on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:45:00 GMT, Joseph wrote:
> 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.
You forget that they are also influences *on* the human mind. Ones that
are often more powerful than physical inventions.
In light of that, how the idea is formed is of trivial concern (if any)
to the question of how real they are. It may play into whether an idea
or concept is worthy of acceptance, rejection or refinement (or any
other reaction one may concieve of,) but that's another discussion
entirely.
> 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!
Indeed. But, for me at least, paradox is fun.
> > (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).
It's simply an advanced variant of suspension of disbelief. The danger
being an inability to unaccept the idea at a future point (which is
where the metaparadigm of "Nothing is True" comes in.)
> 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.
If that were the case, self-destructive patterns and identities would
never be overcome; but people overcome those all the time - tho often
only with assistance. An intervention or 'rock-bottom' situation is
usually required to spark the idea that something should be changed.
All that can do on it's own, though, is spark the idea. It is exactly
an act of will - and nothing else - that can accomplish the change.
(Tho of course, the sup****t of others towards that change does a lot to
bolster the will.)
|
