[MD] From each... to each

[Ham Priday]

Hi SA --

> 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?

Neither technology nor money is morally good.  They are both practically
useful.

> Simply that these things exist
> 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.

This seems to be a diatribe about the power of wealth, or modern culture vs.
stoic naturalism.  I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make, but
perhaps it would be better suited to a socio-political discussion, such as
the theme "From each...to each" started out to be.

I had asked how you know that your personal survival is "good" relative to
the universe.

You responded:

> 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?

God (or Essence) has no "side".  Sides are particular positions taken by man
in a differentiated world, most of which have nothing to do with the
essential Source.  The fact that the Iraqi terrorist commits an atrocity "in
the name of Allah" doesn't mean that it is condoned by Essence.  Killing the
enemy is the law of the jungle, a carry-over of animal behavior designed to
insure their survival.  Enlightened cultures regard human life as sacred,
and will take lives only when it is necessary to defend their freedom.

I can't answer all your remaining questions, mostly because I believe
morality is a socio-cultural invention, that is, a code of behavior that
enables individuals to cohabit with minimal harm to other members of their
group.  As I've indicated previously to you and Platt, I do not believe
morality is divine law that makes the universe inherently good.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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?

You say:

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

There are great joys to be experienced in the world, just as there are great
evils to be overcome.  Goodness and badness are relative (to our own
well-being).   We can't have joy without suffering a little pain.  Life is
always a struggle to survive and succeed.  You ask: Is this Good?   I can
only answer: It's LIFE.

> 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.

I think the moral position is fairly well defined by the Golden Rule -- Do
unto others as you
would have them do unto you.  Kant expressed it as his Categorical
Imperative -- Act in such a way that it would be universally beneficial.
Above all, respect the freedom and dignity of your fellow creature.  I don't
see morality as intellectual so much as "sensual".  An act of compassion,
for example, has little to do with the intellect.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

You ask:

> Is that moral to you?   If moral to you is to go
> back to Essence, then why not die right now?  While
> you're 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.

I detect some irritation in your comment, for reasons I don't understand.  I
am incapable of "going back" to Essence, inasmuch as I am not, and never
was, Essence, per se.  The individual's real essence is Value, although he
can realize it only differentially through experience.  However, since I'm
not suicidal, I enjoy life and have no intention of dieing before my time.
(That would indeed be immoral.)

Morality is workable as a means of controlling familly or group behavior;
laws are more effective for large organizations and nations.  I'm currently
running a series of essays on values in human relations, which might help
you see where I'm coming from.  Check it out at
www.essentialism.net/balance.htm .  Then, if you still have questions,
perhaps I can be more enlightening.

Peace,
Ham