Rick, Pelle,
Thank you for the kind words. In case you weren't in the Mote Café today, I just wanted to make sure you both knew that I read your comments.
Blessings to you two!
Jennifer
6019. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:11:12 PM
I was offline for a few days, and apparently missed some fireworks.
Sakonige: I appreciate your invitation to Table Talk, but I am about maxed out on commitments to Internet time: Cafe Utne and The Speakeasy for a (very) few poetry related discussions, and here for spouting. Besides, I know very little about contemporary Native American religious and spiritual practice.
6020. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:27:23 PM
Paragate:
in Message # 5905 you say "It makes sense to me to "rationalize" moral disputes, bloodless still better than bloody. Reducing moral disputes to emotive preferences strikes me as much more scary. When I say that is good....I am not merely rubbing my belly and saying hmmmmmm."
But there is considerable evidence that, when connections are severed between the pre-frontal cortex (where 'reasoning' takes place) and the limbic system (where emotional response is centered), the victims lose the ability to make moral judgements or to plan effectively for their own well-being. Damasio's Descartes' Error, mentioned above, extensively examines the case of Phineas Gage (brief treatments here and here). The 'error' of the title is to believe that reason can ever be bloodless -- in fact, trying to make it so guarantees the results to be bloody.
6021. mandolin - 5/16/2000 12:28:05 PM
Indiana -- I'll have to wait until tonight to answer you.
6022. KuligintheHooligan - 5/16/2000 2:51:25 PM
Indy, I have really been under it work wise. I have finished two of the three courses that I will teach this term, which starts on the 23rd. I prefer to have my courses entirely prepared before the term begins.
Therefore, I am wondering if I could postpone taking over this thread until the 29th of this month. That would be a big help for me, since I don't think I will have the time before then to acclimate myself with how to actually host a thread, as well as get the ball rolling on the matter of ethics.
I am going to call the thread "Ethics for a Brave New World." This is a title stolen from a book I own. If you need to e-mail me (or somebody else about this matter) I can be reached at
v_kuligin@yahoo.com
Thank you.
6023. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2000 3:11:22 PM
Kuligin
Here is a little sunshine history from Namibia.
The Museum of Natural History does not have the money to register their collections electronically. The entomologist Eugene Marais thought up the idea of inviting schools to a "registration competition". He persuaded sponsors to donate a computer and a two-year internet-subscription to each of the 18 schools that participated. During one weekend the students registered most of the insect collection. The Swedish-African Musuem Programme donated a trip to Stockholm for the winning team from the Tsuneb Junior Secondary School. They have spent the last several days registering the Namibian insect collection at the National Museum here. Most of that collection was established in the 18th century by two disciples of Linneus who travelled in Southern Africa.
6024. PelleNilsson - 5/16/2000 3:12:28 PM
Indy
Sorry for the off-topicality but I know Kuligin checks this thread whenever he logs in.
6025. phillipdavid - 5/16/2000 8:59:17 PM
I've posted a new essay on my religion site, Nazarene Nirvana, titled Grace and Works. Any feedback would be appreciated, especially concerning problems or awkward construction (it's a rough draft).
6026. mandolin - 5/16/2000 10:51:50 PM
Indiana: about the reality of color --
Most of this is paraphrased from Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in tthe Flesh, Basic Books, 1999, pp. 23-25.
Our experience of color is based on 4 things: wavelengths of reflected light, lighting conditions, the 3 kinds of color receptors in our retinas, and the neural circuitry connected to those receptors.
Reflectance is a property of a surface, the relative percentages of various wavelengths reflected by that surface. But the actual wavelengths reflected are not a constant -- bananas reflect different frequencies in tungsten, fluorescent lights, sunny or cloudy days, dawn or dusk. But they will still look yelllow -- color constancy depends on the brain's ability to compensate for the light source. Also, there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between reflectance and color ---- two different reflectances can be perceived as the same red.
Moreover, light is itself not colored. -- it isn't the kind of thing than can be colored -- it is just a certain combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, some of which we can perceive and some of which we can't. When this radiation impinges on our retinas we are able to see a particular color when the light is right, the cones fire, and the brain appropriately processes those events. We call this 'color.' [cont]
6027. mandolin - 5/16/2000 10:53:14 PM
Color is not an internal representation of the external reality of the reflectance properties of an object -- if it were, then the properties of colors and color categories would be representations of reflectances and categories of reflectances, but color concepts have internal structures -- there is a central or canonical red, and purplish red, and pinkish red, and so on -- that have nothing to do with reflectances -- they are the result of neural response curves in our retinas and brains. The opposition between red and green or blue an yellow is a fact of our neural circuitry, not of reflectance. Colors are not an internal representation of an external world nor are they something 'out there' -- they are neither subjective nor objective but interactional . the meaning of the word 'red' is not a relationship between the word and some collection of wavelengths -- it must include our color cones and neural circuitry -- it is embodied, and thus, a product of our particular evolutionary history. "We have the color concepts we do because the physical limitations constraining evolution gave evolutionary advantages to beings with a color system that enabled them to function well in crucial respects. ... Thinking of color as merely the internal representation of the external reality of surface reflectance is not merely inaccurate; it misses most of the function of color in our lives." (p. 25)
6028. mandolin - 5/16/2000 11:15:41 PM
Indiana, in Message # 5964 you say "Some things exist only as concept: Superman--a man who can leap tall buildings in a single bound and bounce bullets off his chest--exists only as concept.
"Our earlier discussions--particularly when you said that the act of turning off a sentient computer is neither inherently good or bad, but only good or bad by societal consensus--makes me think you see morality as belonging to the second realm: purely a concept that is thus controllable by our perception of it."
But that is not an accurate statement of my view. Color and good and bad are not concepts in the sense that Superman is a concept -- something made up. Societal consensus depends on the kinds of creatures making up that society, on their evolutionary histories. Good and bad, like color, are not mere representations of something out there but are nevertheless emphatically not arbitrary and are the product of an embodiment --of abilities and behaviors which have led to greater survival rates for the ancestors of the beings in that society.
It may be that religion or the idea of a god or gods have, on the average, led to evolutionary success for those of us who have them. But that is no more an argument for the truth of religion than it is for the truth of red -- or for morality. I do not say "morality exists" -- I say morality is something we do that has worked for us. It is not something out there, unchangeable and eternal.
6029. mandolin - 5/16/2000 11:17:07 PM
phillipdavid -- I've bookmarked your site and will read it this weekend
6030. ee - 5/17/2000 3:19:44 AM
PD: I read the first third and skimmed the rest. I'll try to read the rest later. I think its clearly written.
Are you looking for doctrinal feedback?
I saw no referance to baptism? Romans 6 :3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? .
I think it's an excellant essay and explains the gospel well but some of the ideas wrt our spiritual nature a stretch.
At first reading everything you wrote about grace and works seemed right.
6031. ee - 5/17/2000 3:29:08 AM
Jen: The most important thing for anyone is to stay strong spiritualy. If something is hindering the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness and self-control why not let it alone? And besides
You'll be back
6032. ee - 5/17/2000 3:35:23 AM
6033. ee - 5/17/2000 3:37:44 AM
oops 
6034. mandolin - 5/17/2000 8:46:03 AM
continuing Message # 6028: Further, despite the near-ubiquity of religious ideas in our species, there are good reasons to think 'God' has more in common with Superman than with 'color.'
For instance, we can ask questions about the nature of our experience of 'color' and get asymptotically convergent answers, even from wildly different approaches. About the broad outlines, and even many of the details, of our experience of color, there is no dispute among neuroscientists, ethologists, biochemists, evolutionary theorists, cognitive psychologists, and even philosophers, and what differences remain suggest fruitful lines of inquiry. No such convergence results from questions about the nature of our experience of deity.
We can do the same with morality that we do with color -- that is, we can form hypotheses about the evolution of morality; we can ask questions, build models, and do field work to test those hypotheses; we can refine them in the light of the work we have done and come to convergent answers to our questions -- unless we include revelation among our methods. Then all hell breaks loose. Pun intended.
It is almost certainly true that our minds, constrained as they are by our history, simply cannot ask some questions, and cannot discover or comprehend the answers to all the questions we can ask, and it is possible that a transcendant being exists which is simply beyond our comprehension. But, by definition, we can't think about such a being. If it cared to do so, perhaps it could tell us something about itself: we can train rats to run mazes. But what would that have to do with us?
6035. JayAckroyd - 5/17/2000 9:38:00 AM
1)Which of the following best describes your view of the existence of the divine:
atheist
2)Have you always held this view?
- yes
3)Did your parents hold this view?
- no
4)Were you raised in any particular faith?
- yes
5) If yes, how often did your family participate in organized observance?
monthly
6) Compared to your upbringing do you participate:
- less often
7) If you have or were to have children would you raise them in your faith?
yes
8) Do you participate in organized religious observances primarily:
- other I don't
(9) Which of the following best describes the faith of your parents:
- Christianity
10) Which of the following best describes your own faith:
- Other (Atheist)
11) Do you follow a particular sect or denomination of your faith?
No
6036. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 11:22:33 AM
Kuligin: It's fine with me whenever you want to do it. The only problem may be coordinating with wabbit. Maybe she could give you access to the thread whenever she's here next, and you can rename it on the day you officially take over.
6037. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:03:53 PM
mandolin (6027): The same arguments re color can be made for anything we experience through our senses--after all, a good part of sight is based on our perception of color. Of course our experience of something is modified by our biology and our previous experiences; I pointed out that some cultures don't hear certain sounds. Are you familiar with the Hebbian Learning rule? It appears inherent in the ways our brain forms connections.
Another example is the generally perceived racist statement "all you people look alike to me," when in fact it appears the statement has a biological basis. That is, people learn to pick up differences in those they associate with more than those they don't--the same way mothers believe they can differentiate their baby's cry from those of others. White people have a variety of hair colors, so a member of a predominantly white culture learns to use hair color as a marker. Someone in a predominantly African culture, for example, would learn to use some other feature. And the neural pathways that formed as a result would be different.
By definition, any experience is "interactional." Underlying reality (i.e., physical properties), however, are unchanged by our perception of it--at least in a materialist view. (Sometimes I think you're arguing the opposite of your stated philosophy and instead injecting a bit of "human-race solipsism.")
6038. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:03:59 PM
(cont.) I understand completely that what you continue to emphasize is that color and morality are not arbitrary concepts, but limited by biology and experience. However you want to phrase it, that would still be true about the concept of God as well.
"I do not say "morality exists" -- I say morality is something we do that has worked for us. It is not something out there, unchangeable and eternal."
Exactly. But to reiterate: you have two concepts, God and morality. Let's assume for a moment that we cannot know whether God exists to a greater degree than the morality you've described. Morality you say "works for us" and earlier you elaborated on this utility as something like providing pleasure, reducing pain, ensuring procreation. So even when you say morality doesn't quite exist (unchangeable, eternal), you believe in it because of what you perceive as its functionality.
Yet God is held to a different standard as though somehow guessing "wrong" about His existence (believing in Him when He does not in fact exist) is the silver bullet. For morality, however, you choose its utility as worth its ultimate fictionality. Your justification that I should obey it is that I'll (more or less) feel bad if I don't. Maybe I won't, but in any case, if God in actuality exists, you may certainly feel bad for not believing in Him (the Pascal argument).
My main point about your argument, however, is that it is based on the utility of a belief in (or subjugation to) something that does not in fact exist as other than your (or our) belief.
6039. Indiana Jones - 5/17/2000 12:05:12 PM
mandolin: I also want to discuss the nature of the morality you describe, but these other points are keeping me busy enough.
