual,
and Nietzsche did the same, I believe. Nietzsche,
like Emerson, was a philosophical idealist. Where,
in your opinion, did Nietzsche go wrong, if indeed he
did?
esrevnI eilrahC
> > In article <7qed52$2s9$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7pft30$29u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <IGxu3.374$Eu4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
> > > > Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
> > > Evil is at the level of intent
> > > for me.
> >
> > Elaborate, please.
> Passion must be involved for Evil to
> come into play. Any individual who acts
> may do harm with intent or without.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke, "Letter to William Smith",
Jan. 9, 1795. "Doing nothing" actually
suggests a LACK of intent, inattentiveness,
ignorance, apathy, LACK of passion. Of
course, the ignorance may be WANTON, and
often is, so there may be a hidden or diffuse
intent, a death-wish which leads the individual
or the society to embrace passivity and
destructive inactivity.
> A guard who protects from intruders may
> intentionally inflict pain, suffering,
> or even death, as part of his/her
> duties, but this is not Evil. There is
> no insatiable, self-aggrandizing,
> hunger or fixation in the guard's
> acts; it is the egoistic element of
> unbound self that turns a Charles
> Manson into someone who is Evil.
It's not evil from the perspective of the
guard, but it IS evil from the perspective of
the innocent bystanders who are killed by the
trigger-happy guard. Paradoxically, I think
your focus on subjective intent and your
philosophical disregard for the consequences
of this intent -- the harm to others -- is
ITSELF a little egoistic, maybe even a little
Nietzschian!
>
> > I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
> > Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
> > had good and honest intentions. These people have
> > good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
> > them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
> > country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
> To say that the results were a disaster
> does not lead to the same conclusion
> about NATO's leadership as about Slobodan
> Milosevic.
"Disaster" -- literaly, "bad stars" -- is far too
mild. It assigns blame to the impersonal stars, and
thus absolves the killers. From the perspective of
the victims, it was much MORE than a disaster: it
was a brazen CRIME. Why should the perspective of
the victims be any less valid than the perspective
of the killers?
You mention Milosevic, but Milosevic was not the
primary cause of the ethnic strife. He is simply
the NATO-designated scapegoat. Singling him out,
or singling out the entire Serb ethnic group, as
NATO propaganda also does, simply deflects attention
from the real causes of the wars in Yugoslavia,
which are economic and political -- the I.M.F.
austerity program, sanctions, secessionist movements,
Nazi emigre groups nurtured by the CIA, KLA
terrorism, drugs, meddling by the big powers,
U.S. attempts to obstruct and finally take over
the OSCE, the absurd demands inserted into the
Rambouillet document, etc.. See any of the
following:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gowan.html
//// The Twilight of the European Project
//// By Peter Gowan
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/grattan_healy/johnston.htm
//// Seeing Yugoslavia Through a Dark Glass:
//// Politics, Media and the Ideology of Globalization
//// by Diana Johnstone
//// 10 August 1998
//// COVERT ACTION QUARTERLY / No 65, Fall 1998
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm
//// THE BOSNIAN TRAGEDY
//// by Sara Flounders,
//// International Action Center, 1995
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0599/0503.htm
//// On the Eve of War, NATO's Humanitarian Trigger
//// By Diana Johnstone
//// _Peacework / May 1999
The war was carefully manufactured. As Johnstone
writes in "On the Eve of War":
After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, NATO needed a new excuse for
pumping resources into the military-industrial
complex. Thanks to Kosovo, NATO can celebrate
its 50th anniversary next month by
construction of its new global mission: to
intervene anywhere in the world on
humanitarian grounds. The recipe is easy: arm
a group of radical secessionists to shoot
policemen, describe the inevitable police
retaliation as "ethnic cleansing," promise the
rebels that NATO will bomb their enemy if the
fighting goes on, and then interpret the
resulting mayhem as a challenge to NATO's
"resolve" which must be met by military
action.
> At a higher level, it is plausible that
> U.S. strategic interests were not
> involved, but only the stature of the
> president. If this was true, I would
> border on Evil intent, also.
We have to distinguish between "U.S."
strategic interests and American strategic
interests. By the former, I mean the
interests of the unaccountable global
establishment that wants to rule the world.
By the latter, I mean the interests of
the American people. War is very much NOT
in OUR interest: we are forced to pay for
it with our tax dollars, with our lives,
with our sanity, and with our moral capital,
what little we have left.
>
> > Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> > lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> > hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> > taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> > sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> > my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> > what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> > gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> > these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> > badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> > his caring, his love.
> This may be neurotic behavior, but I don't
> see how Love and Evil can co-exist.
Well, take the Inquisition, then. The church
"loved" its poor heretical sinners so much that
it burnt them at the stake, "for the good of their
souls". Love can be VERY self-righteous!
>
> > As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
> > intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
> > more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
> In the Panthenon of the Gods there
> is representation for many emotions.
> [...]
Please elaborate. I like polytheism, but I'm not
sure how you manage to bring it into the discussion!
> > > > As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> > > > which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
> >
> > > This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That
> > > which does not kill me, only makes me stronger."
> > > While Nietzsche had to be right about some things,
> > > I think the reference to "evil" makes a big
> > > difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was
> > > beyond good and evil -- Emerson had better watch
> > > the company that he keeps.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Nietzsche, but I suspect that
> > many parallels between Nietzsche and Emerson could be
> > found. Emerson extolled the self-reliant individual,
> > and Nietzsche did the same, I believe. Nietzsche,
> > like Emerson, was a philosophical idealist. Where,
> > in your opinion, did Nietzsche go wrong, if indeed he
> > did?
> Nietzsche seems undeniably to have been
> an atheist. Interestingly, I don't
> remember much love in his writings.
Didn't he love one particular "chosen race"?
> Alan Roth
ECrownfiel
<inver...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> Evil is at the level of intent
>> for me.
>
> Elaborate, please.
>
> I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
>Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
>had good and honest intentions. These people have
>good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
>them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
>country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
>Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
>lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
>hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
>taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
>sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
>my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
>what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
>gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
>these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
>badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
>his caring, his love.
It's still "intent," though: he intends to impose his own prideful ideas on
others. It must have occurred to him that what he does may not be universally
admired, and yet he chooses his own pride over the promptings of others and,
presumably, his conscience. I have been known to do the same (though not to
the extent of cutting down other people's trees....) so I know quite well how
these things work. :-S
It also seems pretty clear that there were some less-than-pure intentions going
on in the Yugoslavian situation too. Pride certainly comes into it there as
well: we know what's best for you and we will bomb you until you agree.
> As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
>intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
>more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
"Good intentions" in that sense are usually pretty superficial. "Love" can be
superficial too; that is, the word gets used to cover up some other things that
are not so very loving. We need to look beyond that superficial level, beyond
the point of making excuses or whatever, and see what really motivates us --
that is what I think was meant by "intention."
I recently re-read Dante's Purgatorio and found it very perceptive on these
issues. Dorothy Sayers' translation has some excellent commentary that helps
to illuminate them. Her translation itself can be a bit stilted, but the
commentary is well worthwhile. I read two versions, one a literal prose
translation and the other hers, and the combination worked well.
Elizabeth Crownfield
Guy Macon
>It's still "intent," though: he intends to impose his own prideful ideas on
>others. It must have occurred to him that what he does may not be universally
>admired, and yet he chooses his own pride over the promptings of others and,
>presumably, his conscience. I have been known to do the same (though not to
>the extent of cutting down other people's trees....) so I know quite well how
>these things work. :-S
>
>It also seems pretty clear that there were some less-than-pure intentions going
>on in the Yugoslavian situation too. Pride certainly comes into it there as
>well: we know what's best for you and we will bomb you until you agree.
How about this situation: What if you honestly believe that all human
suffering is caused by the witch in your village, and all of the other
villagers agree? Is killing the witch evil? What if the false belief
is that Jews are poisening the wells and causing the plague? Or that
blacks are not really human? Or that Quakers are doomed to an eternity
of suffering for their heresy but you can give them an etenity in heaven
by torturing them into confessing allegience to the pope? You can have
the purest intentions and still do evil.
Cmgreenlnd
I'm struggling with very mixed emotions as I read the postings on this thread.
A friend (our children went to the same Friends' school) was shot to death in
the parking lot of a local store this morning as she loaded groceries into her
car. The alleged assailant was apprehended about an hour later. He's also a
local person.
My son and I are struggling with emotions. He came running out to the yard
today, telling me not to go to that store, there'd been a murder. There'd been
similar attacks at the end of summer for the past two years, but though
serious, none fatal.
I'm not sure about intent here. All I really know is that he was seen in the
act by about 20 people, driving a car with the same license plate with the
weapon in the front seat, but claims he didn't do it. The act of murder is
evil, to my mind. Exactly who is responsible for troubled people is open to
question.
Do keep the woman's family and friends (me included) in mind. None of us know
the day or the hour. The events of the morning are a good reminder of this. If
I'd gone shopping as I intended, it could have been me.
ala...@mindspring.com
Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:7qguaj$r...@journal.concentric.net...
have been in a situation where my own sense of evil and my actions were
prompted by prior knowledge. There are clear and present dangers that
separate experiences into foolishness and real threat(s).
To whit: a business acquaintance who had experience with front-line action
in Vietnam (and, hence, knew how to use all manner of weaponry) warned me
that he had failed to act when he sensed a threat to a female friend on the
part of a third party who seemed unstable and "evil" to him. The woman
friend ended up dead, he said.
I thought this was just making conversation until this same acquaintance
grabbed me by the throat within a few days of telling me the prior tale.
While he was putting extreme pressure on my windpipe, he told me that he
had certain plans that he didn't want me to interfere with--period.
I panicked. I hid out in my apartment for about 10 days, afraid to go
near our place of business. I would have defended myself if I had to.
I would lay no claims to "purest intentions," only to self-preservation.
I had prima facie evidence that my life was in danger. Ideological
confrontations can only result in violence when the parties involved have
some other agenda to resolve--like the power of the Church during the
Inquisition. There was no Christian theology involved, none. And it would be
fatuous to dismiss the existence of evil through an example of Dark Ages'
politics or the misfortunes of those who have been persecuted in abrogation
of religious freedoms (including witchcraft, real or imagined).
ala...@mindspring.com
> > A guard who protects from intruders may
> > intentionally inflict pain, suffering,
> > or even death, as part of his/her
> > duties, but this is not Evil. There is
> > no insatiable, self-aggrandizing,
> > hunger or fixation in the guard's
> > acts; it is the egoistic element of
> > unbound self that turns a Charles
> > Manson into someone who is Evil.
