Spirituality
08 Jul 09
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIs honesty or dishonesty a standing alone property of the honest or of the dishonest persons, or is it a result of a specific modification of the mind? Is there any place other than your mind, in which you may spot honesty or dishonesty standing there alone as is, as if they had own-being, as if they were an "absolute truth"?
yes
😵
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Worth" is the product that leads the person to the condition of eudaemonia.
I wasn’t sure if I understood the word “deontology” so I looked it up:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology
“…the ethical doctrine which holds that the worth of an action is determined as by its conformity to some binding rule rather than by its consequences
…”
I am not sure what it means by “worth” of an action above but, at least on a ...[text shortened]... ational” or “irrational” -but perhaps I am attaching a different meaning to the word “ATTITUDE”?
Next, regarding your assertion about BELIEF/ ATTITUDE, morality is always a given set of beliefs (a set of products of the Human mind)that they conduct one's behaviour, therefore we can keep up talking about both belief and/ or attitude because the attitude is always the effect of the cause known as "belief". Our beliefs are a unique footprint of our existence. Well, I think that all the moral codes are a chain of axioms which they must be regarded by definition as "absolute truth", and this exact "absolute truth" should be acknowledged and served in full by the person -otherwise the person simply lacks of the given morality.
But in fact we need no given morality not -we need common sens, therefore sometimes we may need the product known as "morality" just because it becomes under given circumstances a useful tool. Morality to me is merely a by-product of our intelligence -and if we agree up to here, hopefully we may go further
😵
23 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleI am afraid I don’t understand either of your two questions
Is honesty or dishonesty a standing alone property of the honest or of the dishonest persons, or is it a result of a specific modification of the mind? Is there any place other than your mind, in which you may spot honesty or dishonesty standing there alone as is, as if they had own-being, as if they were an "absolute truth"?
😵
-my ‘verbal’ intelligence is probably not as great.
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleI have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered under given conditions by a given moral plexus and they do not stand alone as is.
They are not "mere", sure thing.
On the other hand, this expectation of yours to overcome deontology it could turn into a mission impossible: since “virtue” is a pure product of the Aristotelian (and, later on, of the Christian amongst else) aretology, I have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered und ...[text shortened]... tional, and why an attitude which is not based on morality is in his opinion rational;
😵
And I think this is precisely the question I am banging up against. It is one of the reasons that I do not translate eudaimonia as just happiness, but as flourishing well-being. But still, this is where I’m stuck…
it seems to me my dear vistesd that it' s the right time for you to examine and for us to evaluate
I really need to get it clearer in my own mind—especially in light of the challenges that you guys are offering. Most helpful, but I need to consider some more…
Besides, I need to take some time to “chop wood, carry water”—and enjoy the hummingbirds!
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdAfter Virtue is well worth a read I think.
[b]I have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered under given conditions by a given moral plexus and they do not stand alone as is.
And I think this is precisely the question I am banging up against. It is one of the reasons that I do not translate eudaimonia as just happiness, but as flourishing well- ...[text shortened]... e…
Besides, I need to take some time to “chop wood, carry water”—and enjoy the hummingbirds![/b]
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh it's my funny English🙂
I am afraid I don’t understand either of your two questions
-my ‘verbal’ intelligence is probably not as great.
I will have the whole issue rephrased right now as I will address to vistesd regarding this matter; I hope that my view will be then clearer to you😵
23 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdOK then, I may offer my evaluation regarding the essence of the nature whilst you take your sweet time, although I am sure you are aware of this interpretation;
[b]I have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered under given conditions by a given moral plexus and they do not stand alone as is.
And I think this is precisely the question I am banging up against. It is one of the reasons that I do not translate eudaimonia as just happiness, but as flourishing well- ...[text shortened]... e…
Besides, I need to take some time to “chop wood, carry water”—and enjoy the hummingbirds![/b]
It seems to me that due time the emotions of ours (the ones we observe as Andrew Hamilton offered earlier) are caused by our beliefs/ attitude alone and they are not established by means of own-being -I think they are merely generated from our personal attitude/ beliefs that they derive from a specific mind-only pattern of ours that lays within a specific mind-only pattern of ours and so on ad infinitum. So I tend to believe that the emotions are just eternal glances of a hologram (which for the metaphysic realist is simply a product of the interaction of the good ole Popper’s World 1 and World 2, thus its own-being is “empty” and non existent as is, because it exists solely in relation with the totality of World I and World 2).