6040. mandolin - 5/17/2000 12:36:16 PM
Indiana, you say "So even when you say morality doesn't quite exist (unchangeable, eternal), you believe in it because of what you perceive as its functionality." emphasis added.
This is the crux. Things do not have to be unchangeable and eternal in order to exist in the fullest sense. In fact, as far as we can tell now, mutability is a precondition for existence: at the most fundamental level we have Einstein's famous equation and 50 years of quantum mechanics.
You are correct that my arguments about the nature of color apply to every aspect of our experience -- our world, at least what we can know of it, is constructed. We cannot know the underlying reality of anything. But this is not the post-modern Derridean sense of construction. It is not made out of whole cloth because about those things that have been important for our survival, including our relations with others, we've come to be pretty darn good -- and if we hadn't, we wouldn't be here. There is a world out there, and we have a relationship to it. About those parts of the world that are knowable in part, we can devise methods for asymptotic convergence to that knowledge.
About deity we have, so far, shown no such ability. Either there are no gods, or they are beyond what we can know, and in either case they cannot teach us what we should do, though I suppose they could punish or reward us so that we behave as they think we should.
I'm surprised you bring up Pascal's Wager. It's not a good bet. The Buddha teaches that suffering is inevitable, that we will be reborn into suffering until all desire, including the desire for non-suffering, is gone -- if he was right Pascal is still on the wheel of karma. If Islam is correct he did not find paradise. If Shinto is the right teaching, he is an angry, neglected ghost. Your odds are probably better in Las Vegas.
6041. RickNelson - 5/17/2000 12:37:44 PM
Thanks for sharing your HP pd.
6042. mandolin - 5/17/2000 12:56:04 PM
Indiana, you also write "My main point about your argument, however, is that it is based on the utility of a belief in (or subjugation to) something that does not in fact exist as other than your (or our) belief."
I am not arguing that morality can be determined by considering what it is pragmatic to do now. I'm saying that the things we care about and the tools we can bring to the investigation have been shaped by our evolutionary history -- by the utility of past abilities and behaviors in producing offspring which led eventually to us.
But the world changes. Evolution is always adaptation to local conditions -- it has no direction, no purpose. The abilities and behaviors we have evolved may not help us now, in a world of 6 billion people, nuclear weapons, and engineered anthrax.
Convergent answers from independent lines of inquiry is a strong argument for the relative accuracy of those answers. My confidence in the existence of something increases when many independent lines of evidence, capable of verification and extension, point to it. There is such convergence for the view of morality which I have been advocating. That doesn't mean it's completely accurate -- but for now it's the best basis we have understanding our actions. Perhaps through understanding we can avert catastrophe.
6043. sakonige - 5/17/2000 1:28:07 PM
mandolin, beautifully stated observations. It is remarkable that you can see the evolution and tangibility of good in nature, and yet you doubt the good in human nature.
6044. mandolin - 5/17/2000 2:02:17 PM
Sakonige --
I've been arguing that 'good' must be dependent on our history, that it simply doesn't exist as a property of nature. It can only be a property of human beings and action, and then only from the point of view of other humans.
I think most people are good in that sense, and would be surprised if they weren't. In fact, it would be fatal to my argument, which requires that most of the time we tend toward actions we feel, because of our history, to be right.
That doesn't necessarily mean that, in the current context, our previous history will be of much help in insuring our survival.
6045. mandolin - 5/17/2000 2:05:59 PM
Let me try to be very clear:
There is no morality in the sense of an unchanging set of rules of behavior applicable to all sentient beings.
Beings which can form alternative scenarios of their behavior and choose between those scenarios will base their choices on evolutionary, individual, and, for social beings, something like cultural history.
Evolutionary history provides the baseline for these choices. Forms of action which have, in the past, led to better average reproductive success will tend to feel 'right' because members of the species which felt that way, on the average, had more descendants. Forms of action which led to differential reproductive failure will tend to feel 'wrong' for the same reason.
For a species such as ourselves, we can predict some of the nature of that evolutionary baseline. Sex will seem good, but there will be constraints on when and with whom it is appropriate. Resources will be shared with members of a society, particularly with close relations, but those outside will not normally have access. There will be strong feelings against any but retaliatory violence within the group, but individual interest will occasionally trump those feelings, and theft and lies (since information will be valuable) within the group will be percieved as a kind of violence deserving retaliation. Violence against those outside the group will be constrained differently -- what are the relative prospects of a successful outcome?
This is testable. Are there predictable differences in the behavior of social and non-social species? Pair-bonding and non-pair-bonding species? Long-lived and short-lived species? Are any of the predicted behaviors not included in the 'good' of a major human moral system? Do any major human moral systems sanction behavior the model would seem to proscribe? If so, why?
I've got to get paid real work done -- back later
6046. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:30:05 PM
pelle, just saw your post to me about Namibia. Very interesting. Where did you get it? I haven't heard of that here.
Currently the Africities 2000 convention is happening here in Windhoek. This is a real plus for Namibia. Hosting about 1500 people, it will display the country as peaceful, safe, and secure (just don't go up north!). Our convention facilities are really first-rate here as well. Should be a major plus for Namibian publicity.
[posted here instead of International Thread because I'll never be able to catch pelle's response over there]
6047. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:35:39 PM
The photo of the year from Wanderlust magazine is of three hunters walking across the sandy Namibian desert.
6048. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:40:27 PM
Jenerator, any idea where I could see that photo? Thanks.
6049. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:46:23 PM
I don't know the web address of the magazine off-hand. After doing a quick search on Infoseek, I came across www.wanderlust.com, but the site is under construction. It's an excellent international travel magazine, it may be available in Namibia - I don't know. This particular issue was the April/May issue.
6050. KuligintheHooligan - 5/17/2000 2:49:52 PM
Thanks Jenerator. I have personally attempted to get some nice photos of the desert in Namibia but with rare success. Actually, I do have some nice photos of various parts of Namibia, and wish I could post them in the Mote, but I suppose I would need a website with which to do that first, right? Just one of the many things I'd like to do but haven't the time.
Speaking of time, I need to work on my Doctrine of Scripture course. I have finished my Ethics course and Church History course (BTW, I revamped my handbooks on the Church History, so the ones I gave you way back when (when we still liked each other) are obsolete!).
You can use them (if you haven't already) with Sadie! :-)
6051. Jenerator - 5/17/2000 2:54:40 PM
That's a little severe. Are you suggesting that your previous work is worthy of dog-poo? Besides, I'd never wipe Sadie with notebook paper, it would hurt her delicate buns.
6052. sakonige - 5/17/2000 4:31:19 PM
mandolin -
There is no morality in the sense of an unchanging set of rules of behavior applicable to all sentient beings.
We cannot know the underlying reality of anything.
Things do not have to be unchangeable and eternal in order to exist in the fullest sense....We cannot know the underlying reality of anything....There is a world out there, and we have a [real, knowable] relationship to it...About those parts of the world that are knowable in part, we can devise methods for asymptotic convergence to that knowledge.
The best choices don't just feel right, they are right.
6053. mandolin - 5/17/2000 6:00:33 PM
Sakonige: "The best choices don't just feel right, they are right."
But I say choices feel right which, on the average, follow the structure of choices which, in the past, on the average, led to greater reproductive success. They may be very wrong under current situations.
We can exmaine the structure of our morality, just as we can any other natural phenomenon. And we can, I hope, use our knowledge of the biases built into our minds and bodies to help make better choices now -- with a much broader and perhaps more inclusive view of what is necessary for continued reproductive success.
6054. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:40:19 PM
But I say choices feel right which....may be very wrong under current situations.
The benefit of evolving into sensitive guy is the ability to identify your real feelings.
6055. marshame - 5/17/2000 6:49:28 PM
"There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."
King Solomon, 1000 BC
6056. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:50:30 PM
Message # 6055
An evil and poisonous Old World idea.
6057. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:52:49 PM
mandolin, the toxic type of thinking embodied in the quote in #6056 may destroy ones ability to discern the sensation of good in the world.
6058. marshame - 5/17/2000 6:53:13 PM
How so? I imagine most of the great criminals of the world were convinced in their own minds of their "rightness."
6059. sakonige - 5/17/2000 6:55:21 PM
I'm sure you imagine all kinds of things.
6060. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:10:45 PM
...as a person who accepts the mythology of the Bible, that is.
The worst crimes I can think of were committed by irrational religious people.
6061. marshame - 5/17/2000 7:16:34 PM
I believe the "irrational" part is probably the more significant characteristic in the criminal mind.
6062. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:19:50 PM
I agree.
6063. marshame - 5/17/2000 7:21:16 PM
Well, we agree on something! Time for me to go home. Good night Sakonige.
6064. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:22:38 PM
goodnight!
6065. mandolin - 5/17/2000 7:31:58 PM
I'm not sure it's evil and pernicious--but it isn't Solomon and it isn't from the 10th century BC. The earliest parts of the Book of Proverbs are from about 700 BC -- long after the death of Solomon.
I think that the ways we learned on the African plains may well not be the ways which will enable us to live from now on. But we must understand them.
6066. sakonige - 5/17/2000 7:41:07 PM
The ways we learned to cooperate on the Great Plains may get us quite a bit further.
6067. mandolin - 5/17/2000 9:19:27 PM
Most native American peoples didn't live on the plains, and their lives there were very different before the Spaniards re-introduced the horse in the 16th century. It was far too short a time and far too few people to make any difference in an evoultionary sense.
Before modern European contact the peoples of the Americas were as diverse as those everywhere else on earth: farmers, city-builders, hunter-gatherers, nomads, chiefdoms, kingdoms, small bands, peaceful tribes and ruthless warriors. What they didn't have was a large variety of domestic animals because they or some earlier peoples had killed off the American mega-fauna -- horses, elephants, camels (except the llama and its small relatives in the Andes), all but one kind of bison. That was unfortunate for them, since without a variety of domestic animals they had few contagious diseases to trade for the measles and smallpox. See Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Moreover, the once-solid consensus that the ancestors of today's Native Peoples were the first humans in the Americas has begun to erode -- there is a real possibility that they did to the first Americans what we did to them. Not that that justifies the history of European atrocities committed against them, but it is naive to suppose that they, a or any group of people, has any special moral or spiritual advantage over any other.
6069. sakonige - 5/17/2000 9:49:17 PM
The idea of a natural family the permeates Western concepts of human nature is flawed. Cooperation of the kind that existed on the Great Plains, where noone lived, is completely overlooked.
6071. paragate - 5/17/2000 10:29:39 PM
Mandolin, I am not very adept at making arguments but I have some pretty strong intuitions. The kind of materialist philosophy you seem to espouse feels to me suspiciously like an effort to cram thoughts into a box or a single method of understanding the world or a single "language game." It sounds a bit like a nouvelle logical positivism: only certain kinds of statements are verifiable and therefore carry truth value. But the notorious problem is how to independently verify the verification theory, aside from perhaps some kind of pragmatic verification.
My intuition tells me that true, we are evolving, embodied beings (having perhaps more than one body) who also exist and have our being along a transcendental axis(perhaps also evolving in a more grand scheme & therefore only relatively immutable) which is "perceived" through the eye of the imagination. Granted that the evidence of the imagination as to what beings are admitted as existing is difficult but precluding such intuitions of "divine" reality strikes me as unecessary hubris. I just don't feel the need to converge on a single method of understanding.
Pardon me if i am misreading your assumptions & argument.
6072. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:39:08 PM
paragate -
What are intuitions?
6073. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:39:58 PM
I don't know whether I have them or not, from your point of view.
6074. mandolin - 5/17/2000 10:43:45 PM
sakonige -- sources on plains family structure amd NA history?
6075. sakonige - 5/17/2000 10:46:12 PM
yes?