>
> It's not evil from the perspective of the
> guard, but it IS evil from the perspective of
> the innocent bystanders who are killed by the
> trigger-happy guard.
First, I am not sure that the guard is trigger-happy, and, second, I would
hope that he would show due caution if "civilians" are present.
.. Paradoxically, I think
> your focus on subjective intent and your
> philosophical disregard for the consequences
> of this intent -- the harm to others -- is
> ITSELF a little egoistic, maybe even a little
> Nietzschian!
My ego may, indeed, be existential, but it is only my fatalism that allows
"disregard" for unavoidable consequences.
> > > I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
> > > Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
> > > had good and honest intentions. These people have
> > > good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
> > > them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
> > > country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
>
> > To say that the results were a disaster
> > does not lead to the same conclusion
> > about NATO's leadership as about Slobodan
> > Milosevic.
>
> "Disaster" -- literaly, "bad stars" -- is far too
> mild. It assigns blame to the impersonal stars, and
> thus absolves the killers. From the perspective of
> the victims, it was much MORE than a disaster: it
> was a brazen CRIME. Why should the perspective of
> the victims be any less valid than the perspective
> of the killers?
I think my views are pretty self-explanatory on this. If the intent was
primarily political, meaning aggrandizing to the power of the U.S. or the
U.N., and the action was not warranted on its own "merits," then evil was
done. Any time one acts there is danger. It is not reckless to defend
oneself, nor it is reckless to promote the welfare of minorities in other
countries, the collateral damage is not the gauge of evil. And, yes, I do
remember that this ng is quaker.
> You mention Milosevic, but Milosevic was not the
> primary cause of the ethnic strife. He is simply
> the NATO-designated scapegoat. Singling him out,
> or singling out the entire Serb ethnic group, as
> NATO propaganda also does, simply deflects attention
> from the real causes of the wars in Yugoslavia,
> which are economic and political -- the I.M.F.
> austerity program, sanctions, secessionist movements,
> Nazi emigre groups nurtured by the CIA,
What? Why in the world would the CIA do that?
..KLA
A Quaker lady once explained to me that the most major harm done in warfare
is the damage to the psyche of those who fight most bravely that is returned
home with them once "peace" has been declared. I have no reason to disagree
with her. This is the major reason I opposed involvement in Kosovo.
> > > Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> > > lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> > > hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> > > taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> > > sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> > > my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> > > what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> > > gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> > > these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> > > badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> > > his caring, his love.
>
> > This may be neurotic behavior, but I don't
> > see how Love and Evil can co-exist.
>
> Well, take the Inquisition, then. The church
> "loved" its poor heretical sinners so much that
> it burnt them at the stake, "for the good of their
> souls". Love can be VERY self-righteous!
We both know that this was the worst imaginable hyposcrisy. Again, from an
existential viewpoint, it is the intent that was important. It was not for
the good of the sinners, not in any way, shape, or form.
> > > As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
> > > intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
> > > more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
>
> > In the Panthenon of the Gods there
> > is representation for many emotions.
> > [...]
>
> Please elaborate. I like polytheism, but I'm not
> sure how you manage to bring it into the discussion!
There is a time to love and a time to hate. A time to build and a time to
destroy. The Greek Gods have emotional characteristics that have
occasionally been identified with an attempt to personify complex personal
characteristics in the form of external influences. This would constitute a
psychology that is anchored in mythology. And, I am truly sorry, but I don't
remember any references on this subject. It was something that came up too
many years ago. But, obviously, I liked the idea.
> > > > > As Emerson said, "In general, every evil to
> > > > > which we do not succumb is a benefactor."
> > >
> > > > This sounds a bit like Nietzsche's saying, "That
> > > > which does not kill me, only makes me stronger."
> > > > While Nietzsche had to be right about some things,
> > > > I think the reference to "evil" makes a big
> > > > difference in the interpretation. Nietzsche was
> > > > beyond good and evil -- Emerson had better watch
> > > > the company that he keeps.
> > >
> > > I'm not familiar with Nietzsche, but I suspect that
> > > many parallels between Nietzsche and Emerson could be
> > > found. Emerson extolled the self-reliant individual,
> > > and Nietzsche did the same, I believe. Nietzsche,
> > > like Emerson, was a philosophical idealist. Where,
> > > in your opinion, did Nietzsche go wrong, if indeed he
> > > did?
>
> > Nietzsche seems undeniably to have been
> > an atheist. Interestingly, I don't
> > remember much love in his writings.
>
> Didn't he love one particular "chosen race"?
I believe he, like Wagner, was misused. The Uebermensch is not a racist, so
far as I remember.
ECrownfiel
Macon) writes:
>How about this situation: What if you honestly believe that all human
>suffering is caused by the witch in your village, and all of the other
>villagers agree? Is killing the witch evil? What if the false belief
>is that Jews are poisening the wells and causing the plague? Or that
>blacks are not really human? Or that Quakers are doomed to an eternity
>of suffering for their heresy but you can give them an etenity in heaven
>by torturing them into confessing allegience to the pope? You can have
>the purest intentions and still do evil.
I have a hard time believing that one could be listening to the promptings of
the Holy Spirit and still believe and do those things. Again, the "good
intentions" are really superficial: if these people were truly attentive to
God's will, they would know that what they had "thought was right" was truly
wrong.
That does not mean, of course, that God cannot forgive them. Saying that what
they do is wrong and evil is not the same as saying they will go to Hell -- and
I will come out and confess that I can't manage to believe in Hell in any
literal way. I know some people persist all their lives in resisting the
awareness of God, but I don't know whether their persistence continues after
death or not. If so, I suppose they are creating some kind of Hell for
themselves but I don't see it as the traditional fiery pit that "gets" you if
you haven't been good.
Elizabeth Crownfield
esrevnI eilrahC
In article <19990831082934...@ngol06.aol.com>,
ecrow...@aol.com (ECrownfiel) wrote:
> In article <7qfb4r$m44$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, esrevnI eilrahC
> <inver...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >> Evil is at the level of intent
> >> for me.
> >
> > Elaborate, please.
> >
> > I think we may disagree here. Take the war against
> >Yugoslavia. Many people mistakenly believe that NATO
> >had good and honest intentions. These people have
> >good intentions themselves, and their intentions lead
> >them to support a bombing orgy that devastated a
> >country and provoked two rounds of ethnic cleansing.
> >Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> >lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> >hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> >taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> >sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> >my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> >what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> >gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> >these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> >badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> >his caring, his love.
>
> It's still "intent," though: he intends
> to impose his own prideful ideas on
> others. It must have occurred to him
> that what he does may not be universally
> admired, and yet he chooses his own pride
> over the promptings of others and,
> presumably, his conscience. I have been
> known to do the same (though not to
> the extent of cutting down other people's
> trees....) so I know quite well how
> these things work. :-S
Yes, I do it too -- my yearly Christmas
letter avoids the saccharine platitudes
everyone expects and focuses mainly on my
attempts to combat war and other evils. Or
I might give a subscription to a magazine I
know the recipient needs but doesn't want.
Is my intent evil, or even prideful? No.
I don't think I have all of the answers.
But I have SOME of the answers, and I don't
know how else to share them. Yet the
recipient of the Christmas Card, who
suddenly discovers that the U.S. is bombing
innocent people all over the world, may be
driven to apoplexy by the revelation and
harmed.
Things hinge on how we define pride. Yes,
maybe we should have more humility. But how
much humility is enough? -- eventually we
become quiet as proverbial churchmice, as silent
as the mainstream churches in the U.S., afraid
to say anything to anybody.
I don't think my friend is prideful. He's
just desperate, desperate to please, eqger to
improve the world somehow, even if it means
uprooting shrubs he sees as "ugly"! He is
just trying to be helpful. He's SO helpful,
it's FRIGHTENING!
"We're from the government and we're here
to HELP you!" says the BATF agent, as he looks
out over the devastation created by BATF tanks
and helicopters and flamethrowers.
>
> It also seems pretty clear that there
> were some less-than-pure intentions going
> on in the Yugoslavian situation too.
> Pride certainly comes into it there as
> well: we know what's best for you and
> we will bomb you until you agree.
>
> > As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
> >intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
> >more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
>
> "Good intentions" in that sense are usually
> pretty superficial. "Love" can be superficial
> too; that is, the word gets used to cover up
> some other things that are not so very loving.
> We need to look beyond that superficial level,
> beyond the point of making excuses or whatever,
> and see what really motivates us --
> that is what I think was meant by "intention."
I wholeheartedly agree -- the more self-awareness
we have the better. For example, I have seen how
I used to project my own dark side onto foreign
"enemies", and I have come to understand where my
Cold Holy War beliefs came from. This insight
makes it harder for the government to propagandize
me. I see how my emotions are being manipulated,
and I resist.
However, no matter how much insight I gain, I can
still be fooled. Several years ago, for example, I
mistakenly supported "limited bombing of military
targets in Pale" -- I thought such bombing would
deter "massacres" that I thought were occurring. Now
I have much more information about the war in Bosnia,
and I see that things were not a simple as I assumed.
I fear that the emphasis on intent facilitates an
escape into subjectivity. More and more, we are living
in a media-created fantasy world. Where our fantasy
collides with reality, as in Yugoslavia, thousands of
people are killed, but their deaths go largely unseen,
because they die in the OBJECTIVE world, not on tv.
Things are becoming Orwellian. It's ok for the U.S.
to bomb Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Sudan, etc., because
that's "humanitarian", that's well-intentioned. But
it's wrong for the citizen to criticize this fabulously
violent government, because that's "hateful". Thus
mass-murder becomes the norm, but hate becomes a crime
-- a thought-crime, a crime of intent.
>
> I recently re-read Dante's Purgatorio and found
> it very perceptive on these issues. Dorothy
> Sayers' translation has some excellent commentary
> that helps to illuminate them. Her translation
> itself can be a bit stilted, but the commentary
> is well worthwhile. I read two versions, one a
> literal prose translation and the other hers,
> and the combination worked well.