I believe that we have the delusion that our emotions have own-being because our mind has hijacked our common sens and it has programmed us to "feel" whatever we "feel" just the way it programmed us to grasp the so called "objective reality" as an objective standing alone "truth".
Then, soon our mind starts to perform non stop its various processes on its own bypassing our common sens according to this software, and it feeds constantly our ego with pieces of seemingly "objective" pieces of information from the "world out there". Well I have the feeling that we evaluate these bits of information as “as is” and we are sure that they are “real thus true thus having own-being”; I think that this sleepy reflective attitude becomes a "natural" reflective reaction -so finally we end up into believing that our emotions have indeed own-being other than our personal interpretation and taste (aversion, attachment, indifference, all of them poisonous yet all of them the cornerstone of the process of the Human mind).
So in no time we accept these feelings as an “absolute truth”, and as such we do not try to decipher neither their essence, nor the possibility that the stuff of their existence is just the same as the stuff of the existence of our dreams.
So when Andrew Hamilton states:
-- “I believe I am justified in my claim that I can rationally know that the emotion exists for, although I cannot define it or understand it, I do appear (to myself that is) to directly ‘observe’ its existence”, he makes me wonder! He understands that he “appears as the observer of himself” but at the same time he validates this very emotion as “real” (ie with own-being) although it is merely as real as a hologram! Therefore I wonder: Does it really make sense to state that a person is “honest”, “happy” etc. implying that “honesty”, “happiness” etc. are properties with own-being? I believe that it does not, but I always ask for a solid falsification.
😵
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEvery philosophic system monitors the world, the Human and their interaction and tries to express the essence of their nature and, in adition, the nature of their interaction; my interpretation over here is based on the concept of sunyata/ emptiness/ void.
I am afraid I don’t understand either of your two questions
-my ‘verbal’ intelligence is probably not as great.
However Plato too offered at his dialogue "Theaitetus" a sharp description of the problems we have regarding the essence of the Knowledge (a good translation in English is the one by Benjamin Jowett, which is available in the internet too).
Some years ago the famous Hungarian mathematician Alfred Renyi offered amongst else a fine book that I ‘m sure it will be for you too pure fun -it’s titled “Dialogues over Mathematics” (at least that was its title in Greek), and it has to do with the essence of the unknown and its value when we examine the known.
The miscellaneous Middle Way systems (Madhyamaka/ Yogacara/ Mind-Only etc.), and philosophers of the caliber of Nagarjuna, Atisa, Padma Sambhava, along with many Zen masters amongst else, show that the essence of our kosmos is “empty” in a way quite similar to quantum theory: it is clear that all the appearances within the “classical realm” (within the famous so called by the Zennist philosophers amongst else “Floating World”, ie the world as we conceive it during our everyday life) they derive from quantum interactions within the epiontic dream stuff, and this is considered the deepest level of reality. The core idea is that this primal stuff has ideal-like instead of matter-like character, and of course the miscellaneous dualist approaches are clearly dismissed. All in all, the system suggests that we are in front of a phenomenal world whose aspects of its internal consciousness appear with countless forms as if these forms were something external. Nowdays our science sees this approach as quite natural: the subatomic world “tends” to behave like a wave, but when we try to monitor that process it behaves like a particle. These strange creatures have in my opinion a nature “now I am this, now I am that” -and today we recognize them as quanta, however they were depicted centuries ago as miscellaneous mandala! By the way, when I was young back in ‘80s I enjoyed to the hilt David Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
Therefore the essence of reality is considered quite similar to the Boolean condition 0/1 the way Luigi Acerbi describes at his paper regarding the Epiontic Principle, and this is exactly my point when I was addressing to you here at this thread: I just try to make clear to you that there is also an alternative plexus of thinking that is based on this interpretation, and that this interpretation works too regarding the nature of the Human and the nature of his interaction with the world.