6077. paragate - 5/17/2000 10:50:19 PM
That's a good question. I think of an intuition as some kind of synthetic cross between a perception, a thought, a feeling, an imagined image and sometimes even a memory. It seems to me that intuition can be an admixture of the above list with differing weights for different people and even for the same person on seperate occasions. How is that for vague response?
6078. mandolin - 5/17/2000 10:50:45 PM
paragate --
It is too late to respond tonight to a question about the relationship of positivism and the way it handles 'truth' and the way implied by what I have been saying. I will try this weekend.
I have no idea what you mean by a transcendental axis, or if by "more than one body" you mean reincarnation or something else
6081. paragate - 5/17/2000 11:00:14 PM
Again, just intuitions: I don't find the idea that we are bodied in progressively spiritual or refined material bodies which might continue to exist in a refined material/spiritual dimension implausible. Reincarnation is not an article of my firmly held beliefs but again it sounds right to me if such transcendental dimensions do "exist".
6082. paragate - 5/17/2000 11:01:17 PM
Good night here as well. Very late.
6083. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:06:39 PM
mandolin,
I mean literally, the physical evidence you demand is under you all the time, under the pavement some one of your community owns.
6084. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:11:18 PM
Goodnight! It's a little after 8pm on a flower scented sea breeze late light Pacific Northwest Spring evening here. I plan to have another glass of WA merlot and read an a few odd short stories from a local rez.
6085. sakonige - 5/17/2000 11:12:13 PM
urk
6086. mandolin - 5/18/2000 8:16:45 AM
Sakonige, I'm not looking for physical evidence. First, I'm not a trained anthropologist or archeologist and I wouldn't know how to interpret it if I found it. Second, even if I were, I live in North Carolina, where there are no plains and there were certainly no Plains Indians. Native peoples here were small farmers in small, settled villages. In the western part of the state there was some influence from the Mississippian culture, with the Town Creek mound being the easternmost permanent settlement of theirs. The Mississippians had more in common with the Aztecs than with the Kiowa.
6087. uzmakk - 5/18/2000 8:43:22 AM
Medawar observes that the standard form of presentation required of an ordinary scientific paper represents the very reverse of what the investigator was in fact doing. In reality, says Medawar, the hypothesis (the hunch, the intuition, the feeling) is first posited, and becomes the medium through which certain otherwise obscure facts, later to be collected in support of it, are first clearly seen. But the account in the paper is expected to give the impression that such facts first suggested the hypothesis, irrespective of whether this impression is truly representative.
In mathematics we see the process in reverse.......
...I would not recommend that we should do otherwise in either field. By all accounts, to tell the story backwards is convienient and saves time. But to pretend that the story was actually lived backwards can be extremely mystifying.
G. Spencer Brown, Laws of Form
*parenthetical is my addition
6088. uzmakk - 5/18/2000 8:44:49 AM
i.e., the above post has to do with intuition
6089. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 10:40:16 AM
Sakonige,
I see that you were busy in here last night, but didn't answer the questions asked of you in the Inferno. I'm still waiting for you to get specific with the persecutions against you, your family and your heritage - based on your Indian-ness. (Acts committed by me, remember?) Your lack of response indicates that 1)there aren't any persecutions against you, your family, or your heritage, and there haven't been 2) you blame and scape-goat whoever you want to for unknown irrational reasons.
Finally,
"We cannot know the underlying reality of anything."
If you cannot rely on any of your perceptions, you must doubt your own existence.
6090. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 10:41:45 AM
Uzmakk,
I was reading that faith used to be synonomous with intuition.
6091. sakonige - 5/18/2000 10:46:04 AM
mandolin -
The Mississippians traded a wide range of goods with the various people who gathered to hunt the plains. They had trade languages in common with them, they attended international festivals and intermarried with them. You have probably heard there were wars. And it's the Mayas rather than the Aztecs who were the dominant cultural influence throughout North American you are thinking of. You're not trying very hard to find evidence of that exotic, unknown world that is all around you. Have you visited the Town Creek site?
6092. mandolin - 5/18/2000 11:28:48 AM
Didn't say the Mississippians had nothing to do with the plains people--of course there was trade and other contacts. But their social structures --kingdom or strong central cheifdom, large permanent settlements (some city-sized), agriculture based economy, ritual sacrifice -- were much more like those of the Aztecs, and, yes, the Maya, the Olmec, the Toltec etc., than that of any of the plains peoples.
I haven't been to Town Creek -- but I haven't managed to get to the nearby Merle Fest either. Every time I've made plans to get to either my band has gotten a gig or one of the kids got sick or I had to work a weekend on a rush project or the car broke down 0r -- well, the damn creek rose.
I'm asking you to point me to written material about family structures among the plains peoples and how those structures differ in significant ways from those found elsewhere. If you don't want to that, fine. When and if I get time, I'll do some research.
6093. bloodnfire - 5/18/2000 11:29:47 AM
Enjoyed your essay, PhillipDavid. Particularly..."What do yeast and a mustard seed have in common? Both have an effect out of proportion to their size. What else has these same properties?
The divine spark, the seed of Christ within us all -- what the Hindus call the "Atman". Hidden inside each person, it is so little it cannot be seen.
Yet it also contains the allness of God; it is so vast it cannot be comprehended."
Thank you for your efforts, and God bless them.
6094. mandolin - 5/18/2000 11:37:33 AM
uzmakk -- your quote in Message # 6087 is highly relevant to the distinction between positivism and my view. More this weekend, maybe tonight. Not the kind of thing I can do on the fly at work.
6096. sakonige - 5/18/2000 12:27:15 PM
Jenerator -
re: Message # 6089
I'm busy here now, too, and work isn't the best place to post insults to religion on the internet. I should save it for desert after work.
6097. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 12:33:17 PM
Religion or Christianity in particular? No insults needed, just get specific, this time (when you are home).
6098. sakonige - 5/18/2000 12:37:49 PM
You asked what it is I don't like about you and your religion.
You've specifically asked to be insulted.
6099. Jenerator - 5/18/2000 12:40:53 PM
No, what I asked was what have I done to harm you, your family, or your heritage.
I also asked what you meant by New World and how the Christians are conquering it. (I'm still curious about which particular beliefs you hate, and where it says in the Bible for us to be worldy, but that's for another day.)
6100. marshame - 5/18/2000 12:42:51 PM
Jenerator check your e-mail.
6163. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2000 6:21:09 PM
I've added a new article to the current articles list: "Can Philosophy Be Christian?"
It came from this site, which looks interesting.
6176. paragate - 5/18/2000 9:43:47 PM
Indiana, Thanks a lot for the link in Message # 6163 There are several articles pertinent to the ethics discussion and some relevant to Dennet's neo-materialist philosophy.
6177. theDiva - 5/18/2000 9:44:28 PM
mandolin
Earlier today you mentioned Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel...there was a thread devoted to the book back about 16 months ago in the Fray. You can find it here if you're interested.
6178. sakonige - 5/18/2000 9:48:07 PM
dammit! I think I really did fry my laptop this time, and I'm probably not going to compete sucessfully for this computer for long. Apologies to anyone I seem to leave hanging when I get booted.
6211. Indiana Jones - 5/20/2000 3:58:04 PM
The matriarchy/patriarchy discussion has been moved to the new "Tunnel of Love/Tower of Lust" thread.
6212. Jenerator - 5/21/2000 10:08:59 AM
Indy,
I wasn't sure if this should be in the Books Thread, but lately, I've been fascinated with Lin Yutang's work. The latest I have of his is From Pagan to Christian. Anyway, this is a website of Buddhist teachings translated clearly and efficiently by Dr. Yutang.
www.yogichen.org.
6213. uzmakk - 5/21/2000 11:34:21 AM
Jenerator:
Lin Yutang? Ist half of this century? 40's 50's. I think I read something by him called The Art of Living.
6218. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:29:00 PM
spudboy,
It is unfortunate that this discussion has been terminated by the moderators. I was looking forward to chatting with you today, asking about your experiences and books you have read. I had just begun crafing a couple of responses.
6202. spudboy - 5/20/00 2:58:12 AM
Western civilizations were notably eliminationist WRT their enemies, while Americans were typically assimilationist. More to the point, they completely lacked the Western perspective that regarded non-whites as essentially subhuman.
The earliest Spanish accounts of the natives in the area of the US Southeast remarked on the variation in skin color, from dark as African to fair skinned, red haired and grey eyed.
I have been fascinated by their civilization and its seeming disappearance in the 11th-13th centuries for a long time, and have spent a fair amount of time in the Yucatan with them.
I've always assumed some of the Maya went north along trade routes to live with nicer relatives when the Aztecs moved in, took over and started eating them....
I wonder how much the assimilationist character of American societies confounds efforts to use classic linguistic analysis to identify their historic migrations...
6219. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:35:49 PM
More to the point, they completely lacked the Western perspective that regarded non-whites as essentially subhuman.
I believe this is a concept rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition of God the Father.
6220. sakonige - 5/21/2000 1:59:33 PM
Christian bigotry is the obvious reason every mention of American Indian religion is moved to the toilet in this forum. Isn't that correct, IndianaJones?
6222. uzmakk - 5/21/2000 8:16:02 PM
bite my tounge, bite my lip, bite my tounge
6223. KuligintheHooligan - 5/22/2000 9:20:07 AM
Taking a break from the years old Christian attrocities in the "New World," let's look at some present-day attrocities:
"It was an ordinary day for 11-year-old Randa. A student at a grade school in southern Sudan, Randa had just sat down to begin her English lesson. It was the last thing Randa ever did. Moments later, Russian-made bombers began dropping anti-personnel bombs all over the school. Randa and 13 of her classmates were killed, along with their teacher. Some were decapitated by flying shrapnel. Other children had arms and legs torn from their bodies.
It was just an ordinary day for Sudan's radical Muslim regime. As a government spokesman put it, "The bombs landed where they were supposed to land."
It's because of atrocities like these that human rights workers in the U.S. are launching The Sudan Campaign, beginning next Tuesday, May 23, 2000. It's a two-week drive to publicize the slavery, persecution, and genocide being inflicted upon millions of Sudanese Christians by the militant Muslim government.
A broad coalition of human rights groups will participate in the campaign. Thousands will engage in prayer vigils, peaceful protests, teach-ins, and a march to the White House to petition the President. Colorado school teacher Barbara Vogel is bringing her class of fourth-graders -- pint-sized abolitionists who raise money to buy the freedom of Sudanese slaves. They've done more than most Congressmen to
ease the suffering of Sudanese Christians.
Dr. Charles Jacobs, director of the campaign, says the most important goal is to get President Clinton to pressure Sudanese leaders to improve human rights. The president's own Commission on International
Religious Freedom tells the horrific story. Its report details the bombing of schools and churches --rape, murder, starvation, and the enslavement of Christian populations. Two million people have
already been killed. (Cont)
6225. KuligintheHooligan - 5/22/2000 9:22:21 AM
These are horrors almost too great to imagine. And after all, Sudan is far away from our comfortable lives in America. We see very little on the news about what's going on there. Maybe that's why, a few months ago, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told human rights workers a blunt truth: That the Sudan issue is not "marketable" to the American people.
You and I have to do everything we can to MAKE this issue marketable -- not only to ordinary citizens but to our poll-driven President and Mrs. Albright. Instead of letting them think of Sudan's victims as a vast blur of anonymous people, we have to make little Randa, her classmates, and her teacher just as real as those 13 children and one teacher murdered at an American school, Columbine.
We must help them understand that the parents of Randa and her "unmarketable" classmates are just as grief-stricken as those Colorado parents." [END]
6226. Jenerator - 5/22/2000 10:01:42 AM
Terribly sad story, Vic. Are you still thinking of going to the Sudan?