I'm still stuck somewhere in the Inferno! (I
like the Mark Musa version.) At least I'm in
good company! I imagine Dante getting all the
way to Paradise, then turning back. Something of
this sort happens in a new movie, staring Robin
Williams -- I believe the movie's called "What
Dreams May Come".
>
> Elizabeth Crownfield
Guy Macon
>
>Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote...
>> How about this situation: What if you honestly believe that all human
>> suffering is caused by the witch in your village, and all of the other
>> villagers agree? Is killing the witch evil? What if the false belief
>> is that Jews are poisening the wells and causing the plague? Or that
>> blacks are not really human? Or that Quakers are doomed to an eternity
>> of suffering for their heresy but you can give them an etenity in heaven
>> by torturing them into confessing allegience to the pope? You can have
>> the purest intentions and still do evil.
>>
>have been in a situation where my own sense of evil and my actions were
>prompted by prior knowledge. There are clear and present dangers that
>separate experiences into foolishness and real threat(s).
I am not sure what you mean by "impeachable" here. The dictionary says:
impeach \Im*peach"\, v. t.
[imp. & p. p. Impeached; p. pr. & vb. n. Impeaching.]
Syn: To accuse; arraign; censure; criminate; indict; impair;
disparage; discredit. See Accuse.
1. To hinder; to impede; to prevent. [Obs.]
2. To charge with a crime or misdemeanor; to accuse; especially to charge
(a public officer), before a competent tribunal, with misbehavior in
office; to cite before a tribunal for judgement of official misconduct;
to arraign; as, to impeach a judge. See Impeachment. 3. Hence, to
charge with impropriety; to dishonor; to bring discredit on; to call
in question; as, to impeach one's motives or conduct.
4. (Law) To challenge or discredit the credibility of, as of a witness,
or the validity of, as of commercial paper. When used in law with
reference to a witness, the term signifies, to discredit, to show
or prove unreliable or unworthy of belief; when used in reference
to the credit of witness, the term denotes, to impair, to lessen,
to disparage, to destroy. The credit of a witness may be impeached
by showing that he has made statements out of court contradictory
to what he swears at the trial, or by showing that his reputation
for veracity is bad, etc.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
...none of which makes sense in your context. Could you clarify this
for me? I am somehow missing your point.
>To whit: a business acquaintance who had experience with front-line action
>in Vietnam (and, hence, knew how to use all manner of weaponry) warned me
>that he had failed to act when he sensed a threat to a female friend on the
>part of a third party who seemed unstable and "evil" to him. The woman
>friend ended up dead, he said.
So, did the two of you call the local police to inform them about this
third person being a probable murderer, or did you drive down there
in person? I can conceive of no other moral or logical choice.
> I thought this was just making conversation
A strange conclusion indeed! I would have taken accusations of murder
much more seriously.
> until this same acquaintance grabbed me by the throat within a few
>days of telling me the prior tale. While he was putting extreme
>pressure on my windpipe, he told me that he had certain plans that
>he didn't want me to interfere with--period.
The same acquaintance, and not the third party possible murderer?
You must be leaving something out here. A reasonable person would
not have predicted this action based on the conversation you wrote
about.
O.K. Now you have someone who has just commited assault and battery
on you, threatened you with bodily harm, and accused a third party
of murder. Did it ever occur to you to go to the police? Then again,
maybe hiding might be the best option. Depends on the situation.
> I panicked. I hid out in my apartment for about 10 days, afraid to go
>near our place of business. I would have defended myself if I had to.
> I would lay no claims to "purest intentions," only to self-preservation.
>I had prima facie evidence that my life was in danger.
A chilling tale indeed. Is there more to this story, or are you two
back in your business relationship with this thug?
In the next paragraph you seem to be drawing some sort of conclusion
that is unsupported by the story we just read. If there is a connection
you will have to explain it step by step - I am not seein a connection.
> Ideological confrontations can only result in violence when the
>parties involved have some other agenda to resolve--like the power
>of the Church during the Inquisition. There was no Christian theology
>involved, none.
Certainly torturing people is no part of christian theology, but it
seems like you are saying that everyone who commits evil acts does
so because of impure motives of some kind. I don't buy this.
>And it would be fatuous to dismiss the existence of evil
Are you replying to my post or something in some other newsgroup?
Nobody here has made the slightest attempt to dismiss the existence
of evil. Why would we do a dumb thing like that? I am raising a
valid question that is based on what someone implied - that what makes
an action evil or not is intent. I am not rejecting that notion,
but I am asking about those who do evil with good intentions. Saying
that such people don't exist doesn't make it so. If everyone in
your village believes 100% that there is a person who is the cause
of all the infant deaths, crop failures, etc., it is reasonable for
those people to protect themselves.
Lets try another example:
Several eyewitnesses see a murder. The murderer happens to look
almost exactly like me. Furthermore, I happen to have a good motive
for killing the victim, but I decided not to. I have no alibi.
A jury looks at the evidence and, making the best decision possible
with the evidence, wrongly convicts me. Even I agree that I would have
voted guilty given the evidence. Now of course the murder was evil.
My question is this: was the wrongful conviction and imprisonment
also evil? If so were the jurors commiting evil? This all ties in
to the definition of evil.
Guy Macon
>I have a hard time believing that one could be listening to the promptings of
>the Holy Spirit and still believe and do those things. Again, the "good
>intentions" are really superficial: if these people were truly attentive to
>God's will, they would know that what they had "thought was right" was truly
>wrong.
It sounds like you are saying that evil with good intent cannot exist.
I think that it can. I don't believe that every single villager, after
a lifetime of being taught that whatever the priests say is always true
and good and that their own reasoning and emotions are a snare to them
will somhow discover Quaker principles and start listening to the
promptings of the Holy Spirit. I think that at least some of those
villagers can end up doing evil deeds for pure motives.
The end point that I am working towards is that we should not kill
the witch even if we know that she causes all evil in our village.
We should not persecute the Jews even if we are 100% sure that they
are putting poinen in the wells and thus causing bubonic plague.
We should not put convicted murderers to death even if we are sure
that they did it.
PQ Rada
My heart goes out to you. It is so difficult
when a loved one is cut down in such a way. But to live in the world is to
take chances even in crossing the street. We all know this but usually it
doesn't register.
When my mother was murdered I was greatly taken aback,I am not sure I have ever
really gotten over it. But God has truly sustained me all this time. God Bless
you and your children now.
ala...@mindspring.com
to act in a way that can abrogate the rights of someone else. That
communities have had beliefs that were persuasive and wrong is undeniable.
But the proof that someone has some characteristic that gives rise to
threats to the community is impeachable if there is no tangible evidence. I
would never claim that I am unprejudiced. I would claim that I am careful
not to act out of bigotry. Someone (as above) may believe that Quakers are
doomed because of "heresy." If so, this is God's province. What is
impeachable is the horrible hubris of believing that actions that destroy,
maim, or lead to fraud, are justifiable on the basis of prejudice. When
prejudice is unimpeached, (i.e., unsuspected, unquestioned), then it turns
into bigotry. This is not in Webster, I think. But it is the recognition
that we learn things that are unpleasant or wrong-headed, but don't have to
operate to the detriment of others because of them.
> >To whit: a business acquaintance who had experience with front-line
action
> >in Vietnam (and, hence, knew how to use all manner of weaponry) warned me
> >that he had failed to act when he sensed a threat to a female friend on
the
> >part of a third party who seemed unstable and "evil" to him. The woman
> >friend ended up dead, he said.
>
> So, did the two of you call the local police to inform them about this
> third person being a probable murderer, or did you drive down there
> in person? I can conceive of no other moral or logical choice.
Actually, the original situation had happened some time in the past and had
been adjudicated so far as I knew at the time. And, it could have been sheer
fabrication, too.
> > I thought this was just making conversation
>
> A strange conclusion indeed! I would have taken accusations of murder
> much more seriously.
This particular individual frequently talked of violence, it was not
unusual. He also threatened to kill me if I ever mentioned that he had eaten
Viet Cong flesh when lost on a patrol in the jungles of Vietnam. I was used
to discussions of violence with him--it was no surprise.
> > until this same acquaintance grabbed me by the throat within a few
> >days of telling me the prior tale. While he was putting extreme
> >pressure on my windpipe, he told me that he had certain plans that
> >he didn't want me to interfere with--period.
>
> The same acquaintance, and not the third party possible murderer?
> You must be leaving something out here. A reasonable person would
> not have predicted this action based on the conversation you wrote
> about.
Reasonable or not--it happened. I never met the original murderer.
> O.K. Now you have someone who has just commited assault and battery
> on you, threatened you with bodily harm, and accused a third party
> of murder. Did it ever occur to you to go to the police? Then again,
> maybe hiding might be the best option. Depends on the situation.
Yes, I did want to call the police. I thought I had a witness. When I asked
him about it, he claimed that he saw nothing. I asked a good friend what he
would do in the same situation. He said to forget it. Without a witness, and
being in a big city, no one "would take it seriously."
> > I panicked. I hid out in my apartment for about 10 days, afraid to go
> >near our place of business. I would have defended myself if I had to.
> > I would lay no claims to "purest intentions," only to
self-preservation.
> >I had prima facie evidence that my life was in danger.
>
> A chilling tale indeed. Is there more to this story, or are you two
> back in your business relationship with this thug?
I saw him eventually in a public place. At one point, my potential witness
mentioned to me that the thug might buy me out of the portion of the
business I was leaving fallow in fear of any encounter with him. I took the
intermediary that I would do business remotely, never in private with him.
Nothing ever happened after that. The monetary loss was fairly small when
compared to the risk of being around this individual, so I "ate it."
> In the next paragraph you seem to be drawing some sort of conclusion
> that is unsupported by the story we just read. If there is a connection
> you will have to explain it step by step - I am not seein a connection.
>
> > Ideological confrontations can only result in violence when the
> >parties involved have some other agenda to resolve--like the power
> >of the Church during the Inquisition. There was no Christian theology
> >involved, none.
