[Mind's Eye] Re: My thoughts on absolute good and evil

Hey Allen,

The thing with that is have you tried to live a life doing no harm?
It's impossible mate, it really is.

On Jul 15, 10:59 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The original guide line to live by is simply "Do no harm" the question
> comes down to is how many ways and laws do we have to create to justify our
> violations of the guideline and guidance? Like thou shall not commit
> murder,.
> Allan
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Umm that is an interesting take on it Tony.
>
> > I'm a great beliver in the right of the individual to live life how
> > they wish to.  It comes as a by product of my other great belife yep
> > the 'Golden Rule' so I must disagree with you about not allowing
> > individuals to cuase unhappiness.
>
> > If an individual wishes to life a live causeing unhappiness for all
> > then that is their choice and they must then take the consequences of
> > that choice, if that be prison or violence or whatever.  I would not
> > curtail this right of the individual but then again, I would personly
> > make the choice to counter this individuals actions if turned against
> > me or mine, and I don't doubt that others would make the same choice
> > that I would.
>
> > I also doubt the power of murder to change thinks for the worst for
> > the majority of people, the rate of murder is overall really not that
> > high, so I must also disagree with you on that score.
>
> > For me the evilness of murder stems not from taking somebody elses
> > life, after all we are all destined to die, so death in and of itself
> > I can't see as an evil thing.  Nope for me it is the taking away from
> > somebody all future choices, this I think is a great evil.
>
> > To make a man a slave does the same.  Again all attributed to my
> > belife in the golden rule.
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:49 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Tony,
>
> > > > Indeed and I would go further and say that good and evil are wholey
> > > > subjective.
>
> > > > Ben declares that murder is normaly counted as evil, but sometimes it
> > > > serves the greater good.  I would ask you all to consider why exaclty
> > > > is it that the majority agree with this.
>
> > > > In short why is murder evil?
>
> > > Because we desire stability in society, and murder causes pain and
> > > discord, making societal progress hard for us all. Is the murderer
> > > evil? No, I think the murderer is sick, but society must hold the
> > > individual accountable for their actions in some sense, or it will
> > > collapse into chaos. One cannot allow individuals to cause unhappiness
> > > for everyone else, or no one will be happy.
>
> > > Peace,
>
> > > Tony
>
> > > > On Jul 11, 6:31 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi Ben -
>
> > > > > A good question, and not one that I haven't spent much time
> > > > > considering. Here are my thoughts.
>
> > > > > One many levels, good and evil are subjective. When a cheetah kills a
> > > > > gazelle, that is good in the cheetah's eye and evil in the gazelle's.
> > > > > Indeed, our sense of what is good or bad rests first in personal
> > > > > pleasure and pain, and as we mature, is extended by association to
> > > > > include that which helps or hurts an object of attachment. For the
> > > > > rich, the current financial situation is good, and for the many poor
> > > > > it is evil. One's personal judgment is generally dependent on their
> > > > > perspective.
>
> > > > > One the other hand, if we assume some greater good, then actions
> > which
> > > > > encourage it are good, and those that set it back or hurt it are bad
> > > > > or even evil. For instance, for those that believe in evolution and
> > > > > would rather be a trillion human cells able to think on our level
> > > > > rather than a pool of algae, evolution may be viewed as a universally
> > > > > good thing. Actions that encourage it are good and those that impede
> > > > > it are bad. Since evolution happens on all levels, from stars to
> > > > > physical organism to minds and memes, one may view this as a
> > universal
> > > > > good. Of course, this depends on whether one personally believes in
> > > > > evolution, so again, even this objective good is subjectively
> > > > > estimated by the individual.
>
> > > > > Hope that was a valuable contribution. Have a nice day
>
> > > > > Tony
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 11:16 pm, Ben <artistta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I do not believe that we can define good and evil without entering
> > > > > > into a philosophical conversation.
>
> > > > > > Good and evil are not absolute rules nor can there be a universal
> > good
> > > > > > or a universal evil.
> > > > > > The concept of what is good and what is evil must be taught to us
> > as a
> > > > > > child, because we are not born inherently good or evil.
>
> > > > > > To murder is bad. However the statement does not speak of a
> > universal
> > > > > > good. Murder in so many cases has been used in good ways.
> > > > > > Euthanization has been used to end a suffering patients life.
> > Abortion
> > > > > > has been used to prevent a child from being born when childbirth
> > could
> > > > > > end a mothers life. To murder is bad in many cases but not all. The
> > > > > > extreme case of the word murder means to kill another human being
> > > > > > under conditions specifically covered in law. We can not define
> > murder
> > > > > > without discussing the implications. There are many instances where
> > > > > > murder must be re-defined as a good not a bad.
>
> > > > > > A child is not born inherently good or evil. Human beings are
> > unique
> > > > > > in the power of our brain. We are able to quickly associate good
> > and
> > > > > > bad. These associations are learned from society, our elders and
> > > > > > peers. A child that is born with no contact from these influences
> > will
> > > > > > associate good and evil with pain and suffering. A child with
> > contact
> > > > > > from these influences will be able to conceptualize good and evil
> > and
> > > > > > apply it to many different aspects of everyday life.
>
> > > > > > Finally, no universal good or evil will ever be agreed upon. There
> > is
> > > > > > no absolute good or bad that we must all follow. One concept can
> > > > > > impede on another and we must accept those societies that have a
> > > > > > rational way of thinking. Each society must continue to evolve
> > these
> > > > > > rules and change the commandments that were made centuries ago to
> > fit
> > > > > > the present day reality of life. To murder is bad, however we live
> > in
> > > > > > a civilized county in which many cases of murder are legal because
> > > > > > they are good. No one is born inherently good or evil and our
> > society
> > > > > > must continue to define every aspect of what could be good or bad
> > in
> > > > > > order to teach our children and they to develop their own, more
> > > > > > complete understanding to be taught to their children.
>
> > > > > > I challenge those of you who have read this to define an absolute
> > good
> > > > > > and evil.
>
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ben Kaylor- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
>  (
>   )
> I_D Allan
>
> If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mind's Eye] Re: Enlightenment