[P.s. It's aTrocity, remember?;-)]
6227. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 10:54:54 AM
Dang, Kuligan. The palitability issue that Albright thinks is appropos is a cop-out. The two faced mentality of the politicians is so unacceptable, yet the media, one of the only recourses available, is slow to meet the needs of efforts like the one you mention above.
I haven't had a reminder of the Sudanese atrocity for a long time. It helps to learn of these things. I get caught up in the problems of a region very dear to my heart and then see that those problems, though great are not yet of the life threatening kind. I pray that the muslems of the region I have prayers for do not get caught up in "CAUSES" that create undo strife. Leadership in the region I'm concerned about is very cronyish and has a bad history of abuse of power for personal gain. That is a recipe for bitterness and can lead to destructive activities, for example, Myanmar.
Anyway, the update is taken in prayerful consideration. May God take those helpless souls, keep them strong in his hands, let them have peace in heart, hope only in God and some knowledge they are not alone, because of the thoughts you have spread today.
6228. PelleNilsson - 5/22/2000 11:34:43 AM
Let me just note that the mainly Christian south has fought a secessionist war against Khartoum ever since independence in 1956, albeit with a few years calm under Numeiry in the 70's. This is not to excuse the present atrocities but there is a bit more to it than evil Muslims bombing innocent Christians.
6229. bloodnfire - 5/22/2000 11:51:38 AM
Sakonige. Your Message # 6220. "Christian bigotry is the obvious reason every mention of American Indian religion is moved to the toilet in this forum. Isn't that correct, IndianaJones?"
With the utmost respect Sak, I truly feel that you are extremely bigoted and close-minded regarding Christianity, and 'paint' with a ridiculously 'wide brush'. Your rudeness, bitterness and spite is very unbecoming, and sad, in my humble opinion. I do not remember anyone mocking the religious beliefs of American Indians in this thread. I personally have always been blessed by all that I know of Native American faith, and by the grace and gentleness it promotes in some human hearts. I would be grateful for a little more evidence of it in yours.
6230. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 12:01:35 PM
Tolerance is a gift is it not.
bloodnfire,
I've been witness to many shares if thought through this forum. I'm grateful for you. I read your shared thoughts as often as possible. I find them centered in faith. I am grateful to have your witness.
God has been around me. Kept me. I'm willing to let that happen now. The thoughts that keep so much of life in tumult can have their grip loosened. I'm learning to listen with my heart lately.
The words that leap into mind have become less muddled with the bitterness of sarcasm and anger for the heart that I'm looking into. Or is it that I'm letting it out. Whichever, the never too late adage is one to keep in mind with regard ot me.
Miracles happen.
Peace.
6231. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 12:04:04 PM
I'll be in later.
Ciao
6232. Jenerator - 5/22/2000 3:01:19 PM
Rick,
Speaking of levity, your cheerful and peaceful posts are always calming. Again, I must thank you for your encouraging words early last week. I'm sticking around because of people like you, bloodnfire, and so on.
6233. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:26:10 PM
It's easy to see that Christianity is nothing more than glorified penis worship.
6234. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:29:38 PM
Jesus Christ belongs in one of the toilet threads.
6235. sakonige - 5/22/2000 4:33:10 PM
6236. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:33:11 PM
is this how we respect the earth and it's gifts Sakonige?
Let it go. You know this it's futile to be offencive.
Be above that. You are better than that and will be a stronger witness of the struggle and power native cultures represent.
6237. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:35:10 PM
It isn't about Christ and you Sakonige.
You have the strength of ancestors and don't need this white bread futility.
Be stronger than the futility abusive words.
6238. rubberducky7 - 5/22/2000 4:36:50 PM
hmm
think i saw Message # 6235 on a bumper sticker once. cute car.
6239. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:38:08 PM
Have you been to any strong festivals lately.
I would be interested in the tales of native cultural community.
The heratige of those cultures can be a strength all persons can learn from.
Share it if you will.
6241. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:48:04 PM
Your tantrum will likely insite derogatory responses from some.
I'm still going to let you be you. I think you're overdoing something. If you are as I presume acting out of character...
Well, I've been around long enough to leave you alone as needed.
I hope you will come out of this latest and find your gifts and renewal with your own spirits.
Good luck.
6243. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:51:24 PM
My opinions are borrowed from what I've found to be human traits I can emulate.
I respect your right to be whatever you've got to be.
Then, know, I am one who is always waiting patiently for the kind of sharing that comes from the heart.
Again, Sakonige, you are not alone with your anger towards deceitful, gratuituous, self centered, over ingulgent behavior. The worlds woes are largely derived from selfishness.
6244. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:56:47 PM
You can have more effect upon the religous thread when you share your religion with tolerance for others.
I agree you get the brunt of many folk here. You've lost your patience obviously.
I'm sorry to have lost your side of things.
6245. RickNelson - 5/22/2000 4:58:59 PM
I really think you have a culture that to share Sakonige.
I pray you find the strength that ancestors give, to keep your heart, to let go of the worlds' hold.
6261. Jenerator - 5/23/2000 11:30:06 AM
Uzmakk,
Yutang wrote The Importance of Living, probably what you were thinking of. Did you like it? I think he's off a little in some of his positions regarding Christianity, but he's a 'new' believer, so that's fine. Plus, he describes Taoism, Confuscianism, and Buddhism wonderfully well, so I've enjoyed reading him.
6262. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:12:12 PM
Minor household crises, a visit from an old friend, and troubles at the DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Line (Loop?) Access Module) kept me off line and away from positivism over the last several days. I apologize, and will try to address the issue with this and the following posts -- then I'll get caught up on what others have said.
Some disclaimers: I am not a philosopher, and I don't think I've ever seen one on TV. Since it is quite impossible for me to give an outline of all the various positivisms, I've tried to stick to aspects which are fairly universal and which are flatly contradicted by my views, which are quite similar to those presented in Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, and have been influenced, as well, by what I've read of Gerald Edelman, Antonio and Hannah Damasio, Steven Pinker, Marvin Minsky, William Calvin, and others. They don't always agree with each other. No doubt many here can and will point out my errors on both sides.
[cont]
6263. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:13:23 PM
Positivism maintains that there is an external world, accesssible through our senses and their extensions. With this I agree. But it also assumes that the senses have no role in constructing experience -- that is, that while the inadequacies of our senses and instruments may limit what we can know about the external world (we can't see bacteria or polarized light), the things we do know through the senses are in fact properties of the world, or at least that there is a reliable mapping from our experience to those properties. With this I disagree -- as the simple example of color shows, sometimes what we experience depends for its nature on the structure of our sense organs and minds.
Positivism (especially logical positivism and other traditions of analytic philosophy) also claims that reason (or logic or whatever your favorite term) has an a priori structure, entirely unconstrained the physical stuff in which it is manifested. This is also the argument in strong AI: a brain may be necessary for thinking, but it doesn't matter what the brain is made of because it's the rules of thinking that matter. I think this notion is profoundly wrong -- following Lakoff and Johnson, I claim that (1) thought and reason are embodied, dependent on the structure and physical qualities of the brain, (2) most thought is unconscious and unavailable to introspection or analysis, though we may be able to 'watch' its action with MRI and other tools, and (3) thought and reason proceed primarily by means of metaphors and categories based on our bodily experience (moving through space, manipulating objects, eating, sex, and so on) rather than by universal rules of logic or universal categories which are simply 'out there' in the world.
[cont]
6264. mandolin - 5/23/2000 12:14:13 PM
I assume that when paragate mentions the 'verification problem' he/she is talking about the result in logic (the name escapes me) which demonstrates that one cannot piecemeal verify a mapping of a system of statements to the world -it has to be done all at once, what Quine calls 'meaning holism.' For me, the problem does not arise: there is no hope in the first place of arriving at an 'objective truth' about the world or anything else. But the fact that thought and reasoning are based, in large part, on our shared evolutionary history, makes it possible for us to agree among ourselves, most of the time, about the truth of various statements about the world and ourselves, and also guarantees that about salient aspects of the world (where food is, for instance) we are very likely to be correct.
My position also enables reasoning about things, such as ethics, which are out of bounds in strict positivism. There certainly is no moral absolute, nor is there an absolute moral calculus of 'goods' as in utilitarianism, but we can examine where our moral notions come from, and work from that basis through metaphorical exxtension (as we do in almost all thinking).
Gods, however, remain problematic. Or not -- for me, the interesting question is not whether spirits of any kind exist, but why so many people think they do. But I've spouted enough for a while.
6265. Indiana Jones - 5/23/2000 12:58:51 PM
mandolin: Welcome back. I was afraid the recent discombobulations might have been off-putting for you.
6266. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 12:59:04 PM
mandolin
I just read your interesting post. Unfortunately there are things I have to do. I'll be back in an hour or two.
6267. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:00:50 PM
Jen, as you know I'm on vacation, and left my address book in my home PC. Would you e-mail me please so I can communicate with you ? Thanks.
6268. Jenerator - 5/23/2000 1:03:37 PM
Will do, right now!;-)
6269. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:26:50 PM
Rubberducky. I read 'Love You Forever', the childrens' book mentioned in FadetoBlack. I agree with the editor's feelings that it expresses that which mere 'Religion' promises but doesn't deliver. It only serves to emphasize that which I have mentioned before. Mere "Religion", a cerebral attempt to intellectualize God, is empty and stinks of death. However the love one finds in a 'relationship' with God delivers all of the tenderness, sweetness and devotion of the kind the book describes, and so much more. I hope the editor learns it's true (to his delighted, and perhaps embarrassed) surprise.
It moved one person to write...
"The Love of God is greater far
than tongue or pen can ever tell,
It goes beyond the farthest star,
and reaches to the deepest hell,
Oh Love of God! How rich and pure,
How measureless and strong,
It shall for evermore endure,
The saints' and angels' song.
Could we with ink the oceans fill,
and were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
and every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above
would drain the oceans dry,
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
though stretched from sky to sky"
But as an old Scottish preacher once said, it's even more
wonderful felt than 'tellt... :-)
6270. rubberducky7 - 5/23/2000 1:36:00 PM
bloodnfire:
so that's a recommendation, correct?
6271. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 1:56:08 PM
Correct. It's charming.
6272. mandolin - 5/23/2000 2:05:18 PM
Is that the Munch/McGraw Love You Forever? I love that book, and my kids loved that book -- though, in the 3rd and 5th grades now, they think it's for those unbelievably simple 1st graders.
Munch has done a number of really wonderful stories for small children -- Stephanie's Ponytail, The Paper Bag Princess, Angela's Airplane, among others.
6273. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 3:47:44 PM
mandolin
Positivism does indeed cover a lot of things. But since you replied to paragate who had referred to the 'verification problem' I shall address logical positivism which was embraced by the so called Vienna Circle which flourished in the 20s and 30s with names as Carnap and Neurath. Wittgenstein appeared on the fringes. Their project was to draw a sharp dividing line between science and metaphysics. They were Kantians and used Kant's toolbox distinguishing between 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' knowledge and between 'analytical' and synthetic'statements but let's not get caught up in the technicalities.
Their point was that for a statement to be called scientific it must be possible to verify by experiements and observations. They introduced the the concept of 'intersubjectivity' meaning that an experiment is only valid if it yields the same result to different independent observers.
The application of the verification criterion means that the statement 'lead is heavier than iron' is science but 'it is wrong to kill' is not.
You say that My position also enables reasoning about things, such as ethics, which are out of bounds in strict positivism. I think you overstate things here. Ethics is 'out of bounds' in the sense that it cannot be subject to scientific inquiry as defined by the positivists. But they positivists do not -this is important - reject metaphysics. They consider moral and ethics, arts and music, literature as essential to human society. But not as science.