If you understand power relationships the way that I think I do, the story
hinges on the thug's desire to subjugate me to his goals, to his agenda. To
the extent that the Church has a political agenda, (as it did for
conversions during the Inquisition), theology is abrogated. The agenda of
spiritual theology, IMHO, is to make aware, to offer, to help. Coercive
periods in the Church's history parallel this thug's desire to intimidate me
into submission. These are temporal (or, alternately-phrased, political)
concerns. While the delineations between influence and coercion are not
always clearly drawn, there is obviously some point at which anyone who is
the butt of the effort is harmed.
> Certainly torturing people is no part of christian theology, but it
> seems like you are saying that everyone who commits evil acts does
> so because of impure motives of some kind. I don't buy this.
Yes. This is my definition. I don't think that misfortune or accident is the
same as impure intent.
I think you may be confusing the need for redress in the face of harm. I
hold that forgiveness depends on justice. They are coterminous, can't have
one without the other.
> >And it would be fatuous to dismiss the existence of evil
>
> Are you replying to my post or something in some other newsgroup?
> Nobody here has made the slightest attempt to dismiss the existence
> of evil. Why would we do a dumb thing like that? I am raising a
> valid question that is based on what someone implied - that what makes
> an action evil or not is intent. I am not rejecting that notion,
> but I am asking about those who do evil with good intentions. Saying
> that such people don't exist doesn't make it so. If everyone in
> your village believes 100% that there is a person who is the cause
> of all the infant deaths, crop failures, etc., it is reasonable for
> those people to protect themselves.
This seems to be decidable in a court of law, where Evil has seldom been a
proper subject for determination.
Any other "evidence" must be impeached if it is not factual. Again, we have
the right to influence, but not to condemn.
> Lets try another example:
>
> Several eyewitnesses see a murder. The murderer happens to look
> almost exactly like me. Furthermore, I happen to have a good motive
> for killing the victim, but I decided not to. I have no alibi.
> A jury looks at the evidence and, making the best decision possible
> with the evidence, wrongly convicts me. Even I agree that I would have
> voted guilty given the evidence. Now of course the murder was evil.
> My question is this: was the wrongful conviction and imprisonment
> also evil? If so were the jurors commiting evil? This all ties in
> to the definition of evil.
No, the wrongful conviction was an accident of verisimilitude. Your reaction
to it may be anger, disgust, disparagement of the system. But acting to
enforce justice assumes the risk of error. The alternative is worse--by your
own arguments above.
Alan Roth
ala...@mindspring.com
Esther Murer <emu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37C161...@worldnet.att.net...
> Charley Earp wrote:
> >
> Many
> > feminists argue that systemic sexism is still too entrenched for the
> > deconstruction of feminist politics.
> >
> > Similar deconstructions have been made for the claims of people of color
> > and class struggle.
> >
> Would somebody please define "deconstruction" in words of one syllable?
more natural order.
esrevnI eilrahC
Then you seem to be conceding my point --
that evil exists apart from intent. It can
be the result of a LACK of intent.
> > > A guard who protects from intruders may
> > > intentionally inflict pain, suffering,
> > > or even death, as part of his/her
> > > duties, but this is not Evil. There is
> > > no insatiable, self-aggrandizing,
> > > hunger or fixation in the guard's
> > > acts; it is the egoistic element of
> > > unbound self that turns a Charles
> > > Manson into someone who is Evil.
> >
> > It's not evil from the perspective of the
> > guard, but it IS evil from the perspective of
> > the innocent bystanders who are killed by the
> > trigger-happy guard.
> First, I am not sure that the guard is
> trigger-happy, and, second, I would
> hope that he would show due caution
> if "civilians" are present.
Even if he did show such caution, he might
still kill bystanders. For the relatives of
the dead, this might be seen as an "evil event".
The killing might have evil consequences --
orphaned children, etc.. Thus evil has been
promulgated, through good intent.
> > ... Paradoxically, I think
I would omit the "ifs". See the Peter Gowan
article, cited below.
> Any time one acts there is danger. It is
> not reckless to defend oneself, nor it is
> reckless to promote the welfare of minorities
> in other countries,
Serbs are the minority in Kosovo. We were
told that "the Serbs" were perpetrating "genocide"
against "the Albanians", but in fact the SERB
population that was declining (to 10%) and the
ALBANIAN population was increasing (to 85%).
> the collateral damage is not the gauge of evil.
What about disproportionate "collateral damage"?
Take the war against Panama -- the U.S. murdered
2,000 in order to arrest one man!
> And, yes, I do remember
> that this ng is quaker.
Which means?
>
> > You mention Milosevic, but Milosevic was not the
> > primary cause of the ethnic strife. He is simply
> > the NATO-designated scapegoat. Singling him out,
> > or singling out the entire Serb ethnic group, as
> > NATO propaganda also does, simply deflects attention
> > from the real causes of the wars in Yugoslavia,
> > which are economic and political -- the I.M.F.
> > austerity program, sanctions, secessionist movements,
> > Nazi emigre groups nurtured by the CIA,
> What? Why in the world would the CIA do that?
Anti-communism. Tens of thousands of Nazis were
brought to the U.S. after WW II and given positions
at the CIA. The CIA has been working with Nazis
and fascists ever since -- Operation Condor in Latin
America, for example, support for the _contras in
Central America, support for Islamic fanatics in
Afghanistan, etc..
See
http://suc.suc.org/~kosta/tar/awc/07.html
or
http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/tragedy.htm
>
> > ...KLA
It was more than just "involvement" -- it
was outright aggression. Would you talk
about the German "involvement" in the
Sudeten in 1938, or German "involvement"
in Poland in 1939?
>
> > > > Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> > > > lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> > > > hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> > > > taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> > > > sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> > > > my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> > > > what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> > > > gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> > > > these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> > > > badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> > > > his caring, his love.
> >
> > > This may be neurotic behavior, but I don't
> > > see how Love and Evil can co-exist.
> >
> > Well, take the Inquisition, then. The church
> > "loved" its poor heretical sinners so much that
> > it burnt them at the stake, "for the good of their
> > souls". Love can be VERY self-righteous!
> We both know that this was the
> worst imaginable hyposcrisy.
Do we? I think many of the Inquisitors
were SINCERE. Sincerity is even more
frightening than hypocrisy!
> Again, from an
> existential viewpoint, it is the intent
> that was important. It was not for
> the good of the sinners, not in
> any way, shape, or form.
I disagree. Religion enables people to
rationalize anything. For another example,
consider the Assassins -- they believed
that eternal paradise would be the reward
for perpetrating the assassination.
>
> > > > As I see it, the road to hell is paved with good
> > > > intentions. Most religions preach love, but more and
> > > > more I'm coming to see love as the gateway to tragedy.
> >
> > > In the Panthenon of the Gods there
> > > is representation for many emotions.
> > > [...]
> >
> > Please elaborate. I like polytheism, but I'm not
> > sure how you manage to bring it into the discussion!
> There is a time to love and a time
> to hate. A time to build and a time to
> destroy. The Greek Gods have emotional
> characteristics that have occasionally
> been identified with an attempt to
> personify complex personal characteristics
> in the form of external influences. This
> would constitute a psychology that is
> anchored in mythology. And, I am truly
> sorry, but I don't remember any references
> on this subject. It was something that
> came up too many years ago. But, obviously,
> I liked the idea.
The gods were closer to being human, and
thus better able to inspire human beings.
I like polytheism because it shifts the
focus away from the vengeful ego of a single
lonely god and towards the healthy equable
relationships between gods and godesses.
Moreover, every group and every country has
their own deity, their own representation in
the divine -- one no longer has to ask
whether god is male or female, black or white,
etc.. Thus no one group is privileged or
"chosen" or superior.
ala...@mindspring.com
out a little more--if there is no impulse to defend and/or protect then (to
be consistent) I would have to say that allowing harm is not evil. If, by
contrast, (i.e., by either instinct or training), there is an "appropriate
impulse" and it is suppressed by reason or fear, yes, then, distinctly,
allowing harm has turned into evil. The problem is that the actions may be
the same in either case. I don't think any of this is in contradiction to
Burke.
This whole argument came to a head in about 1981 (?) when, you may remember,
a jet aircraft crashed into a bridge in Arlington, VA, on approach to D.C.
National Airport in a blizzard. I was on my way home from work that night,
got stuck trying to cross the Potomac on the D.C. Beltway, (wasn't allowed
onto it), and stopped in a restaurant in Virginia to wait it out. I saw the
reports of the crash on the T.V. over the bar while I was waiting for my
dinner to be served.
I was confused, somewhat, later that night (or was it the next day?)
when reports about the heroic efforts of one, Lennie Skutnick, came out. His
chances of making a rescue were small, but he succeeded, and I wondered if I
would leave the comfort of the shore to jump into 35-degree (F), water to
save a stewardess, particularly, if I had reason to believe that my own life
had a better than 50-50 chance of being forfeit.
I mentioned this dilemma to a co-worker that I respected quite a bit. He was
just a little older than I, so I thought with the wisdom of years... To
my amazement his response was that one either did the thing or did not--that
is, there was no way to analyze the chance of success--"How would you know?"
still rings in my ears.
> > > > A guard who protects from intruders may
> > > > intentionally inflict pain, suffering,
> > > > or even death, as part of his/her
> > > > duties, but this is not Evil. There is
> > > > no insatiable, self-aggrandizing,
> > > > hunger or fixation in the guard's
> > > > acts; it is the egoistic element of
> > > > unbound self that turns a Charles
> > > > Manson into someone who is Evil.
> > >
> > > It's not evil from the perspective of the
> > > guard, but it IS evil from the perspective of
> > > the innocent bystanders who are killed by the
> > > trigger-happy guard.
>
> > First, I am not sure that the guard is
> > trigger-happy, and, second, I would
> > hope that he would show due caution
> > if "civilians" are present.
>
> Even if he did show such caution, he might
> still kill bystanders. For the relatives of
> the dead, this might be seen as an "evil event".
> The killing might have evil consequences --
> orphaned children, etc.. Thus evil has been
> promulgated, through good intent.
Intent is more specific for me. A causal chain can be started without
knowledge. I don't remember if Lennie(above) had a family, but would you
tell him to stay on the shore because his volunteering of himself might
orphan his own children? What about firemen and policemen are they "whores
to evil" because they risk their lives for pay?
