[MD] From each... to each

[Heather Perella]

Hi Ham,


> SA said (to Platt):
> 
> > Without goodness in the world, the world will be
> not good,
> > and that would be not good for this world at all.
>
  Ham said: 
> Is there any logic in that assertion?  If you take
> "the world" out of it,
> what you're essentially saying is "Without goodness
> there would be no
> goodness and that would not be good."
> 
> Now, aside from the fact that "goodness" seems to
> mean nothing more than
> "survival" for you, how would you know what goodness
> is if there were no
> goodness in the world?

     What do you need to survive?  If you don't have
what you need, even on the cultural level it is taught
that we need to learn how to use computers or we won't
make it in this technological world.  Somebody might
be able to without those skills, but another person
may have to learn how to use a computer in order to
get $ to feed his family.  Are computers morally good
or is $ morally good?  Simply that these things exists
and without them by any one person in the cultural
world that we have now would could mean a certain
degree of devastation to that person.  Is it moral on
the intellectual level that computers and $ have
become such static quality realities that must be used
by a number of us in order to survive?  That is a good
question, and for now without computers or $ you or I
would not survive very well, especially without the
latter in a culture that depends so much on $.  What
is the all mighty good that is the moral final answer
to all that is happening?  I don't know.  I am just
noticing the static quality of what is happening, the
values that I believe should be of high regard, such
as friends and family, and making assertions based on
that.  Do walks in the woods help?  Yes, because my
head is cleared and I notice a much larger world full
of not just the static quality that exists now that
has such diverse views as to what is goodness and what
is not goodness, but I am noticing a dynamic world
that happens even out of the scope of what I have been
able to identify to date.    

Ham says:
> I would suggest that you explore this even further. 
> How do you know that
> survival is good?

     In a battle each side has G-d on their side yet
one side will end up losing.  Does that mean G-d was
not on their side?  No.  On the other side?  No. 
Who's side then?  I don't know, but I do know that
what lead each side to think that G-d was on their
side was a moral system that thought the other side
was not good at all and worth fighting and killing. 
Does this make them moral even when they had a moral
system evolving into such a mind set that they where
good and the others must be evil?  Not necessarily.  
So what's the answer where is the moral good amidst
all the diversity?  Well, if I can live to find out
that's good.  If I die trying, well that's good.  If I
die do I survive, yes and that's good.  Why must any
of this be true and even good for me, when it may not
be true and/or good for you?  Let me live and find
out.  If I never come back to you with an answer does
that mean I have not found goodness?  Well, even if I
smile tomorrow at least I'll be happy and that's all
the goodness I would need.  If I suffer tomorrow well
at least I'm still alive.  If I die tomorrow, is that
any good?  I hope I think it is while my last breath
leaves me for I would rather savor happiness and share
a smile with my wife as my last breath leaves me, than
to be suffering and showing my wife a final impression
of what I thought it was like even with her by my side
in those last moments of glorious, good life on this
earth.  And then the wind blows...  

Ham says:
> It's good -- for you -- that you survive and
> flourish.  But if there were no
> SA to exalt in his particular life-experience, would
> there be any less
> goodness in the world?

     As expressed by SA, yes, because I'm not sure if
you would express any goodness about this world at
all!

Ham says: 
> Platt tried to make some sense of your assertion by
> saying:
> 
> > [T]he "good" is different at different levels, and
> the levels fight
> > one another for dominance. What is biologically
> good
> > (germs want to live) is not good at the social and
> intellectual levels
> > (we kill deadly germs so society and individuals
> can survive).
> > Another problem with "the world is good" is that
> people have
> > different ideas about "goodness."
> 
   Ham says:
> You bet they do!  
  
    Yeap, you bet they do!

 Ham goes on:
Goodness is relative to the
> subject who evaluates it.
> There's no "morality" in the fact that the evaluator
> has survived.  If I am
> reasonably well for a man of my advanced years, or
> if I win the lottery, I
> consider that good for me.  It's not necessarily
> good for the world at large
> or any other person.  Whether or not the germ "wants
> to live", as Platt
> suggests, the fact that it lives may be the reason
> for my demise.  Is this
> good or bad?   The morality of this situation is
> that it's good for the
> germ, bad for me.  Fighting for survival is a
> biological mechanism waged on
> the micro-physical level.  It has nothing to do with
> morality.

  What is morality  on the intellectual level to you
then?  Go ahead and define it, if you know it.  It's
up to us all to at least try to at least show our
opinion of what moral is.  Then again if you don't
believe in any moral or even goodness then why talk to
me about it.
 
> Again, I quote Platt:
> 
> > To go much further in contemplating moral
> questions is what
> > most people avoid, like they avoid contemplating
> their own demise,
> > the worst evil of all. For that reason I'm
> suggesting that one of the
> > barriers to wide acceptance of the MOQ is its
> emphasis on morality
> > which most people would rather not think about in
> any depth.
> 
> In truth, if you think about it in any depth, you
> will realize that what is
> the "worst evil of all for you" has not the
> slightest moral significance to
> the average Iraqi muslim, Bill Gates, or George
> Bush.  That's because
> goodness is relative, morality is relative, and your
> existence is relative.
> Indeed, if you think about it with any depth, you
> may come to understand
> that all value is relational -- the individual's
> sense of his lost Essence.

     Is that moral to you?  If moral to you is to go
back to Essence, then why not die right now?  While
your at it couldn't you just pick off some people and
animals while your at it so we can all be Essence once
again and get out of this terrible value of having a
sense of lost Essence?  If it is not terrible then
explain your morals to me.

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com