To say 'I'm a positivist so I cannot discuss ethics' is to have misunderstood.
6274. mandolin - 5/23/2000 4:24:23 PM
PelleNillson -- thanks for your clarifying post. I knew that positivists did not reject ethics as a topic for discussion, but I expressed myself badly.
What I would claim (I believe in contra-distinction to the positivists), is that it is possible to discuss the human activities of art, ethics, music, etc, in scientific terms. Not that one could scientifically determine the worth of one painting vs another, or scientifically prove what the best course of action is in a particular situation, but that the the bases for these human actions and for our reactions to them are legitimate areas of scientific inquiry.
In particular, it is legitimate to ask in a scientific way why we have the notion of 'good' at all and why we generally consider some things 'good' and others 'bad,' and it is possible to design a research program which has a fair chance of success in answering those questions for us as a species. We could discover why most people believe it is wrong to kill, even if we could not decide scientifically whether, forever and always, it is wrong to kill.
But the real difference isn't in the status of moral statements but in the status of truth statements. I would say, with the positivists, that intersubjectivity is a pre-requisite, but would add that such agreement among independent observers may only be possible among beings with a similar evolutionary history.
6275. PelleNilsson - 5/23/2000 4:48:38 PM
mandolin
I agree that the question "why do we have moral values and why is there a remarkable similarity across cultures?" is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry. I don't think the logical positivists would have disagreed.
I'm intrigued that you bring evolution into the discussion. I have thought along this line for a long time. As far as I know we don't know of any human society without religion. We must ask ourselves if religion brings an evolutionary advantage.
And with that I have to say goodnight. I'll check in tomorrow morning.
6276. sakonige - 5/23/2000 9:37:40 PM
mandolin, are you part Indian?
6277. paragate - 5/23/2000 9:40:41 PM
Mandolin, It is unclear to me what the point is of trying to localize a particular thought or complex of thoughts in the brain with a brain scan. I agree with Wittgenstein that after all possible emprically verifiable true statements have been lined up, we are still faced with all the important metaphysical questions completely untouched. Many issues proceed and are understood from the inside. But maybe I am ascribing a view to you which you don't hold....a lot of "brain talk" seems to presuppose physicalism or the reduction of the mind & spirit to brain states. Are you proposing a physicalist theory of ethics? That is good which furthers human evolution? What if it became clear that for the good of the universe human evolution should end? Or life as a whole. Does "Good" end with the end of life?
6278. bloodnfire - 5/23/2000 11:40:43 PM
6272. Mandolin. I gave that book 'Love You Forever' to my wife for Mother's Day. We are staying with our 40 year old son, so you can imagine how touched and moved she was by its lovely message. She plans to give it to him for his birthday in July, all being well.
6279. mandolin - 5/24/2000 9:59:57 AM
sakonige: not as far as I know. My wife's great-great-grandmother was Huron, but as I understand it that's one generation too far to consider applying for tribal status.
I did ask my friend about patriarchy/matriarchy -- he never lived in a primarily Indian community so he says he doesn't know anything other than his own family, in which his father and both grandfathers were firmly in control. He's mostly Lumbee (with a bit of Cherokee and Irish), by the way, and as you may know no one recognizes them as a tribe, so there's no opportunity for even the limited autonomy of reservation life.
6280. mandolin - 5/24/2000 10:01:14 AM
paragate: I can see absolutely no reason to suppose that the mind is anything other than the activity of the brain in the body. "In the body" is important, since there are numerous hormonal and neural feedback mechanisms linking the two.
A crude example of why it might be useful to discover the locality in which certain brain activity occurs: I believe that much thinking occurs by way of metaphor, even at the cellular level. If the brain structures and activities that are used in following a trail through a landscape are also used when "following" a complex argument, that is evidence (not by itself conclusive) that "following" the argument is more than just a linguistic trope: thought is structured by a mapping of the mind's activity in manuevering the physical body. Such evidence has been reported. (I can get the cites if you want, but they're not available here, and my band's practicing tonight, so it would be tomorrow night at the earliest).
As to your other questions: 'good' cannot be based on 'furthering' evolution, since evolution is always adaptation to local environments: it has no direction, nowhere to be furthered to; salmonella bacteria have exactly as long an evolutionary history as we do. But our notions of 'good,' I believe, have their origins in preferences for the kinds of behaviors that have in the past, on the average, led to differential success in reproduction, and I believe this idea is testable and has been at least tentatively confirmed. Whether those preferences and notions will help us now is quite another issue. I do think 'good' and 'evil' make no sense except as descriptions of human actions, including thought. Another animal, with a different history, might well have very different 'goods.'
6281. mandolin - 5/24/2000 10:01:43 AM
bloodnfire: a lovely gift
6282. Indiana Jones - 5/24/2000 10:29:02 AM
A discussion on TableTalk that some Motiers may also wish to contribute to.
6283. Jenerator - 5/24/2000 11:55:02 AM
Pelty1,
I just received an e-mail from the Diocese of Canterbury:
"There is no knowledge of N.T. Wright here."
One of the Deans was familiar with some of Wright's books and said that most likely he was working with the other cathedral you mentioned.
[Btw, I may be meeting up with Alister McGrath tomorrow! Brag, brag!]
6284. Uzmakk - 5/24/2000 1:38:22 PM
297. Uzmakk - 5/24/00 4:46:43 PM From Tower of Lust
Anyway, I did want to follow up that Penis God post I made to Sak. This seems to be a point that people who have been schooled in the evolutionist mode, or other cosmologies can't seem to get and that is that Christianity views itself as a transformation, not an evolution. And it is a transofrmation of the mind, it is a transformation of the man, it is a transformation of the God. It is a revolution. I had always thought that it was the unattractive covers on Pelle's Mithraic Influence in Early Bogomil Architecture that made it such a poor seller, but there was this rather startling intellectual flaw in the argument where the evolutionist looks for evolution when infact what is in front of him is revolution or transformation. He cannot see it because he has not been transformed. or atleast is not open to the idea of transformation.
6285. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:01:28 PM
One of my fellow missionaries here in Namibia studied with Alister McGrath. I had become privy to this information so that the first time I met this missionary, in the conversation I brought him up and then ragged on the guy and his theology. The missionary had a rather irritated look on his face, until I told him I was joking.
BTW, I have met JI Packer several times, same with RC Sproul. John Stott too. It's really no big deal.
6286. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:04:36 PM
BTW, Stott is a great, humble man. While back in the States last year I was at a missions conference for which he was the main speaker. One evening, I was also asked to speak *for a whopping three minutes.* Immediately after that Stott spoke for the next 45 minutes.
I went up afterwards and spoke to him about Namibia, something I had done before. He said to me, and I quote, "It was a privilege sharing the platform with you this evening."
I only share this because it is just so humorous. Um, sure, my three minutes meant a lot! He is just a very gracious and humble man.
6287. marjoribanks - 5/24/2000 5:12:35 PM
Hooligan,
I'm assuming these are superstar missionaries.
Do you have special trading cards? Are there stats sections in the back of missionary papers? 40 souls won, 3 lost etc? What are your own stats? Having a good year? What about fantasy leagues? T-shirts?
(Don't mind me, I'm just getting ready to leave work and am in aparty mood)
6288. KuligintheHooligan - 5/24/2000 5:46:46 PM
marjoribanks, I got a kick outta your post. But to you, isn't all religion a sort of "fantasy league" anyway? Regardless, my stats are waaaaay up this year and I hope to make the Big Show soon, as well as have my ugly mug on a tee as well.
Just so you know, all the guys I mentioned are evangelical theologians, not missionaries. But hey, we're all in the same business anyway. Demonizing the indigenous peoples and selling our fare.
6289. pelty1 - 5/25/2000 10:51:36 AM
Jen,
Thanks for looking up Wright. He definitely is at the other cathedral. Thanks for your help. BTW, you should read some of his works; you might enjoy them.
6290. rubberducky7 - 5/25/2000 1:02:33 PM
Those Wacky Germans
...although i really, really like the idea!
6291. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2000 1:57:47 PM
uzmakk -- Message # 6284
A transparent attempt to shift the blame from cover to contents. You know very well that it was those hideous gargoyles you designed that stopped customers dead in their tracks.
Startling intellectual flaw - my foot!
We have an appointment at dawn. Choose your weapons. I shall be sconded by Major Banks.
6292. mandolin - 5/25/2000 2:29:50 PM
There is an interview with Philosophy in the Flesh co-author Lakoff here, reactions to the interview here and here, and his responses here. All at The Edge -- a wonderful resource.
6293. Jenerator - 5/25/2000 2:49:40 PM
So, I was telling Prince Charles the other day, "I just hate name droppers!"
6294. mandolin - 5/25/2000 2:58:27 PM
uzmakk -- christianity is hardly the only transformatory religion, nor is revolution excluded from evolutionary thought. My own atheism comes, in part, from revelatory moments and insights which I experienced as truly transforming and liberating, though occasionally temporarily depressing. I'm posting a sonnet about some of that in the poetry thread.
6295. PelleNilsson - 5/25/2000 3:56:02 PM
mandolin
Thanks for those links. Lakoff sort of proves that there is now way around Kant when discussing the theory of knowledge.
I found this quote from Freeman Dyson in the latest issue thought-provoking, in particular the last sentence:
We have seen terrible wars and terrible persecutions conducted in the name of religion. We have also seen large numbers of people inspired by religion to lives of heroic virtue, bringing education and medical care to the poor, helping to abolish slavery and spread peace among nations. Religion amplifies the good and evil tendencies of individual souls.
6296. ee - 5/26/2000 2:30:49 AM
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God
6297. mandolin - 5/26/2000 7:19:36 AM
Oh, gosh! Now I see how wrong I've been.
Heh.
6298. RickNelson - 5/26/2000 12:37:21 PM
Good ee, but what are those passages supposed to do for presenting human interaction with God or with anothers source of spirituality?
Christians exihibiting a belief that their is but one and only one way to spirituality invariably lead a spirtual seeker away from the beliefs the christian is proposing.
Need I support this premise extensively?
I believe an honest look at the population of christians, will provide information of that population being stagnant of large level conversions. I'm tired of the self interests of the evangelical right wing ministers spewing illogical numbers of the populace as christian converts.
A spiritual path is formed with experience, this I find no flaw with.
The spiritual experience can take hold with the receptor being willing. Again I see no flaw with this.
So, the methods of getting to the spiritual level which gets a person out of ego, self control, self centeredness and opens to giving, service, and outward actions of concern for humanity and lifestyle are what concern me.
What is flawed is important to me. I see religions of humanity as a major flaw with promoting spirtuality as quickly defined above.
I do not think the simplified spirtuality I'm defining opens itself to an unrealistic truth. The possesion of quality human traits is likely a goal of a vast majority of the populace. How one achieves these traits is open to broad speculation and often intense debate.
So, if someone will offer their view, a thoughtful expression of how positive human characteristics, achieved through the trust of spirituality and belief that letting that trust be the rule of life is my opening statement.
Any offers from all sectors of spirituality are desired. A spiritual focus of thought is requested. For those not concerned with spiritual matters, I'm ok with your expressions, but I'm not desiring debate.
6299. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 1:57:19 PM
One thing that is unique about Christianity, as far as I know, is the idea of The ManGod. And you know what, the way it turns out, it is a hell of an interesting concept. Very much in line with science I would say.
6300. mandolin - 5/26/2000 3:43:04 PM
Hmmm -- the Pharoahs were gods, as were some of the Ceasars, as is the emperor of Japan. Vishnu was repeatedly incarnated in the Upanishads, as Krishna, for instance, in the Bhavagad Vita. The Norse gods were mortal -- and many will die to save the world at Ragnarok.