Either one controls everything successfully, (which seems a lost cause), or
he/she acts with best intent and as much prior knowledge as the situation
will allow.
> > And, yes, I do remember
> > that this ng is quaker.
>
> Which means?
Pacificism was once a goal for me too, but now is lost to pragmatism. MAD
made sense eventually.
> > > You mention Milosevic, but Milosevic was not the
> > > primary cause of the ethnic strife. He is simply
> > > the NATO-designated scapegoat. Singling him out,
> > > or singling out the entire Serb ethnic group, as
> > > NATO propaganda also does, simply deflects attention
> > > from the real causes of the wars in Yugoslavia,
> > > which are economic and political -- the I.M.F.
> > > austerity program, sanctions, secessionist movements,
> > > Nazi emigre groups nurtured by the CIA,
>
> > What? Why in the world would the CIA do that?
>
> Anti-communism. Tens of thousands of Nazis were
> brought to the U.S. after WW II and given positions
> at the CIA. The CIA has been working with Nazis
> and fascists ever since -- Operation Condor in Latin
> America, for example, support for the _contras in
> Central America, support for Islamic fanatics in
> Afghanistan, etc..
I probably already have a record with the FBI and the CIA. It makes no sense
for me to radicalize myself any further. I hope the reports are wrong, but I
have heard of worse. I don't know what any citizen or group can do about
deconstructing the excesses of the Cold War. People die of old age
eventually--they take their mindsets and guilt with them.
Would you say that the Peace of Versailles was just?
> > > > > Another example: I have a friend whose good intentions
> > > > > lead him to forcibly impose his values on others. I
> > > > > hired him to do some construction, and he ended up
> > > > > taking over my entire yard, moving, trimming and
> > > > > sometimes cutting down my trees and shrubs, all without
> > > > > my permission, simply because he thinks he knows better
> > > > > what a yard should look like! He gives people expensive
> > > > > gifts they don't need because HE thinks they SHOULD need
> > > > > these things, etc.. If I challenge him, he becomes
> > > > > badly hurt, because I seem to be rejecting his intent,
> > > > > his caring, his love.
> > >
> > > > This may be neurotic behavior, but I don't
> > > > see how Love and Evil can co-exist.
> > >
> > > Well, take the Inquisition, then. The church
> > > "loved" its poor heretical sinners so much that
> > > it burnt them at the stake, "for the good of their
> > > souls". Love can be VERY self-righteous!
>
> > We both know that this was the
> > worst imaginable hyposcrisy.
>
> Do we? I think many of the Inquisitors
> were SINCERE. Sincerity is even more
> frightening than hypocrisy!
The brainwashers were evil; the brainwashed were victims as well as
antagonists. And if I had been outside the barbed wire as a guard at
Auschwitz, I would have fled Germany as peacefully as I could have. (I
started out Jewish, but had no relatives in concentration camps that I know
of.) God must decide which guards were evil. The leadership was tried at
Nueremberg--no--it's over?
> > Again, from an
> > existential viewpoint, it is the intent
> > that was important. It was not for
> > the good of the sinners, not in
> > any way, shape, or form.
>
> I disagree. Religion enables people to
> rationalize anything. For another example,
> consider the Assassins -- they believed
> that eternal paradise would be the reward
> for perpetrating the assassination.
Ah, choices and brainwashing, again. I am too individualistic to buy into
submission to authority to commit something I would deem murder--but give me
a particular situation before I decide what I would do. We both know that
the opposite to paradise might be the outcome for the assassin--(but is not
Hell just one's distancing from God?). This is true whenever someone else's
life is taken into one's own hands. Scorcese showed a Christ-image that
could easily have been interpreted as an anti-Christ in The Last
Tempatation... It's not a child's game.
I like polytheism because of this toleration you mention and because it
allows for multiple "perfections" as emulations of the characteristics of
differing lofty ideals. This opens societies rather than closing them
towards a single icon.
I seem to remember one book mentioning that the Greeks might have used this
form of ideation as a way to popularize psychological concepts--but this may
be a slight exaggeration.
Guy Macon
> I was confused, somewhat, later that night (or was it the next day?)
>when reports about the heroic efforts of one, Lennie Skutnick, came out. His
>chances of making a rescue were small, but he succeeded, and I wondered if I
>would leave the comfort of the shore to jump into 35-degree (F), water to
>save a stewardess, particularly, if I had reason to believe that my own life
>had a better than 50-50 chance of being forfeit.
>
>I mentioned this dilemma to a co-worker that I respected quite a bit. He was
>just a little older than I, so I thought with the wisdom of years... To
>my amazement his response was that one either did the thing or did not--that
>is, there was no way to analyze the chance of success--"How would you know?"
>still rings in my ears.
He was wrong. There certainly is a way to analyze the chance of success.
"How would you know?" is answered by evaluating the situation, using your
brain, and assigning probabilities. I once saw a Japenese man in Tokyo
assault someone else. I walked up to him and held his arms to his sides.
That's because I was a foot taller and twice his weight, I knew that he
wasn't armed, and he was almost ready to go into a coma from too much
alcohol. I also once saw a bunch of gang bangers starting to assualt
someone in Macarthur Park in Los Angeles. I got out of sight and called
the LAPD. My physical intervention was unlikely to help much.
I would jump into 35-degree F, water to save a stewardess, because I
have jumped into 32 to 33 degree water, and know that I can swim for
at least 5 minutes in that situation. If I were Lennie Skutnick, I
would have evaluated my swimming ability and general health and made
the best decision that I could.
Starbuck
a
more natural order.<<
What is a "natural order"? Isn't that in itself an artificial assumption?
(Sorry, but I just had to ask)
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
ala...@mindspring.com
> In article <7qm6gh$rkr$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, ala...@mindspring.com
(ala...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> >when reports about the heroic efforts of one, Lennie Skutnick, came out.
His
> >chances of making a rescue were small, but he succeeded, and I wondered
if I
> >would leave the comfort of the shore to jump into 35-degree (F), water to
> >save a stewardess, particularly, if I had reason to believe that my own
life
> >had a better than 50-50 chance of being forfeit.
> >
> >I mentioned this dilemma to a co-worker that I respected quite a bit. He
was
> >just a little older than I, so I thought with the wisdom of years...
To
> >my amazement his response was that one either did the thing or did
not--that
> >is, there was no way to analyze the chance of success--"How would you
know?"
> >still rings in my ears.
>
> "How would you know?" is answered by evaluating the situation, using your
> brain, and assigning probabilities.
goodness-impulses, not because we have spent the time to ascertain a
favorable probability of success.
..I once saw a Japenese man in Tokyo
> assault someone else. I walked up to him and held his arms to his sides.
> That's because I was a foot taller and twice his weight, I knew that he
> wasn't armed, and he was almost ready to go into a coma from too much
> alcohol.
I did something similar in Washington, D.C. when an Asian (and small)
chauffeur went after someone who took his parking spot with a tire iron. He
never did stop telling me to let him go because he had "diplomatic
immunity."
..I also once saw a bunch of gang bangers starting to assualt
> someone in Macarthur Park in Los Angeles. I got out of sight and called
> the LAPD. My physical intervention was unlikely to help much.
But did you stop to think about it? Or did you recognize the futility of the
immediate situation some other way?
> I would jump into 35-degree F, water to save a stewardess, because I
> have jumped into 32 to 33 degree water, and know that I can swim for
> at least 5 minutes in that situation. If I were Lennie Skutnick, I
> would have evaluated my swimming ability and general health and made
> the best decision that I could.
But how to make the decision, is still the question. Rescue is either
rational, it is trained, or it is in response to something else--whatever it
is, it seems to depend on the distinct opposite of Evil.
Alan Roth
esrevnI eilrahC
Our arguments have gotten too attenuated for me.
Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
Or maybe we should start over from scratch. You
position evil in the subjective -- in intent. I
position evil in the objective result. Our culture
is already living in a "media" propaganda fantasy --
MORE subjectivity is the last thing we need. We
need to show more respect for the victim's perspective.
As the victim sees it, all bombs falling on him or her
are evil. A well-intentioned bomb kills just as surely
as an ill-intentioned bomb.
Here's an interesting question for you. Imagine a
man who is full of "evil intentions", whatever such
may be. But whenever he tries to do bad, he ends up
doing good instead. He is the opposite of the well-
intentioned "do gooder" who sets out to help people
and ends up harming them. My character sets out to
harm people and ends up helping them. For example,
take a world leader who attempts to start a war but
inadvertantly creates global peace instead. Or, to
borrow from an example you gave, What if a man
jumps into the icy waters with the intention of
raping the stewardess, but ends up saving her life
instead? Would we think of such a person as
"evil"? Or would we allow the inadvertant results
of his actions to take precedence over the intent?
<snip>
> > > And, yes, I do remember
> > > that this ng is quaker.
> >
> > Which means?
> Pacificism was once a goal for me too,
> but now is lost to pragmatism. MAD
> made sense eventually.
It seems to me that the pragmatic approach
builds peace by sharing information, and
perspective with other people. This peace
undermines the power of the military-media
authorities and thus obviates MAD.
Quakers, however, seem to define pacifism
as the REJECTION of all "violence", even
violence used in self-defense. Thus the
aggresor and the victim are put on the same
plane. I would rather see pacifism as an
active EXPRESSION of virtue -- sharing
information, developing self-awareness,
exercising tolerance, building bridges,
fostering trade, etc..
<snip>
> I probably already have a record with the
> FBI and the CIA. It makes no sense
> for me to radicalize myself any further.
> I hope the reports are wrong, but I
> have heard of worse. I don't know what
> any citizen or group can do about
> deconstructing the excesses of the
> Cold War.
Become informed, and inform others. Most
Americans still believe that the U.S. was
the Good Guy, just REACTING to the "Soviet
Threat", that the U.S. had "no choice" but
to wage wars everywhere, that Nicaraguans
"deserved to die" because they were
"communists", etc..
> People die of old age eventually -- they
> take their mindsets and guilt with them.
The Cold Holy Warriors die long before
that -- die spiritually. How can those of
us in the peace and freedom movement become
more spiritually alive? -- until the power
of our ideas becomes a match for the power
of the big-money "media"?