Wow Archytas, that must have been one heck of a strip...10 wickets in
8 balls...amazing.

I used to be a pace opener, with a late outswing starting at middle,
seaming just short of a length, four slips, a deep gully/point, and a
short square leg; my party trick was the shade slower, fuller, 1 late
inswinger of the over, just the trick for back foot raiders like
yourself :) Great days indeed...takes me back to a time when i was
just 12st or under :)

On Jul 31, 10:06 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I played at a 'tidal club' Para - as far from the sea as you can get
> in England, but tidal nonetheless.  Very hard to describe the 'tidal'
> conditions, but it would all start with the kind of rip-snorter Swanny
> got in the current Test.  When I was still young enough to bowl chin
> music we'd have the other side's batsmen remembering urgent
> appointments and driving off without taking their turn.  The trick at
> these times was to bowl slower and just let the pitch spit the ball at
> the poor sod batting.  When batting you had to give up playing forward
> and only play square of the wicket to get runs - the game was turned
> upsidedown.  We beat a few county sides on that track thanks to the
> 'tide'.  The tide seemed to be inspired by using the heavy roller at
> tea.  Great days.  We won a championship on the last day on a tide
> pitch after the opposition were 72 for none chasing 80 to win.
>
> On Jul 31, 9:06 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sold! I'll take them all! Lol.
>
> > On Jul 31, 8:35 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There's a lingerie football league and beach volley ball, etc.
> > > Seriously, sports are often a ballet of form and extraordinary display
> > > of what the body/mind is capable of. It's real- versus paintings or
> > > statues of nudes at a museum. And the horses! :-)
>
> > > On Jul 30, 7:31 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Err, yeah...might depend on the sport in my case, rigsy :)
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 8:31 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Also football uniforms. Well, we are admiring bodies and physiques in
> > > > > sports, aren't we? :-)
>
> > > > > On Jul 29, 2:39 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I've always thought that baseball players have an interesting sense of
> > > > > > dress style, rigsy; somewhat "hugging"? :)
>
> > > > > > On Jul 29, 2:21 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > We have baseball. :-)
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 28, 4:42 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Lol. Yeah, i've seen some innovation in rugby, for sure.
>
> > > > > > > > Well, cricket is one sport that i am passionate about (at least as far
> > > > > > > > as i can be passionate about sport). It's at once a game of supreme
> > > > > > > > patience and incredible reaction speed. You have the batsman who, with
> > > > > > > > the right "guard" and standing perfectly motionless, is practically
> > > > > > > > impenetrable, against a bowler and 10 strategically placed teammates
> > > > > > > > who patiently and cleverly induce the batsman to make a "false" stroke
> > > > > > > > with ever so subtle changes in the speed, flight, movement, trajectory
> > > > > > > > and/or spin of the ball. When it happens, it can be a beautiful
> > > > > > > > thing :)
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 28, 7:23 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Until I came to Europe I never was a fan of any sport, since I have become a fan of rugby ,, ever since I watched a man fall on the ball with the other team piled on top.  But his legs were sticking out of the pile. So his mates (6) grabbed his legs and used him like a wheel barrow. As for cricket,, I have never gotten it wrapped around my mind.
> > > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > > On 27 jul. 2011, at 17:42, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > I thought that Relativity was pretty revolutionary, actually; less
> > > > > > > > > > "fundamental" than perhaps String Theory, but frame shifting for sure.
>
> > > > > > > > > > So, you're a rugby man, eh? I'm more cricketer myself; all that
> > > > > > > > > > physical contact would have strained my control beyond breaking
> > > > > > > > > > point :)
>
> > > > > > > > > > Btw, your ballet's not at all lacking :)
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 5:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> The point, Para, is not that Einstein is bull, but that interpreting
> > > > > > > > > >> Relativity as 'new physics' always was.  I did my dancing on the rugby
> > > > > > > > > >> field so you can expect my ballet to be clumsy!  Chemistry is more my
> > > > > > > > > >> line, but Ludwig and Snell satisfy me that the 'paradigm' stuff is
> > > > > > > > > >> wonky.  I suspect we are collectively very dumb as an alternative to
> > > > > > > > > >> enlightenment concepts - most people don't learn much.  Thus they
> > > > > > > > > >> remain prey to the Old One.  Indeed, it's the propaganda of the Old
> > > > > > > > > >> One that prevents enlightened society, aimed as it is at the dumb.  I
> > > > > > > > > >> believe this may be what leaves us with only the worst of democracy.
> > > > > > > > > >> There has been no enlightenment,only some space developed away from
> > > > > > > > > >> the old Idols.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 26, 1:01 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Not sure of what you mean. Do you want e-books to be controlled in
> > > > > > > > > >>> content? Take history, for a long time it was written by the winners/
> > > > > > > > > >>> colonists, etc. until the "losers" started publishing their stories/
> > > > > > > > > >>> recollections. A good example is "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee".