6301. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:16:24 PM
I agree with RickNelson.
Spent many years in the Catholic faith, and never found God until I left it.
I don't think spirituality and institutional religion are in the same neighborhood.
6302. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 5:20:39 PM
Oh, She Rex, I am a blob of putty in your hands.
6303. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:26:17 PM
Uzmakk -
stiffen that putty just a tad and you've peaked my interest.
6304. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:28:03 PM
Institutional religion is all about power. People controlling and having power over the lives of others.
The boys club Vatican can have that faith.
Doesn't mean anything to God and me.
And I'm proud to announce that I'm a heretic. I believe in the gospel of Didymous Thomas, which is deemed heresy by the Church.
6305. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2000 5:30:14 PM
SheRex
Nice to see you. Heretic how? Gnostic?
6306. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:34:39 PM
The Vatican deemed that gospel as heresy (contrary to Church dogma).
A heretic is a dissenter from Church dogma.
6307. SheRex - 5/26/2000 5:35:42 PM
The Vatican obviously didn't like the idea of Christ implying that the search for Him doesn't have anything to do with Churches and priests.
6308. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 5:37:48 PM
She Rex:
Consider it stiffened.
6309. PelleNilsson - 5/26/2000 5:52:46 PM
SheRex
I know how what heresy is. My question is in what respects Didymous Thomas (whom I've not heard about before) deviates from church dogma.
6310. SheRex - 5/26/2000 6:03:33 PM
re your earlier post: "it is a transofrmation of the mind, it is a transformation of the man, it is a transformation of the God"
I've been reading Gil Bailie's Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads, and what surprised me was the transformative powers that Christianity really did have in the beginning. like people's universes literallly POPPED.
Being a Catholic and only aware of the universe of those who mourn their faith, I had never been exposed to the concept of His Life and His Way being the central issue. I had been exposed only to years of guilt-inducement, e.g., Christ had nails hammered into his hands/wrists for your sins.
-------
I shared my first experience in a non-Catholic Church with an Irish & Catholic friend of mine. I had attended a protestant service with another friend, and spent the entire time marveling at the lack of kneelers. My good Irish & Catholic friend responded - well, what do expect from those blasphemous heathens?
6311. SheRex - 5/26/2000 6:14:18 PM
PelleNilsson -
The gospel is at http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
Who knows why the Church does what it does? When that movie Stigmata came out, I read an article giving some background on the movie, like about the Gospel of Didymous Thomas, and in the article, I remember the author reporting that the Church still regarded it as heresy, and has since the document was found in the 1940's.
Some of the sayings in the gospel are also in other Bible gospels. Some, however, are not.
In it, Christ designates James as the one to lead them when He is gone. We all know Peter somehow ended up the leader, and the first Pope.
Also
"His disciples said to him, 'When will the kingdom come?'
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
I don't think they like the idea of folks seeing that the Kingdom of God is everywhere and everything, and our spiritual journey back to the creator is very much concerned with how we're doing things here, rather than something you're required to save up for or be good for.
6312. Uzmakk - 5/26/2000 9:11:38 PM
She Rex:
Eat me !!!
6313. phillipdavid - 5/26/2000 9:40:33 PM
In support of what SheRex said about some of the ideas in the Gospel of Thomas being present in the bible, look at how similar this verse in Luke is to what SheRex posted in Message # 6311:
Luke 17:21
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
6314. phillipdavid - 5/26/2000 9:45:31 PM
RickNelson
Message # 6298
I am inspired to suggest a wonderful, easy-reading and thought-provoking book to you. Please email me at phildavid@hotmail.com
6315. bloodnfire - 5/27/2000 12:12:03 AM
SheRex. Your Message # 6311 "I don't think they like the idea of folks seeing that the Kingdom of God is everywhere and everything, and our spiritual journey back to the creator is very much concerned with how we're doing things here, rather than something you're required to save up for or be good for.".
I agree completely. Welcome aboard!
(Uzmakk, behave yourself :-)
6316. PelleNilsson - 5/27/2000 4:33:25 AM
Here is a better starting point for Thomas. The FAQ is quite informative.
6317. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:46:03 AM
*Of course* there are some things in the "Gospel of Thomas" that sound like things in the Orthodox Gospels! It was written precisely to copy-cat the genuine Gospels in some fashion in an attempt to fool people into believing it was genuine itself. But its late date of authorship, making it obviously NOT the product of one of the Apostles, and some of the more absurd statements therein, make it unacceptable to the teaching of Christ.
Fact is, this so-called Gospel wasn't even recognized as authoritative by the early Gnostics such as Valentinus!
BTW, I don't know why my hosting name appears in all CAP letters, but I'll look to see if I can change that.
6318. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:47:51 AM
Oh, Valentinus didn't recognize it as authoritative probably because it was not yet written during his time. Also, the four orthodox Gospels were all written in the first century and had been widely circulated by the time of Valentinus, and certainly later than that when the Thomas "gospel" was written, making it easy again for the author of Thomas to copy-cat some of the things in the genuine Gospels.
The Gospel of Thomas is a "fake" and people ought to just get over it.
6319. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 7:10:50 AM
Between now and Monday I will begin the Ethics discussions. I don't mean to kill any on-going discussions, but I'm not really sure how else to maintain a thread devoted to Ethics, at least for the next couple of months, and allow the other spiritual/religious discussions to continue. If possible, please try to wrap up any of these discussions by Monday, when I will post the opening posts for the Ethics discussions.
I am open to any suggestions, though, as to how to allow the other discussions to continue, if people strongly object to putting them on hold.
6320. JudithAtHome - 5/27/2000 9:42:31 AM
Kuligin:
Don't know if you are aware but this is a holiday weekend. Monday is Memorial Day and many people will be "away from their computers" or not at work, in other words. Don't be surprised if this place is less than active.
6321. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 12:13:35 PM
Judith, thank you very much for pointing that out! As it isn't a holiday here in Namibia, I had plum forgotten it entirely.
6322. paragate - 5/27/2000 2:06:10 PM
Kuligan, Copy cat versus genuine is a bit more complex than you indicate. The "Genuine" Gospels are supposedly based on a mysterious "Q" source which hasn't been found or perhaps was an oral tradition of Jesus' sayings. If it were so clear why are there so many disparities between the synoptics and John? G of Thomas "sounds" to me like it is based on a genuine tradition which isn't too distant from the Master's voice.
6323. paragate - 5/27/2000 4:36:08 PM
A quote by Dyson...article in the Edge magazine mentioned in an earlier post. Exerpted from an acceptance speech of the Templeton Prize. "Science and religion are two windows that people look
through, trying to understand the big universe outside,
trying to understand why we are here. The two windows
give different views, but they look out at the same
universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete.
Both leave out essential features of the real world. And
both are worthy of respect.
Trouble arises when either science or religion claims
universal jurisdiction, when either religious dogma or
scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious
creationists and scientific materialists are equally
dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring
both science and religion into disrepute.
6324. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:13:19 PM
paragate,
Q is of course a theory. The use of "supposedly" in your comments says it all. It is based on similarities between two of the Synoptics and is nothing more than a hunch or guess. To be sure, perhaps it is true, but we won't know until we find it. Personally, I have nothing against Q per se, just that one mustn't make too many conclusions based on a document that we don't even know existed.
As for the "disparities" between John and the Synoptics, those differences are easily understood when one considers that John was writing his Gospel concentrating on a different angle. He spends nearly half his book just on the last week of Jesus' life, for example. His emphasis is different, but certainly not contradictory. The "gospel" of Thomas was most likely produced mid to late second century. This Gnostic gospel wasn't written by an Apostle nor even produced in the first century. The fact that the Gnostic "masters" of the mid-second century don't even mention it let alone recognize it as authoritative says it all.
And that is why I call it a "copy cat." It is written much later than the Orthodox Gospels and some of its statements are meant to sound like those Gospels. No doubt the author of Thomas had those Orthodox Gospels in front of him when he wrote his dubious letter. I could do the same thing today, write a letter that very much sounds like the Gospels. The only difference being that people wouldn't be so stupid as to believe it actually was of value.
One need only read it and compare it with the Orthodox Gospels to also see that it pales in comparison.
6325. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:23:06 PM
My personal favorite from the Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
6326. KuligintheHooligan - 5/27/2000 6:27:29 PM
This is a close second:
"Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."
Does anyone know of any good commentaries that actually attempt to interpret these sayings in their Gnostic context?
6327. CalGal - 5/27/2000 8:16:29 PM
This is ethics?
6328. RickNelson - 5/27/2000 9:03:00 PM
At this point I'm checking in. Hello She Rex.
I do have a doubt/concern that the thoughts I expressed may lead to religeous negativity. I don't think, I'm ready to espouse religions lack usefulness. To the contrary I believe many do offer a cohesive system which may help some achieve personal spiritual growth.
However, the dogmatic style of religions such as those found on some televangelism shows, some orthodox churchs, and for some reason *g* many Chatholic churchs, etc... I must say deters new converts to spirituality.
My intent at this point is to express that being a community in spirituality which invites newcomers is the first step. Secondly is what sets the atmosphere which retains, draws new members and allows freedom of personal expression.
6329. RickNelson - 5/27/2000 9:06:46 PM
Secondly is a question????
6330. Indiana Jones - 5/27/2000 10:34:14 PM
Uzmakk: Please don't drive SheRex off as soon as she gets here. (Let sakonige do it instead.)
SheRex: Welcome and glad you decided to drop in.
Kuligin: Apparently your username is cased that way. I tried changing it in the database, but the change won't take.
6331. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:44:04 PM
Two comments about the Gospel of Thomas that I like quite a bit:
Elaine Pagels said:
"In the Gospel of Thomas, the disciples say to Jesus, "Tell us, what do you want us to do? How shall we pray? What shall we eat? How shall we fast?" Now if you look at Matthew and Luke, Jesus answers the questions. He says, "When you pray, say, 'Our Father who are in Heaven, hallowed be...' When you fast, wash your face, don't make a show of it. When you give alms do it privately and without being showy." In this gospel, this Jesus does not answer. He says, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for everything is known before
heaven." Now this answer throws you and me upon ourselves.... Here Jesus, in effect, turns one toward oneself, and that is really one of the themes of the Gospel of Thomas, that you must go in a sort of a spiritual quest of your own to discover who you are, and to discover really that you are the child of God just like Jesus."
6332. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:49:00 PM
From Helmut Koester:
"Now what is typical about these sayings is that in each instance, these sayings want to say that if you want to understand what Jesus said, you have to recognize yourself. You have to know yourself, know who you are. It begins with a saying about the Kingdom of God, "if you seek the Kingdom of God in the sky then the birds will precede you. And if you seek it in the sea, then the fish will precede you, but the Kingdom is in you. And if you know yourself then you know the Kingdom of God." (The Kingdom of the Father, in fact, it always says in the gospel of Thomas. Normally the Kingdom of the Father, not the Kingdom of God.) "But if you don't know yourself, you live in poverty." And poverty is understood as the ignorance of a life in its physical existence. Knowledge is understood to be the knowledge of one's divine origin, of the fact that one has come from the Kingdom. That we are on this earth only in a sojourn....
What does it mean really to know oneself? To know oneself is to have
insight into one's own ultimate divine identity. You can go back to
understand this to Greek models, which certainly exist. "Know yourself" is a very old Greek maxim... that is, you have to know that your own soul is divine, and then you know that you are immortal, whereas the body is the mortal part of human existence. Now this is radicalized in the Gospel of Thomas into saying that everything that is experienced physically and through sense perception, everything in this world that you can perceive in this way is nothing. It is, at best, chaos and, at worst, it doesn't even exist in reality. The only thing that really exists is your divine spirit or your divine soul, which is identical in its quality with God himself. And Jesus is the one who teaches that....