>
<snip>
> > It was more than just "involvement" -- it
> > was outright aggression. Would you talk
> > about the German "involvement" in the
> > Sudeten in 1938, or German "involvement"
> > in Poland in 1939?
> Would you say that the Peace of Versailles
> was just?
No, Much of the blame for WW I and WW II
should be assigned to England and France -- I
don't mean to single-out Germany. Ok, let's
pick on another country: Would you talk about
British "involvement" in the Boer War, the
Opium Wars, the Crimean War, etc.? Would you
talk about U.S. "involvement" in the War Against
Mexico?
> > Do we? I think many of the Inquisitors
> > were SINCERE. Sincerity is even more
> > frightening than hypocrisy!
> The brainwashers were evil; the brainwashed
> were victims as well as antagonists. And if
> I had been outside the barbed wire as a guard
> at Auschwitz, I would have fled Germany as
> peacefully as I could have. (I started out
> Jewish, but had no relatives in concentration
> camps that I know of.) God must decide which
> guards were evil. The leadership was tried at
> Nueremberg -- no -- it's over?
Nuremberg was "victors justice" -- i.e., a
sham. REAL justice would put ALL of the
evil-doers on trial -- e.g., the British and
French appeasers who helped Hitler rise to
power. That would be radical! Imagine! --
real justice! Justice applied not just to the
peasants and the vanquished, but to EVERYONE!
The rulers of the victorious powers would no
longer be above the law. Justice would begin
to make sense! It would become more than just
an opportunity for a show-trial, more than
just the same old self-righteous Good Guys /
Bad Guys propaganda. We would get a chance to
finally look at OURSELVES! That's the sort of
justice we need.
>
<snip>
> > The gods were closer to being human, and
> > thus better able to inspire human beings.
> >
> > I like polytheism because it shifts the
> > focus away from the vengeful ego of a single
> > lonely god and towards the healthy equable
> > relationships between gods and godesses.
> > Moreover, every group and every country has
> > their own deity, their own representation in
> > the divine -- one no longer has to ask
> > whether god is male or female, black or white,
> > etc.. Thus no one group is privileged or
> > "chosen" or superior.
> I like polytheism because of this toleration
> you mention and because it allows for multiple
> "perfections" as emulations of the characteristics of
> differing lofty ideals. This opens societies
> rather than closing them towards a single icon.
>
> I seem to remember one book mentioning that the
> Greeks might have used this form of ideation
> as a way to popularize psychological concepts
> -- but this may be a slight exaggeration.
James Hillman has developed what might be called
"polytheistic psychology". He grounds his brilliant
post-Jungian psychology in Greek mythology, among
other things. Note: if the gods and godesses act
THROUGH us, then evil is once again outside of us,
beyond our intent. Thus the myth system draws us
out of subjectivity and towards the objective world.
If subjectivity is all, then why even bother with
the physical world? Why not live in a cave and
engage in omphaloskepsis all day long? What's the
point of living here? If the material world -- in
which people are bombed and die real deaths -- is
of no consequence to us, then what is this world
FOR?
ala...@mindspring.com
> In article <7qm6gh$rkr$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > esrevnI eilrahC <inver...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7qku1j$osd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Our arguments have gotten too attenuated for me.
> Maybe we will have to agree to disagree.
>
> Or maybe we should start over from scratch. You
> position evil in the subjective -- in intent. I
> position evil in the objective result. Our culture
> is already living in a "media" propaganda fantasy --
> MORE subjectivity is the last thing we need. We
> need to show more respect for the victim's perspective.
> As the victim sees it, all bombs falling on him or her
> are evil. A well-intentioned bomb kills just as surely
> as an ill-intentioned bomb.
little)--victimization is to be avoided if it is at all possible. This is
why the decision to kill is taken on only with the gravest provocations. All
killing is "bad;" some is necessary, the rest is evil. If all killing were
evil, then, capital punishment, abortion, and self-protection using equal
force, would all be outlawed.
> Here's an interesting question for you. Imagine a
> man who is full of "evil intentions", whatever such
> may be. But whenever he tries to do bad, he ends up
> doing good instead. He is the opposite of the well-
> intentioned "do gooder" who sets out to help people
> and ends up harming them. My character sets out to
> harm people and ends up helping them. For example,
> take a world leader who attempts to start a war but
> inadvertantly creates global peace instead. Or, to
> borrow from an example you gave, What if a man
> jumps into the icy waters with the intention of
> raping the stewardess, but ends up saving her life
> instead? Would we think of such a person as
> "evil"? Or would we allow the inadvertant results
> of his actions to take precedence over the intent?
I'm trying to think of examples of either of these situations, and I can't.
Reality follows art.
Try some method acting and you'll understand how important intent really is.
> <snip>
>
> > > > And, yes, I do remember
> > > > that this ng is quaker.
> > >
> > > Which means?
>
> > Pacificism was once a goal for me too,
> > but now is lost to pragmatism. MAD
> > made sense eventually.
>
> It seems to me that the pragmatic approach
> builds peace by sharing information, and
> perspective with other people. This peace
> undermines the power of the military-media
> authorities and thus obviates MAD.
While I was in college (during the Cold War and not too long after one of
the confrontations with the Soviets in Berlin), a fellow student suggested
that the U.S. should withdraw it's troops some 50 or 100 miles west, away
from East Germany. He fully believed that the Soviets would follow in
backing away from the border. There have been quite a few years in between
for the West to educate and to share in perspective with others--eventually,
this is the solution, but I suspect my friend's actions could have escalated
into WW-III.
> Quakers, however, seem to define pacifism
> as the REJECTION of all "violence", even
> violence used in self-defense. Thus the
> aggresor and the victim are put on the same
> plane. I would rather see pacifism as an
> active EXPRESSION of virtue -- sharing
> information, developing self-awareness,
> exercising tolerance, building bridges,
> fostering trade, etc..
No disagreement here. But first an "enemy" has to stop its killing. Mainland
China should be careful about how it uses its tanks. One can't co-opt Hong
Kong and kill students, all at the same time.
> <snip>
>
> > I probably already have a record with the
> > FBI and the CIA. It makes no sense
> > for me to radicalize myself any further.
> > I hope the reports are wrong, but I
> > have heard of worse. I don't know what
> > any citizen or group can do about
> > deconstructing the excesses of the
> > Cold War.
>
> Become informed, and inform others. Most
> Americans still believe that the U.S. was
> the Good Guy, just REACTING to the "Soviet
> Threat", that the U.S. had "no choice" but
> to wage wars everywhere, that Nicaraguans
> "deserved to die" because they were
> "communists", etc..
Don't forget that Castro turned on us, though.
> > People die of old age eventually -- they
> > take their mindsets and guilt with them.
>
> The Cold Holy Warriors die long before
> that -- die spiritually. How can those of
> us in the peace and freedom movement become
> more spiritually alive? -- until the power
> of our ideas becomes a match for the power
> of the big-money "media"?
I'm not sure what you expect here? McNamara has certainly been forthcoming
about the mindset that he worked under and its horrible effects in Vietnam.
This is unusual in history--give him and the press some credit. The only
thing that might change the overall climate is some new political theory
that leads to new ways to maintain stability in the world. Realpolitik is
getting a little long-in-the-tooth.
I would like to see the U.N. strengthened, but, first, it must become more
responsible. Or is this a chicken and egg problem? "Don't put all of your
eggs into one basket."
> <snip>
>
> > > It was more than just "involvement" -- it
> > > was outright aggression. Would you talk
> > > about the German "involvement" in the
> > > Sudeten in 1938, or German "involvement"
> > > in Poland in 1939?
>
> > Would you say that the Peace of Versailles
> > was just?
>
> No, Much of the blame for WW I and WW II
> should be assigned to England and France -- I
> don't mean to single-out Germany. Ok, let's
> pick on another country: Would you talk about
> British "involvement" in the Boer War, the
> Opium Wars, the Crimean War, etc.? Would you
> talk about U.S. "involvement" in the War Against
> Mexico?
If we're arguing over semantics, that's one thing. If we are going to
repeatedly go back in time to find a villain, you can count me out. Learning
from the past is one thing--reconvening the jury is quite something else.
Again, the U.N. and the World Court would have to take over. It will happen
gradually, but the past can't be retried.
If you would like to start another thread on responsibility and individual
versus situational (or objective) participation in creating it, I can
contribute. I see the gods internally as well as externally, so the
preceding paragraph is not definitive for me. Myth is inherently subjective
for me--we must agree to disagree on this one, I think.
> If subjectivity is all, then why even bother with
> the physical world? Why not live in a cave and
> engage in omphaloskepsis all day long? What's the
> point of living here? If the material world -- in
> which people are bombed and die real deaths -- is
> of no consequence to us, then what is this world
> FOR?
I don't have my dictionary with me, but from context I would guess that
"omphaloskepsis" has something to do with meditative escape. I have no idea
what this has to do with discriminating between different Gestalts. I
suppose if you want to create a new paradigm self-involvement would be
paramount for a while, but there's plenty in life to keep me occupied. Vive
les differences. :-)
esrevnI eilrahC
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
> In article <19990901073623...@ngol06.aol.com>,
ecrow...@aol.com (ECrownfiel) wrote:
>
> >I have a hard time believing that
> >one could be listening to the promptings of
> >the Holy Spirit and still believe and do
> >those things. Again, the "good
> >intentions" are really superficial: if
> >these people were truly attentive to
> >God's will, they would know that what
> >they had "thought was right" was truly
> >wrong.
>
> It sounds like you are saying that
> evil with good intent cannot exist.
> I think that it can. I don't believe
> that every single villager, after
> a lifetime of being taught that
> whatever the priests say is always true
> and good and that their own reasoning
> and emotions are a snare to them
> will somhow discover Quaker principles
> and start listening to the
> promptings of the Holy Spirit. I
> think that at least some of those
> villagers can end up doing evil
> deeds for pure motives.
>
> The end point that I am working
> towards is that we should not kill
> the witch even if we know that she
> causes all evil in our village.
> We should not persecute the Jews
> even if we are 100% sure that they
> are putting poinen in the wells and
> thus causing bubonic plague.
> We should not put convicted
> murderers to death even if we are sure
> that they did it.
That it is even necessary to make this
argument demonstrates the extent to which
subjectivism has taken over our culture.
