Kaos <gafgirl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:ZZnRg.20287$KA6.7972@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> on Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:45:00 GMT, Joseph wrote:
>
>> Kaos <gafgirl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:Se4Rg.32849$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.
More that I forgot to mention that, but yes. Thoughts, impressions,
drives, values, and ideas all have influence on the mind that produced
them.
> 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.
Perhaps I should use the terms objective, factual and true instead of
real. I suppose I'm using a term from meta-ethics in this context. Just
to be clear though, I don't believe any kind of Platonic Ideal where
ideals exist (even if intangible) independent of the mind.
>> 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.
Yes, but it also leads to confusion when interacting with others. :p
Actually, I think this is why you recognized me as being close to a
chaote -- paradox is in common use in my mind.
>> > (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 much rather build my own ideas changing them as go (yes there's that
existential authenticity and making-of-self as one engages oneself with
the world.) I don't think postmodern Chaos Magic is that great in
recognizing that different moralities can be beneficial or extremely
harmful to the individual based on the *individual's* make-up of
physiology and unconscious mind and not the content of whatever morality
the chaote chooses to adapt. So my morality is a matter of taste, of
health, of what flows most naturally from my inner being. To do
otherwise is to risk neuroses, repressions, guilt complexes, and so
forth. And don't chaotes often talk about magical burnout... while I
think magicians have a flexible conscious mind and a knack for
channeling the depths of unconscious archetypes of the mind even they
have their limits. I am of the Counter-Enlightenment; I'm not of the
Enlightenment's child: Postmodernism.
>> 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.
And that sup****ts my position. A sudden shock, an awful experience,
external intervention, changing physiology can all trigger a sudden
change of balance in the strife of unconscious drives and affects that
can lead to a different ego in some ways. Also, some patterns of
behavior (or lack of behavior) are the property of the conscious mind
since it appears to have a blocking/filtering ability to "tap the
breaks" and not act on the thoughts of the ego. And there may be a few
surface ideas produced in the conscious that influence the unconscious
mind indirectly, I am willing to wager. But it is far more the other
way.
> 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.)
The conscious can alter one's behavior (usually) by self-awareness --
there is a small conscious ego, after all, (though this may have severe
repercussions), which can lead to a change in the unconscious ego.
(Because the unconscious is heavily influenced by the stimuli of the
senses and a change of behavior can produce a significant change in the
senses.) But this self-awareness is not will; it is a product of the
conscious that monitors the thoughts produced by the unconscious. The
conscious "will" is powerless to construct mental causes/thoughts, it is
simply informative, it is not self-caused but a surface phenomenon of
consciousness. Ergo, a person has no free will.
|