[cont]
6333. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:50:00 PM
"[When one truly knows oneself], one understands that one is divine, but also one understands that one is mortal. In such a way, you recognize that this mortality is really meaningless, as physical existence is meaningless. And therefore, death is no longer a problem, but death is a solution, because in death finally all this mortality will fall away, and the true self will be liberated to an independent existence that's no longer dependent on physical existence. And on everything that goes with physical existence, sickness and poverty and so on. And so physical existence is often described as poverty. But when you know yourself you are no longer in poverty."
6334. phillipdavid - 5/28/2000 12:57:37 PM
Kuligin
Message # 6325
"Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't
deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
My interpretation rests on the ancient literary device of using "male" as representative of our true selves, our higher divine self that is connected directly to God, and "female" as representing our souls, the part of us that lives in the relative world with all its desires, wants, needs, etc. Shakespeare used this beautifully in his play Taming of the Shrew.
6335. paragate - 5/28/2000 1:05:05 PM
PD & Kuligan, I just asked a Yale divinity school professor about what he thought about the Gospel of Thomas. He said that scholastic opinion is divided about just how close the sayings are to the original source. It seems pretty clear that it was written down in coptic about 150 to 200. It might be a translation from another language. It is notable that it emphasizes the Kingdom in our midst rather than the Kingdom to come. All reference to the coming kingdom seems absent. He personally saw it as a valuable source in that it is one of the few extant documents which purport to record the sayings of Jesus, but he was wary of its exclusive emphasis on the kingdom among us. He believes that it is important to keep both poles...lacking either one is a half the message. God is with us and beyond us.
6336. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:25:35 PM
paragate,
From what I recall, it is clear that the Gospel of Thomas existed by the end of the second century, as you have noted from the comments by the Yale prof. His comments sound good. The thing I don't like about the book is that it is really devoid of any historical context. Both Judaism and Christianity are religions rooted in history, in God acting in the history of man. The Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings with no real connection between them and the life of Jesus. This is one major reason why I find the Orthodox Gospels to be of so much more value.
PD, the two interpretations are interesting. I am familiar with Pagels and Koester. I wonder who else has done some "commentary" work on Gnostics books like the Gospel of Thomas. Your male/female interpretation is interesting as well, although I don't know that it really satisfies. What I mean is, I don't quite get how "making oneself male" is related to one's "divine self." How exactly would one make one's divine self?
CalGal, like I said, the Ethics stuff won't come until Monday, and with it being Memorial Day and all, I might not even begin the Ethics discussion until late Monday at that.
6337. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:31:47 PM
Re: Gnosticism and the "kingdom within oneself"
I think one must always keep in mind that in Gnosticism in general and Christian Gnosticism particularly, a radical dualism exists such that the material world is considered evil and the spirit world good. When it came to Christian Gnosticism a la Marcion and company, the OT God was viewed as evil because he made the material world. Jesus revealed the "other" God, the NT God of spirit and love. This sort of dualism was rightly condemned by the Church because it speaks of their being two gods.
The whole notion that the kingdom of God is *just* inside each of us is, IMO, a reflection of this dualism. In other words, salvation in a Gnostic context is the freeing of the spiritual part of man from the prison that is the flesh. I actually think John in his first epistle warns against precisely such a notion, the Docetic belief that Jesus only appeared to have flesh but really was a fantasm, a spirit with no material component ("Anyone who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God").
I only bring this up because we mustn't divorce the Gnostic view of salvation from the Gnostic view of the cosmos, the dualism that states there are two gods. It seems a rather popular notion in some circles today to sing praises about Gnosticism and the "kingdom within" while ignoring all the others things that Gnosticism stood for.
6338. KuligintheHooligan - 5/28/2000 3:33:18 PM
Indy, I recall when I originally signed up in the Mote that I used CAP letters, because Irv at some point asked me to not use them. So it seems that those CAPS are permanently in my file! Sorry about that. It does look at bit brash sitting there until the thread name.
6339. phillipdavid - 5/29/2000 11:08:34 AM
Kuligin,
"What I mean is, I don't quite get how "making oneself male" is related to one's "divine self." How exactly would one make one's divine self?"
We don't have to make it as God already has done that. Our divine self is the individualization of God's presence in each one of us. I have read some eastern spiritualists refer to this concept as the superconscious (or maybe it was supraconcsious) mind.
We don't make it, we choose to identify with it and become it -- as Paul said, be changed from one degree of glory to another. Jesus taught us how to: by always acting through and with love, all ways. Our divine self is the body of First Cause that contains within it our "treasure laid up in heaven"-words and works, thoughts and feelings of virtue, attainment, and light-pure energies of love that have risen from the plane of action in time and space as the result of our judicious exercise of free will and his harmonious qualification (Jesus' teachings) of the stream of life that issues forth from the heart of God and descends to invigorate and enliven the embodied soul.
6340. phillipdavid - 5/29/2000 11:10:27 AM
I could quibble a bit with your description of Gnostic dualism, but I won't. But given your description above, I don't think it fair to describe the Gospel of Thomas as "gnostic."
"The whole notion that the kingdom of God is *just* inside each of us..."
The kingdom of God is all -- the inside and outside, the microcosom and the macrocosm. What I think I have learned is that it is accessed by us from within. And what is within? Our thoughts and emotions. Through our thoughts we can learn and choose to express wisdom -- "wise dominion" -- in life; through our emotions we can learn and choose to express and be love always, in all ways. What "heaven" means to me is an absolute realm of LOVE -- a state where all is love, the only energy is love, the only state of being is pure love. And if we can be that, if we can remember (re-member) who we really are, and choose to be who we really are (a soul created in the image and likeness of God; a little seed off the divine tree, the tree of life) then we will have accessed heaven -- be in the presence of God. Jesus taught us that it is right here, right now, if only we could learn to see it and be in it. He tried to teach us how to do so, by acting and being through love always, in all ways.
6341. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2000 11:15:15 AM
I'm certainly no authority on either, but I've always heard Gnosticism and the Gospel of Thomas associated.
The Gospel of Thomas Homepage
6342. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:33:24 PM
PD, my last and brief comment on the topic of Thomas and Gnosticism is basically what Indy just said. I have *always* heard the Gospel of Thomas referred to as a Gnostic writing. I believe that Pagels, for example, does precisely that in her "The Gnostic Gospels."
Thank you for you other comments. I am now going to move to the topic of Ethics.
6343. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:34:26 PM
I would like to start the discussion on Ethics with a general issue, and then later we can get into more particular topics like euthanasia and so on. We will begin with this question:
"What do I do when I must break one ethical obligation in order to fulfill another?"
The classic example is that of Nazi Germany, when the Nazis were executing Jews and it was a crime to help the Jews. Many people, though, hid Jews in their homes and then lied to the authorities when they came looking for them. A simpler example might be if your wife or girlfriend asks you if her dress looks nice. It doesn’t, but do you lie to her and tell her it does look nice, or do you tell her the truth and risk hurting her feelings? Still another example might be if you know that Joe wants to kill Frank. You know that Joe owns a gun and Joe has told you that he will use it to kill Frank. Do you steal the gun? And so on.
There are six general categories to consider in these instances. I doubt these six are exhaustive, and others are welcome to suggest more categories. But I’ll begin the discussion with these, and I would like to see where people fall in these categories. (cont)
6344. KuligintheHooligan - 5/29/2000 1:36:22 PM
a) Antinomianism - Because there are no moral absolutes or objective truths, lying in this instance is neither right nor wrong, but must instead be determined based on personal or pragmatic grounds.
b) Generalism - Lying is generally wrong, but because there are no universal moral absolutes, one must determine if this is a specific case in which one can lie, although generally speaking lying is a wrong thing to do. But if the results are good, then lying is okay.
c) Situationism - Also known as "situation ethics," there is only one universal law and telling the truth is not it. Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the most loving thing to do in this instance.
d) Non-conflicting/Unqualified Absolutism - There are many absolute moral laws that should never be broken. Lying is one of them, and regardless of the outcome, one should never lie.
e) Conflicting/Ideal Absolutism - There are conflicting moral laws, and in this case, lying is wrong, but we should do it anyway and plead for mercy from God [or whatever authority you may have violated], who will hopefully understand why we had to break his moral law. Do the lesser of two evils. [of course, God does not have to enter the equation in order for a "lesser of two evils" scenario to exist]
f) Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism -Moral laws are ranked, and if keeping a higher law means breaking a lower law, then breaking that lower law is the right thing to do. We are no longer responsible in this instance for keeping the lower law. [END]
6345. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:15:17 PM
What do I do when I must break one ethical obligation in order to fulfill another?
I have probably utilized all the methods you outline for addressing an ethical question at one point or another. I think my ethical values fall into four primary categories.
1) I have certain core values I consider absolutes.
2) There is another set which is composed of other peoples' values, to which I may hold certain allegiance and would consider when making an ethical decision.
3) The next are the my set of professional ethics. These are somewhat imposed, and I did not formulate on my own, but to which I subscribe because I am a member of the profession.
4) The last are situational in nature and require evaluation at the spur of the moment.
(cont)
6346. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:15:27 PM
In dealing with set one, I believe I use your Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism, which has a second tier of Conflicting/Ideal Absolutism. My absolutes would include loving my family, duty to family, duty to friends, and duty to God. Two examples of conflicting absolutism would be killing in self defense, where I would never seek to kill anyone, but I may be placed in a situation where my duty to family forces me to choose 'the lesser of the two evils'. Another example would be my duty to friends, and my desire not to interfere with their personal relationships. I don't interfere, but sometimes I am approached because my friend needs me and they seek my guidance or opinion. Even worse is when both people in the relationship are friends.
I treat my second set of ethics are entirely in a situational manner. I have friends who are vegetarians for ethical reasons. When I have them over to eat, I adopt prepare a vegetarian meal. When I am in other peoples' homes, I adopt and respect their customs, but I probably don't take them home with me.
I treat my third set as Non-condlicting/Unqualified Absolutism because they are defined by a professional organization.
My fourth set I deal with entirly in a situational manner. Finding a $20 dollar bill. I will ask if someone dropped it if I see someone who may have, but how far will I go to return it to its rightful owner? Well, it depends entirely on the situation.
6347. iiibbb - 5/29/2000 3:18:57 PM
As far as lying goes, I think there is definitely a heiracrhy there. Lying to nazi's is not a violation of ethics if you are saving lives. Little white lies are just that, little with no meaning.
Telling the truth in most other circumstances isn't just good ethics, it's good policy. What goes around, comes around, and it's too easy to screw yourself.
6348. bloodnfire - 5/29/2000 8:25:48 PM
Kuligin. Your Message # 6334 ""Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
I can hear CalGal's outrage from here, and every other woman in this thread. If I'm right CalGal let me say I agree completely with you. It sounds like nonsense to me. 'The Word' (excluding this concoction)
states that..."In Christ there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Galatians 3:28)
6349. paragate - 5/29/2000 9:28:39 PM
In reference to Ethics: I like "the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath". The whole character of NT ethics: be in love which a kind of perfect liberty....and the right choice in dilemmas will emerge. Virtue ethics has it all over rational ethics because the latter attempts too much precision, is too rule bound and mechanical and falls into endless debates over justification.
6350. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2000 10:26:08 PM
I probably am closest to "Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism," though it's not necessarily because I think laws are higher and lower. Instead it's more the individual act: in some instances a lie is probably just as bad as a murder.
My belief is that sin comes from both action and intent (flesh and spirit): for example, if you tell a lie about something you believe to be true but are in error, clearly that doesn't seem to be a sin. So I don't have a hard time accepting that your intent when you speak words that aren't true enters into whether you've committed wrong.