Or perhaps it is not so much subjectivism
as it is a retreat from the objective,
and a retreat from the responsibilities
of the citizen in the public realm.
So long as I "feel good about myself",
nothing else matters -- so our culture
teaches. Even the bank robber feels good
about himself and may well have, from his
own perspective at least, good intentions.
For example, I once lived in a spiritual
commune. Six months after I fled, three
memebers of the commune tried to rob a bank.
Their intent was to obtain funds for the
benefit of their religious leader -- what
could be more noble?!
Similarly, many of us who subscribe to the
NATzO "cult of force" had good intentions as
we blithely fomented lawlessness, ethnic
cleansing, environmental ruin, and economic
disaster. We need to learn how to QUESTION
such intents, such beliefs. We need to take
responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES of our
acts. The consequences may not matter much to
us, as we live in our little subjective caves,
but they do matter to our victims -- and why
should the perspective of the victims be so
much less valid than our own?
ECrownfiel
>>I have a hard time believing that one could be listening to the promptings
>of
>>the Holy Spirit and still believe and do those things. Again, the "good
>>intentions" are really superficial: if these people were truly attentive to
>>God's will, they would know that what they had "thought was right" was truly
>>wrong.
>
>It sounds like you are saying that evil with good intent cannot exist.
>I think that it can. I don't believe that every single villager, after
>a lifetime of being taught that whatever the priests say is always true
>and good and that their own reasoning and emotions are a snare to them
>will somhow discover Quaker principles and start listening to the
>promptings of the Holy Spirit. I think that at least some of those
>villagers can end up doing evil deeds for pure motives.
>
>The end point that I am working towards is that we should not kill
>the witch even if we know that she causes all evil in our village.
>We should not persecute the Jews even if we are 100% sure that they
>are putting poinen in the wells and thus causing bubonic plague.
>We should not put convicted murderers to death even if we are sure
>that they did it.
I agree, but I think we are getting into the question of defining evil. Is
evil the same thing as "wrong"? As "sin"? As "bad"? I'm not sure it is, but
then I am not so sure what evil is anyway.
I guess what I think is that you can't exactly do an "evil deed for a pure
motive." I think if your motives are *wholly* pure then what you do is a
mistake and not an evil deed. But by "wholly pure" I don't mean only in your
conscious mind. I am well aware of the twisted logic that leads people to
commit wrong acts, but I think in such cases people still have the chance to
listen to God's voice telling them that what they do is wrong. Believing the
propaganda that tells you to persecute Jews does not, to my mind, make your
motives "wholly pure." I don't believe that anyone in this world can be so
brainwashed that they can hear *no* voice, either another person's or God's,
trying to put a stop to such wrong acts.
I think there are in-between cases where pure motives or brainwashing can lead
you to make a moral mistake that has terrible consequences. For example,
someone who turned a runaway slave in to the authorities might truly believe
they were doing the right thing because the law required them to do it, etc. I
am not sure I would call the person who turned the slave in "evil," just wrong.
The authorities who then beat him, etc., would be committing an evil because
it is an act of volition in a way that simply turning him in would not be.
I suppose I have Huck Finn in the back of my mind since he faces exactly that
dilemma. According to what he has been taught, it is immoral for him to
protect Jim: he is breaking the law, he is defying the authority of those who
know better than he (or so he believes), and he is even stealing valuable
property belonging to someone else. In the end he does what he believes to be
wrong -- he protects Jim from the authorities and he believes it is only his
own moral weakness that makes him do it. Of course most readers will see it
for the moral strength it really is.
But if Huck had stopped short of that decision, if he had not hidden Jim, would
he have been "evil" or only tragically mistaken? I suppose I think that he
would be wrong but not evil -- I think I would reserve the word "evil" for
those who committed more wilfull acts. But it is a little hard to know quite
where to draw the line.
Any other thoughts?
Elizabeth Crownfield.
kqu...@hotmail.com
ecrow...@aol.com (ECrownfiel) wrote:
>...
> Any other thoughts?
Friends & Christians,
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes
will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil."
Ge 3:5
Peace of the Lord,
David Christainsen
kqu...@hotmail.com
cmgre...@aol.comNOSPAM (Cmgreenlnd) wrote:
> Dear Esther (and others) --
>
> I think that Friends across the spectrum of belief have felt the
effects first
> of the modernist/fundamentalist debate, and the subsequent
post-modernist (or
> neo-orthodox) view.
>
> David Tracy postulates a liberal modernist model for theology as "one
that
> accepts the distinctively modern committment to the values of free and
open
> inquiry, autonomous judgement, critical investigation of all claims to
> scientific, historical, philosophical and religious truth". [Blessed
Rage for
> Order, pp. 25-26].
>...
Christine,
Christians say --- no one has ever seen God except
Jesus Christ, who has made Him known.
By all means, let's have free inquiry but we can build
on the shoulders of others and we don't have to start from
ground zero.
So, traditionally, theology has been a specific weakness
of the Society of Friends --- not to say they are the only ones.
Will there be general agreement issuing from
the modernist/fundamentalist debate? Are you kidding?
Are the bulk of Friends Jewish in their outlook
on God? Probably not, but I know I am.
Thanks in advance for provoking thought,
Manny Olds
> I agree, but I think we are getting into the question of defining evil.
> Is evil the same thing as "wrong"? As "sin"? As "bad"? I'm not sure
> it is, but then I am not so sure what evil is anyway.
And this is where we started.
One thing that leaves me unsatisfied is that it is obvious that most
people most often use "evil" to mean something quite different from the
definition that people explained to me here. People seem to be referring
to some kind of semi-sentient, instinctive, being or force or power
actively pulling us away from Godliness. They speak of evil, not as
classification for some kinds of human actions, but as something that has
an existence of its own. And yet not fully as a synonym for "the Devil" or
"the Adversary".
So, I am still left wondering what, in that sense, is Evil? When people
use the word that way, what do they mean? And where does God come into
*that* usage?
Another unresolved question, for me, is where the other definition of Evil
gets you. Evil is failing to do good, which is God's will. We know what is
good because it is God's will; we know it is God's will because it is
good. We break out of that tail-chase with the assumption that what God
wants is for us to behave in ways that increase the harmony and well-being
of the human community. And we work out what that is empirically.
Again, in day to day practice, where does God come into it? How is it
different, aside from the nice gold bow, from what every one else in every
other belief system is expected to do anyway?
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
-- Edmund Burke
Joe Davison
Manny Olds wrote:
>
> ECrownfiel <ecrow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree, but I think we are getting into the question of defining evil.
> > Is evil the same thing as "wrong"? As "sin"? As "bad"? I'm not sure
> > it is, but then I am not so sure what evil is anyway.
>
> And this is where we started.
>
> One thing that leaves me unsatisfied is that it is obvious that most
> people most often use "evil" to mean something quite different from the
> definition that people explained to me here. People seem to be referring
> to some kind of semi-sentient, instinctive, being or force or power
> actively pulling us away from Godliness. They speak of evil, not as
> classification for some kinds of human actions, but as something that has
> an existence of its own. And yet not fully as a synonym for "the Devil" or
> "the Adversary".
> So, I am still left wondering what, in that sense, is Evil? When people
> use the word that way, what do they mean? And where does God come into
> *that* usage?
Hmmm. Reading about the synonyms for Bad in Webster's New World
Dictionary
of the American Language, I find:
'evil' and 'wicked" connote willful violation of a moral code, but
'evil' ofthen has ominous or malevolent implications (an evil hour)
and 'wicked' is sometimes weakened in a playful way to mean merely
mischievous.
That's primarily the meaning you're not asking about, but I think there're
a couple of key words there that may bear on the real question:
'intent' and 'malevolent'. I think 'Evil' in the sense you ask, is an
idealized/abstracted 'malevolent intent'. I believe one is tempted to
attribute an independent existence to it when one sees how it seems to
spread through a group of people, almost like a disease. I suspect one
sees examples of that in "mob psychology" -- the recent genocidal
rampages
in Africa, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and the current conditions
in
East Timor.
In fact, looking back at the word "disease", doesn't that have a lot in
common with this usage of 'Evil'? There is no physical entity corresponding
to a 'disease' or an 'epidemic', but one can track the progress of one
as if it were...
Perhaps it's what Computer Scientists call a "Process", or Lawyers call
a "fiction" -- An example we're all familiar with is a "Race" as
in "100 yard dash" or "Daytona 500". The race is not the participants in
it, and not the place it's held, and it really only exists while it's happening,
but we have a name for it and everybody knows what the name means.
A "corporation" in the business sense is, I think, similar, but may
seem much more "real" because we've interacted with "them"... but really
only with "their" employees.
As to where 'God' fits in there, I don't really know, although I'm
tempted to say that's another similar abstraction. I don't know
quite how to characterize it however -- it might be the 'opposite' of
'Evil', thus perhaps synonymous with 'Good', although that seems too
week for the common usage. 'Creator', the thing that distinguishes
'Good' from 'Evil' might fit better -- but that's more a Taoist
concept -- Good/Evil being co-existent, and only existing when
someone / something recognizes one or the other...
(but you can't put that kind of thing into words)
joe
Starbuck
>>>So, I am still left wondering what, in that sense, is Evil? When people
use the word that way, what do they mean? And where does God come into
*that* usage?<<<
Perhaps you need to ask the "some people" who use it in that sense. I
understand "evil" as being the damage that some persons do the lives of
others. I see that more as a function of their own will (selfishness) than
as some sort of mysterious malevalent force. However, I do understand the
personification of evil as "satan" or "adversary" in the same theological
context that I understand the personification of "goodness" as being "God".
>>>Again, in day to day practice, where does God come into it? How is it
different, aside from the nice gold bow, from what every one else in every
other belief system is expected to do anyway?<<<
I believe that persons in other belief systems might very well be obediant
to "God", as I understand him to be. They might even be obediant even
though they lack emperical knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth and the Christian
experience. This view can be contrasted with Calvin's doctrine of "total
depravity".
Protestantism has two polar views, one Calvinist, and the other articulated
by his contemporary Armenius. The Presbyterians, Baptists, and others
follow Calvin. The Methodists and many Anglicans are closer to Arminius.