> > > > > > > > > >>> There are countless books/ personal confessionals (St. Augustine,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Newman, C.S. Lewis, etc.) that have inspired others- perhaps readied
> > > > > > > > > >>> them for a personal journey of their own. The "enlightenment" is not
> > > > > > > > > >>> always religious/spiritual- there are the arts of man/women which also
> > > > > > > > > >>> inspire an individual/society. There is also propaganda and deceit as
> > > > > > > > > >>> a path to power.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jul 25, 11:13 am, Allan Heretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> LOL. Yeah I am still here,
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Enlightenment is a fascinating subject, to me it always will be an experience(s) yet there are may book thumpers thumpers can sight article and books many volumes justifying what they have to say. When you get discussing enlightenment you begin discussing personal experience not that of others.
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Putting it simply in my opinion your personal experiences will stand on their own ..
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Allan
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> On 25 jul. 2011, at 16:30, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thing is archytas, though i dont altogether feel "on board" with your
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> critical insights, your arguments are resonant and very persuasive :)
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nice pirouette with "optimism" :)
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> You think Einstein's work was "bull"? Steady archytas, we have the one
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> "heretic" here already...alan? :)
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the insights.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jul 24, 6:12 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> That's more or less what I mean Para - I certainly no rationalist per
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> se.  The free rider problem is very complicated though, especially
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> since accumulated wealth is now the major 'player'.  I suspect
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> neurocracy and collective stupidity as points for optimism - if we're
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> all planning this mess we're in deep trouble!  What may be depressing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> is that most people wouldn't want better times - we're so used to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> false promises there are no stories about what we'd be doing in better
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> times.  I doubt anything rational is other than what emerges as
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> explanations that have been in dialogue, but you quickly learn, doing
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> science, that most people can't hack doing the observations and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> measurements, let alone internal scrutiny. Some seem to have developed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> ways with words (sometime figures) almost at a kind of disjuncture
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> with reality there to witness.  I tend to prefer notions like
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> hospitality anbd obligation to ones like charity (Davidson and others
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> in 'radical translation') and stronger notions like communicative
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> action 'extirpating ideology'.  We do seem to get left with choice at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> some point, but these are often overdone as in 'mechanistic Newton
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> versus new physics Einstein' (bull) - people just don't work hard
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> enough.  Like Orn I've long been fascinated with 'there must be more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> than this' - but for me the point is there always is more, along with
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> a lot of disappointment that I'm rarely interested in what others are.
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> You're nothing if not passionate, archytas :)
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> You cry when Warrington lose? Archytas my friend, you really ought to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> get out more :)
>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Much of what you say here is good social democratic stuff, though i
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suspect that a concept of "rational optimism" is something of a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> misnomer. I admire your optimism, not so sure about the rationality;
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> in Nature, there is no such thing as equality, as you know; and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "manufactured" equality only works in rational choice if you fix the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "free rider" problem; dont know that we have? In any event, quite
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> asides from the intuitive appeal, how do we know that equality in not
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> one of these "states" that "are inexplicable or cannot be
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> demonstrated", that
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -