Kaos <gafgirl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:Se4Rg.32849$cz3.5834@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:41:15 GMT, Joseph wrote:
>
>> "Malachias Invictus" <invictusebay@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:M6CdncWkN-e9-Y3YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <snip>
>> > Not really.
>>
>> Yes it is, IDIOT, since morality has no existence how can I be
>> crippled by something that is imaginary. The crippling comes from
>> believing in morality, instead of being liberated from realizing it
>> is a facade invented by humans.
>
> That's an incredibly silly statement. Ideas have existence, even if
> it be an intangible one.
Ideas can only be considered to have existence as interpretations of the
human mind. And the human mind is not monolithic, and it is of critical
im****tance to realize that much of idea-formation/valuation is a
function of the interplay of numerous unconscious drives and effects
plus physiological facts. Much of what we feel is our inner voice, our
nature, our core self is in fact the outcome of the dynamic flux and
struggle between these unconscious drives.
And it is impossible to model anything but the crudest map of the
totality of this process, so not only is the process of motive and
thought formation cloaked from external observation in large part it is
masked from the conscious introspection of the individual. Said
individual is aware of much of the quality of a value/thought/idea when
it is introduced into the conscious but far less so the how and why it
formed and how long this idea will stay constant. Of course the
conscious mind can construct rationalizations... but the reality is
different.
The term justice, for instance, not only will its meaning will depend on
externalities the individual is exposed to, not only will each person
may have varying shades of meaning from one other, but the individual
quite possibly will have *paradoxical* values embedded in the larger
term of "justice" (which is the sum of many sub meanings) that may well
change and vary in time without being predictable!
> They also have their uses, purposes and values. Recognition of this
> is precisely why the chaote creed is not a form of amorality, but
> simply a rejection of absolutism.
I am very sympathetic to chaos magic, but I am no chaote. I *would* call
myself an amoralist (or moral anti-realist) not in the sense of lacking
moral sensibility, but being outside any particular moral code, and
realizing none have any objective truthful correctness. But morality
does great value, purpose, and as a tool for insight into human behavior
and society. Indeed, the destruction, reevaluation, and creation of
moral codes are of great im****tance for my individual use. But such a
code is in many ways reflective of such a person's internal unconscious
drives and physiology and would not work for a different type of person.
> (Of course, the typical chaote can also accept absolutism when it is
> useful to do so.)
And this is where we differ. I can mimic absolutism, but it can never be
acceptance of absolutism (or the changing of the entire moral code on a
whim). I think we are quite close in many ways, but there is a
significant gulf between our positions that I fear will not be breached.
The chaote model of deconditioning of the ego is mostly futile because
much of the ego is unconscious and by definition cannot be changed by an
act of will. The gnosis is just an amplification of these unconscious
drives and a retreat of even more of the conscious not a fundamental
transformation of the ego (though it may be transformed in time by
natural process in some degree due to the very nature of the varying
conflict of the effects and drives that constituent the unconscious
mind.)
>> > Oh, I *do* play favorites. I am partial to those who are not
>> > idiots.
>>
>> Most idiots think that.
>
> But then, so do most non-idiots. Unless they're the kind who feel
> sympathy and compassion towards idiots.
>
>> > By the way, how does this, even if it were true, show that I don't
>> > have an honest bone in my body when challenged?
>>
>> My jurors the accused does not understand the value of character
>> evidence of integrity when talking about the accused lying, integrity
>> and so forth.
>
> Those are some interesting moral judgements you're making there. Are
> you sure you're truly liberated?
I'm just a man, so I'm not totally independent, no. But I'm optimistic
about my development in that direction, and indeed, for the future
development of others who are naturally able to be liberated from the
grip of consensual morality long after I'm gone. But nothing stops me
from making a moral judgment from my own morality, or trying to
influence the morals of others whose moral codes are in great difference
from mine. I just don't think any of it is correct at the core.
|