Some would argue that Quakerism is not "Protestant" Christianity at all, but
rather a third form of expression, neither Catholic or Protestant. That
being said, it is historically more closely allied with Armenius than with
Calvin in that Friends generally believe that Inner Light is available to
all persons everywhere. It is the universal witness of divinity, even to
those persons who might lack specific knowledge of the Jesus of history.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
David Barton
> One thing that leaves me unsatisfied is that it is obvious that most
> people most often use "evil" to mean something quite different from
> the definition that people explained to me here. People seem to be
> referring to some kind of semi-sentient, instinctive, being or force
> or power actively pulling us away from Godliness. They speak of
> evil, not as classification for some kinds of human actions, but as
> something that has an existence of its own. And yet not fully as a
> synonym for "the Devil" or "the Adversary".
It is a very human tendency to reify that which we fight, or struggle
against: the Sea, Nature, Evil, whatever. The docrtine of the Devil
is common in Christianity, but it is not central; it is perfectly
possible to be a Christian and not believe in the Devil, interpreting
Biblical references to Satan as metaphors. Certainly, Christianity
has no idea of Evil as a force separate from Satan. There is no
opposite to God; nothing can be perfectly Evil as God is perfectly
Good. I think you said that you read the Screwtape Letters; in that
book, Lewis demolishes the idea of Satan as worshiping some abstract
idea of Evil. Evil people (and beings) are self-serving, not
other-serving.
> So, I am still left wondering what, in that sense, is Evil? When
> people use the word that way, what do they mean? And where does God
> come into *that* usage?
You would have to ask them. Here, I drop off; it makes no sense to
me, other than the normal tendency to reify things.
> Another unresolved question, for me, is where the other definition
> of Evil gets you. Evil is failing to do good, which is God's
> will. We know what is good because it is God's will; we know it is
> God's will because it is good. We break out of that tail-chase with
> the assumption that what God wants is for us to behave in ways that
> increase the harmony and well-being of the human community. And we
> work out what that is empirically.
Well, that's one way to break out of the tail chase. Quakers tend to
have another; the experience of the Inner Light.
> Again, in day to day practice, where does God come into it? How is
> it different, aside from the nice gold bow, from what every one else
> in every other belief system is expected to do anyway?
Not much different. Nor should we expect it to be. As I have said
elsewhere, Christians need not believe everyone else is wrong; indeed,
C.S. Lewis uses the universality of what he calls the Tao as an
argument for the existence of God (see The Abolition of Man and
Miracles).
--
Dave Barton <*>
d...@averstar.com )0(
http://www.averstar.com/~dlb
Manny Olds
>> Another unresolved question, for me, is where the other definition
>> of Evil gets you. Evil is failing to do good, which is God's
>> will. We know what is good because it is God's will; we know it is
>> God's will because it is good. We break out of that tail-chase with
>> the assumption that what God wants is for us to behave in ways that
>> increase the harmony and well-being of the human community. And we
>> work out what that is empirically.
> Well, that's one way to break out of the tail chase. Quakers tend to
> have another; the experience of the Inner Light.
How do you know if a leading really comes from God? If it is good. So it
is the tail-chase again.
> Christians need not believe everyone else is wrong;
But it does seem to be a popular option.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have
taken a toll." -- Benjamin Disraeli
PQ Rada
Speaking strictly out of my own experience,I can state there does seem to be
"something" inherently opposed to good people and their doing of good works to
better the live of others in their world, and among their children. Being led
astray from goodness is not just a phrase but a reality. I have encountered
really evil beings, otherwise known as human beings,and there is a palpable
feeling I get from them that "reeks" of darkness. I try to treat them in a
friendly manner but I also wish to avoid them if I can. Sometimes one can not
escape these people. All that one can do is to persist in the right as best
one interprets that to be.. The drug dealer selling crack and trying to addict
my friends was such a one. Another was a brilliant man who led his rock band
into very dark corners and supplied them with drugs all the time. They have
mostly lived, but how they have lived I do not claim to understand, and did
they come out of it all whole, I do not know that either. My mentally ill
friends tell me they have seen Hell, and I believe them,espceially the way they
are being treated these days by society,totally ignored and abandoned by most
everyone..Personally, I want all the light I can get in my life. Even the
prostitutes often had kind hearts, most were lost themselves.There but for the
Grace of God, would have gone I.
Starbuck
> have another; the experience of the Inner Light.
How do you know if a leading really comes from God? If it is good. So it
is the tail-chase again.<<<
Somewhere I came across a set of questions to evaluate whether or not a
leading or "locution" is from God. I'm not sure whether it was Quaker, but
it seems to me that it is at least "Quakerly" and so I'll post it for your
consideration. It seems to be the product of the spiritual experiences of a
number of persons.
1. It comes from the imagination within, rather from an outer driven source
or influence.
2. It provide a sense of peace, comfort, and lasting security. As sense of
tranquility and light.
3. I does not make us feel superior to others, but leads us to serve
others. It is a blessing to other persons.
4. It warns us of our own faults.
5. It carries within itself a sense of authority and power.... both in the
action prompted, and in the effects.
6. It has a lasting effect upon us and the results.
7. It is confirmed by a "confessor" or our community of faith.
Now, if one is expecting to understand God and how God works with great
precision and conciseness, I believe that one may be holding an unrealistic
expectation of God. He's really difficult to store in a doctrinal box. God
(as I understand the Christian definition) lets us "chase our tails" at
times, to teach us to trust Him more, to facilitate our growth, and to
accomplish things through us of which we might be unawares.
Too often some churches tend to emphasize "becoming a Christian" but don't
address what life is like after one has already become one. To me being a
Christian is more process than it is product. The so-called "born again"
experience is simply a beginning. Lasting spiritual growth and commitment
takes time, patience (lots of patience) study, a community of faith,
worship, prayer, and many other factors. God wants a living and growing
relationship, not a self-absorbed complacency.
Larry Hammer
Manny Olds <old...@shell.clark.net> wrote:
>David Barton <d...@hudson.wash.inmet.com> wrote:
>> Well, that's one way to break out of the tail chase. Quakers tend to
>> have another; the experience of the Inner Light.
>
>How do you know if a leading really comes from God? If it is good.
That's another Quaker answer. If it's really from God, it will be
recognized by anyone else also listening closely to the Inner Light.
This takes work, because our prejudices and impulses make a lot of noise
inside our heads, but that's the point of the discernment process.
---L.
--
Larry Hammer \
l...@primenet.com \ No one is free from uttering
SFRT and Chaos sysop \ stupidities. The harm lies in doing
at news://news.dm.net \ it meticulously. -- Montaigne
David Barton
> How do you know if a leading really comes from God? If it is
> good. So it is the tail-chase again.
I think you will find that at least some Quakers have more tests
concerning the leadings of the Inner Light than whether it agrees with
what they have already conceived of as "good" (although that is
certainly one). Indeed, the Quakers are one of the few institutional
bodies that have some sort of regular practices to even approach the
problem.
> But it does seem to be a popular option.
Of course! Ego would make it popular. This does not make it right.
Manny Olds
>> How do you know if a leading really comes from God? If it is
>> good. So it is the tail-chase again.
> I think you will find that at least some Quakers have more tests
> concerning the leadings of the Inner Light than whether it agrees with
> what they have already conceived of as "good" (although that is
> certainly one). Indeed, the Quakers are one of the few institutional
> bodies that have some sort of regular practices to even approach the
> problem.
Of course, I was oversimplifying for effect. But I suspect that (tacitly
at least), "goodness" is just about the first filter applied.
Quakers follow a similar process to Asatruers on this. But I think that
our criteria differ in some important points. I put some notes on the
Asatru approach at http://www.clark.net/~oldsma/thoughts/revealed.txt. Of
course, Asatru is pretty much the opposite of "institutional", so take
this as my impression of how I and others I know of personally approach
the problem of revelation.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
Sometimes you give a guy a fish, sometimes you teach him to fish,
sometimes you establish a fisherman training school, and sometimes you
have to let him find his own solution.
Starbuck
be
"something" inherently opposed to good people and their doing of good works
to
better the live of others in their world, and among their children. <<<
I believe that's a very apt and profound observation. It seems that when we
try to be our best is when we meet the most resistance. You might enjoy
reading a book called "The Screwtape Letters" by the author C. S. Lewis.
The book has that same theme. It's a hypothetical fiction book about a
demon
writing advice to an apprentice demon. I find that it gives insight into my
own spiritual life.
Lewis was a professor of medieval literature (I believe)
at either Cambridge or Oxford University. He had a vivid imagination and an
interesting spiritual life. He also wrote the book "Mere Christianity",
"Surprised by Joy", the "Chronicles of Narnia series which starts with "The
Lion, the Witch, and The Wardrobe". His life was the topic of the movie
"Surprised by Joy", that you might have
seen on TV. He's one of my favorite writers.
PQ Rada
Thanks for the referrals but I have already studied Lewis quite a bit. I
have read the" Screwtape Letters" a long time ago now but I remember it well.
You might like to read the book or see the film "Shadowlands" about their life
and her death..Patty
David Barton
> Lewis was a professor of medieval literature (I believe) at either
> Cambridge or Oxford University.
Yes; first at Oxford, then at Cambridge. Rather, he was a tutor at
Oxford, and then appointed professor at Cambridge. The titles at
British universities, and in particular at Oxford and Cambridge are a
bit strange to Americans; in short, he worked at both of them.
> He had a vivid imagination and an interesting spiritual life. He
> also wrote the book "Mere Christianity", "Surprised by Joy", the
> "Chronicles of Narnia series which starts with "The Lion, the Witch,
> and The Wardrobe". His life was the topic of the movie "Surprised
> by Joy", that you might have seen on TV. He's one of my favorite
> writers.
In addition, he was one of the most prolific narrative poets of our
century. His poetry is not well thought of, in literary circles. You
have also not listed his numerous religious essays, which cover the
map and address virtually every part of the Chrisitan life. "The
Weight of Glory" comes close to the divine, for me at least.
Dave Moorman
available on video.
Dave
In article <19990915140806...@ng-fs1.aol.com>, pqr...@aol.com
(PQ Rada) wrote:
--
Dave Moorman
Downers Grove
Illinois USA
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~dmoorman/index.html