On a tangent, I also think it's important that you not put your own righteousness up as the totem, but rather that you are serving good. That is, if you go around telling people the 100 percent truth all the time because you never lie--no matter the harm you cause--IMO you're elevating yourself, not the good.
With sufficient wisdom, a good act is probably almost always available, though we may not see it. I think that's one of the lessons of Jesus's life, because the kinds of traps the Pharisees always set for him were either/or moral dilemmas, yet he usually found a third alternative they hadn't considered.
6351. CalGal - 5/29/2000 10:39:50 PM
"Serving good" is just another method of serving oneself. Same difference.
6352. CalGal - 5/29/2000 10:44:32 PM
Blood,
Well, I thank you for your outrage. Nonsense like that quote, though, is one of the reasons that I don't take the Bible--or religion--that seriously. I can't believe that Jesus--if he is/was the person he is supposed to be, would say anything that idiotic. (And I think PD's translation is not only a stretch, but it's equally insulting, in the end). But if one says, "Well, he didn't mean that," then of what relevance is anything in the Bible except as a guideline?
6353. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2000 8:51:00 AM
CalGal: That quotation wasn't from the Bible. It was from the Gospel of Thomas.
6354. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2000 8:51:41 AM
Also, I don't think Kuligin meant it as something he believes, but rather to show the kind of things the Gospel of Thomas says.
6355. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 9:21:04 AM
Kuligin:
You can put me in the Antinomianism category. I think I agree with what i've read of mandolin's posts in that i don't think that “universal” absolutes truly do exist. even in the confines of human culture, there seems to be at least one in which practices that which the others shun as "evil" / "bad" or whatever.
if i've learned nothing else from Star Trek, it is that humanity takes itself too seriously and the resulting culture therein is something that must be viewed in weighted balance with non-terrestrial cultures that may or may not exist for a full scope of just what a "universal absolute" is.
6356. CalGal - 5/30/2000 10:22:20 AM
Indy,
Oh, it's not the Bible. (I have no idea what "Gospel of such and so" means. Thanks. But I didn't think Kuligin believed it.
6357. CalGal - 5/30/2000 10:27:40 AM
I am not sure, but I think I run my own life with d). I usually assess the world with a).
This is often hard to tell, though, because I may react to any given situation with my moral response first (d), which has nothing to do with my overall assessment.
6358. bloodnfire - 5/30/2000 10:33:26 AM
Paragate. Your Message # 6349. I agree completely. My compliments.
6359. marshame - 5/30/2000 11:21:09 AM
I would have to say I fall into the f) Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism category, as well. In fact, I would say that that seems to be the predominant way that ethical discussions seem to be presented in our society. Some examples that spring to mind:
1) Abortion: the unborn baby's right to life vs the mother's right to privacy in making a decision about terminating the pregnancy, or no. Society says that the woman's right to privacy supercedes the baby's right to life.
2) Fetal Tissue research - medical research, such as with Parkinson's disease, is significantly advanced with the use of brain stem tissue harvested from aborted fetuses. The potential improvement in the quality of life for disease suffers outweighs the violation of the sanctity of human life with the fetus.
3) Assisted suicide - the individual patient's right to privacy supercedes the prohibition against suicide.
4) Children divorcing their parents - the individual child's right to privacy (private choice) supercedes the traditional right of the parents to control their children.
5) Elian Golzalvez - The parent's natural right to his child supercedes the state's interest in keeping a child free from a totalitarian regime.
The tide has turned in many of these ethical situations. It seems that current ethical arguments follow the "greater good" logic, which I take to be the Graded Absolutism/Hierarchicalism model. But it is interesting that several of these are contradictory, which suggests situational ethics, as well. So in the heirarchy, for example, parental rights are most important, but not in every circumstance.
6360. DocBrown - 5/30/2000 11:28:15 AM
I personally use a) Antinomianism almost exclusively.
Something that should be mentioned, though, is the much simpler decision making process involved in d) and e), the two absolutist ethical categories.
Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement. The rest require a great deal of insight, forsight, and depth of thought in assessing outcomes of ethical decisions.
6361. CalGal - 5/30/2000 11:36:35 AM
Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement.
That's nonsense, of course. But on the other hand, I might point out that anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by.
6362. CalGal - 5/30/2000 11:40:58 AM
Marcia,
Interesting. I agree that people in those situations tend to rate and rank morals. But I think our system of laws, etc, is fundamentally based on a), not f).
6363. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:17:27 PM
You are correct CalGal, I do not subscribe to the Gospel of Thomas as any authoritative text.
This I found interesting:
"Using either of these two makes ethical decisions a whole lot less work, since they require almost no good judgement."
I think the unqualified absolutism IS simpler. Lying is always wrong and that is that, for example. It is also the POV of many Christians.
Then I liked CalGal's response to the above comment:
:That's nonsense, of course. But on the other hand, I might point out that anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by."
I enjoy the sarcasm! However, I would just point out that for some people, they actually *do* try to live by them but doing so in a situation where there is seemingly some contradiction between two ethical norms is where the trouble begins, as my original examples pointed out (hopefully).
6364. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:21:39 PM
iiibbb
Thanks for the in-depth analysis of the options as they relate to your thinking.
"My absolutes would include loving my family, duty to family, duty to friends, and duty to God."
One issue concerning Ethics is the issue of the authority basis of one's ethical system. For some, it is "naturalistic" i.e., reason based, whereas for others it is "transcendental" i.e., based upon some transcendent source of authority such as God or the Koran and so on. Just out of curiosity, upon what basis do you determine the four "absolutes" that you hold to?
6365. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:26:17 PM
"As far as lying goes, I think there is definitely a heiracrhy there. Lying to nazi's is not a violation of ethics if you are saving lives. Little white lies are just that, little with no meaning."
The first statement sounds like f) the Hierarchical system. Saving lives, the higher ethical obligation, supercedes telling a lie, a lower ethical obligation, so that if one holds the higher obligation, one is no longer required to follow the lesser one.
My students have rightly asked then, how do you rank the ethical obligations? In line with this, I'd like iiibbb to tell us, if possible, what a "little white lie" constitutes, because he is in that statement even ranking lies.
paragate, your #6347, Augustine said something like this: "Love, and do what you want." Of course, his use of "love" was in reference to loving God.
6366. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 12:35:06 PM
"You can put me in the Antinomianism category. I think I agree with what i've read of mandolin's posts in that i don't think that “universal” absolutes truly do exist. even in the confines of human culture, there seems to be at least one in which practices that which the others shun as "evil" / "bad" or whatever."
rubberducky, but there would be some theists that would say that in these instances, some cultures ARE breaking universal absolutes. Consider the issue of eating babies (ugh!). If we have 1000 cultures that consider it wrong, but only one that considers it a valid practice, are you concluding that we do not have a universal absolute?
marshame,
"It seems that current ethical arguments follow the "greater good" logic"
There is something called the teleological system of ethics. A subset of that is "ethical universalism," which is what you are saying here, the greatest good for the greatest number of people. An "ethical egotism" is basically interested in what is best for oneself.
However, I'm not sure that your examples portray a f) graded absolutism/hierarchicalism. The examples you give seem to be more in line with Antinomianism, at least to me.
Speaking of which, I hope to get to some of those examples, like the fetal tissue research one. Particularly in light of recent revelations concerning the selling of baby body parts, the fetal tissue issue is a good one.
6367. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:37:08 PM
Re: Message # 6361, CalGal.
"...anything other than D or E requires increased cavilling skills, as one desperately searches for a justification to ignore the moral imperatives that one pretends to live by."
nonsense. if one can't fit this so-called "moral imperative" into the fertile grounds of pragmatism, then there is no such imperative. this thinking is just the culture in which you live knowingly or unknowingly dictating to you what is and isn't imperative.
6368. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:43:21 PM
Re: 6369. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:44:49 PM whoops 6370. CalGal - 5/30/2000 12:47:41 PM RD, 6371. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:53:12 PM Re: Message # 6366, KuligintheHooligan. 6372. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 12:54:33 PM CG: 6373. DocBrown - 5/30/2000 1:20:31 PM CalGal, perhaps my generalizations are generally useless, but you have not proven so. 6374. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 1:22:04 PM rubberducky, right, in an antinomian system such as your own, eating babies could actually be a good thing. It all depends on the situation. 6375. theDiva - 5/30/2000 1:27:12 PM Blood 6376. rubberducky7 - 5/30/2000 1:31:39 PM Re:Message # 6374, KuligintheHooligan. 6377. KuligintheHooligan - 5/30/2000 1:36:52 PM "if 100 people tell you that spam tastes better than sirloin, then i take it you have 100 people who have no taste buds - not that spam is indeed better."
"Virtue ethics has it all over rational ethics because the latter attempts too much precision, is too rule bound and mechanical and falls into endless debates over justification."
really? i’d suggest the two are equally difficult to justify. everyone's rational for what they do is different from situation to situation. there are just as many, if indeed not more, ways to interpret what is vitreous. this is even more the case if one bases one's virtues on some sort of holy text.
my Message # 6368 should have said in reference to Message # 6349
Which is exactly what some people do.
Mind you, I'm not really attacking those who live by other approaches. I'm pointing out that Doc's generalizations are generally useless.
"Consider the issue of eating babies (ugh!). If we have 1000 cultures that consider it wrong, but only one that considers it a valid practice, are you concluding that we do not have a universal absolute?"
Kuligin, i don't think it matters, in an ethical discussion, how many people believe the action in question is wrong/right. the whole point is to justify it own it's own merits in the given situation. thus, eating babies isn't anymore right or wrong in and of itself -regardless of how many people do or do not eat said babies. it all depends on the given circumstances and the people involved.
ah - gotcha.
I said that the absolutist ethical categories require a much simpler decision maiking process, and I stand by what I said. Make a flow chart of an absolutist decision about whether or not to tell a lie, then make a flow chart for any of the other category deciding the same thing. I am confident that the absolutist chart will be mighty short.
But you are assuming no absolutes. I was merely pointing out that just because different cultures have different ethical points of view, doesn't mean there are no ethical absolutes. There could indeed be absolutes and some of those cultures are violating them.
Perhaps I just misread your post. You seemed to conclude that because cultures have different standards, there are no moral absolutes. I would disagree with that conclusion.
"I can hear CalGal's outrage from here, and every other woman in this thread"....
actually, the passage in question made me laugh because it was so clearly (to me, anyway) something Jesus would never have said. PD's explanation was interesting.
"But you are assuming no absolutes."
correct - there aren't any absolutes that i see here.
"I was merely pointing out that just because different cultures have different ethical points of view, doesn't mean there are no ethical absolutes. There could indeed be absolutes and some of those cultures are violating them."
well, so you say. how, then, do you determine these absolutes? i again go back to in the limited arena of human experience and history, there is always some culture, some person to disagree. you seem to want to base these imagined absolutes on some sort of consensus, but i question what that gets you in the long run. if 100 people tell you that spam tastes better than sirloin, then i take it you have 100 people who have no taste buds - not that spam is indeed better.
"You seemed to conclude that because cultures have different standards, there are no moral absolutes. I would disagree with that conclusion."
sorta. more along the lines of moral standards, to me, must a basis in logic to be valid. the cultures of people are irrelevant to the establishment of that logic. there can't be a universal logic just as there can't be a universal moral absolute.
This sounds like you DO believe in an absolute then, that sirloin is better than spam! And everybody that disagrees just doesn't know what they are talking about.
As for moral absolutes, a theist could argue that the existence of God and his communication to mankind does necessitate the existence of moral absolutes. Your POV is clearly a philosophicalnaturalistic ethical system, not a transcendental/theological one. Therefore, yo