Finally, useful data and insight regarding this issue you may also find at the thread titled “Buddhism and quantum theory are one and the same”, created by clearlight at the Science forum here at RHP; I had the chance to monitor two chapters of Graham Smetham’s book “Dancing in Emptiness” and they were superb; since I am still unable to bring up a falsification to Smetham’s theory I will definitely buy his book when it will be published.
😵
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleIs there any point for someone lacking a mathematical brain to examine the epiontic theory? I'm interested, but if anything beyond basic arithmetic is required, I won't be able to understand.
Every philosophic system monitors the world, the Human and their interaction and tries to express the essence of their nature and, in adition, the nature of their interaction; my interpretation over here is based on the concept of sunyata/ emptiness/ void.
However Plato too offered at his dialogue "Theaitetus" a sharp description of the problems we h ...[text shortened]... lsification to Smetham’s theory I will definitely buy his book when it will be published.
😵
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course you can understand it in full. Maths are just another way of expression/ calculation, and I am not at all strong at this field.
Is there any point for someone lacking a mathematical brain to examine the epiontic theory? I'm interested, but if anything beyond basic arithmetic is required, I won't be able to understand.
You may google Luigi Acerbi and/ or Epiontic Principle and you will find asap his paper, which is in my opinion brilliant and sufficiently documented (although, as Lord Shark pointed out at another thread, the theory still lacks of beef at that specific field).
😵
24 Jul 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI regret to see Chigorin fading away; also, does Jan. 17 offer a good impact?
Is there any point for someone lacking a mathematical brain to examine the epiontic theory? I'm interested, but if anything beyond basic arithmetic is required, I won't be able to understand.
😵
24 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleYou see, I believe that life is sacred -and I feel not the need to back up morally this approach of mine, just as I feel not the need to back up morally my approach that I will kill on the spot whoever threats deadly the persons I love.
Clear; however, thinking in moral terms is just a result of one's dualistic approach. You see, I believe that life is sacred -and I feel not the need to back up morally this approach of mine, just as I feel not the need to back up morally my approach that I will kill on the spot whoever threats deadly the persons I love.
As you see, my conclusion that e-effect chain. And I see no reason to put "morality" above my intelligence.
Do you?
😵
Yes, and that is probably one reason why the propensity for moral thought evolved: because it produces a sort of motivational resoluteness. Moral thinking can motivate or constrain in a resolute manner because it supports strong (inter)personal commitments. The intuition is often that there are properties or qualities in the world that effectively bind us. For example, it may be that a property of life, sacredness, demands and elicits our sentiment. But, on the other hand, it may be that this is somewhat backwards. If, for example, some form of projectivism is correct, then it is actually our mental activity that gives rise to ostensible properties in the world. This is consistent with what Hume described as the mind's "great propensity to spread itself on external objects, and to conjoin with them any internal impressions, which they occasion, and which always make their appearance at the same time that these objects discover themselves to the senses." Under projectivism, moral properties and facts don't exist in the world, but there is a palpability of such things that does exist by virtue of mental life.
At any rate, I am not really interested here in arguing formally one way or the other. But one thing that interests me (that was sparked by Andrew Hamilton and is also mentioned by you) deals with voluntary control. Suppose maybe you have some error theorist who nevertheless thinks naturally in moral terms (after all, maybe you can try to hide from moral thinking, but then again maybe it will scare you out of nook and cranny, and maybe it will ensnare you). Here, there may exist tension between what he accepts in principle and the content of doxastic states that may come to him almost quasi-perceptually. I think this raises interesting questions to what extent we can exert control over our noetic structure through introspectible operations and practical cognition.
24 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonsorry for not giving a more comprehensive response to your post
…It seems clear that your stance is anti-realist in that you would deny that there are any actual referents for moral terms and concepts.
...
-I am not sure if I have understood you here but I think so -yes.
But note that I am not “anti-realist” in the more general sense of the term (if I have understood its meaning correctly).
… -you say a great deal in that post!
I think you post ‘requires’ a more comprehensive response.
No worries, like I said I was just sort of thinking aloud. Thanks for clarifying your general position. Beyond that, mostly I was looking for more discussion on why you think moral beliefs are irrational. Of course, I think some of them could be irrational under certain conditions, but I was trying to give some counter-argument against the idea that they are irrational simpliciter (even working under the supposition that some form of error theory is correct).