[MD] From each... to each

[Heather Perella]

Hey Ham,

     Ham said:  "Neither technology nor money is
morally good.  They are both practically useful."

     I commented  on some of what you have said about
morals in the thread '[MD] A Spin-off of Objectivity,
Intellectual activity, From each... to each, and
now... call it what you will'.  I will breeze over
some of what you specifically said here, too.
     What we judge to be right and good for us becomes
moral for us.  What else does moral mean?  What is
true morality though?  The morality that is all high
and all right?  That is difficult, and I don't think
we could have the ethical plan that guides us to
perfection without practicing the same thing over and
over and over again.  By this practice we become
better and better at it, but events change, the world
changes, and thus circumstances change and we as
intellectuals, society, biological entities, and even
inorganic matter moves about and changes into
different forms that best suit the values that
confront them upon each moment.
     Whatever is practically useful for us now is
helpful, thus, dare I say compassionate - yes I do. 
We inlay the compassion in such practical tools - we
do, and when I use a computer I thank it for helping
me talk to you.  (Thanks)

     SA said earlier:  "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.
 
      Ham said:  "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."

      The point I was making was not a this vs. that
argument for one is better than the other.  By static
quality I just pointed out what is currently
happening, we use this technology now and must have $
now or else we will be left out of the current
cultural way which is you must have a certain high
degree of machine technology (high degree in the sense
of complexity comparison to the U.S. 1800's
technology) and must have more and more $ to stay
afoot and feed your consumer cultural economy needs
that keeps the industry of the U.S. culture in general
up and running.  
     By walk in the woods and the dynamic quality I
notice, that is DQ only in comparison to the current
static practice by this U.S. culture, where to even
have the quality time to walk in the woods could be
hushed away as lazy and not of value to the important
political or social constructs of the day.  DQ because
walk in woods is outside of mainstream culture which
defines its' static quality.  More and more people go
to the woods, but these past everyday living ways are
now for just vacations or for times when you have
nothing to do which can be rare - especially for those
attached to the TV where the value of others lives
becomes more than the value of their own experience
and practice so they just sit there and watch other
people.

     Ham said:  "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?

     Ham said:  "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."

     And freedom is good.  I know we don't think
freedom is bad.  We need order, too.  Order is good. 
I know we don't think order is bad.  So we conclude
that a balance of freedom and order is good to
complement the quality that both provide.  So we live
for this.

     Ham said:  "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."

     Yes, that's what I said.  Morals enable survival.
 The link is inseparable, and where morals begin and
life begins has no sharp division.

     Ham said:  "As I've indicated previously to you
and Platt, I do not believe morality is divine law
that makes the universe inherently good."

     I explain this part further in the thread I
mentioned above.  I will say that we notice what is
moral, it becomes our compass, the universe becomes
embedded with it, and with the help of humankind the
universe becomes inherently good.  This is short and
sweet or sour if you might, but a much more lengthy
explanation of this mentioning your name is in the
other thread.

[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?

SA say:

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

     Ham said:  "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."

     And as you just said, "...goodness and badness
are relative (to our own well-being)..." thus you even
notice goodness exists.  "Is this Good?"  You say,
"It's LIFE."  I say yes life has goodness and badness,
and what is goodness and badness is relative for I do
note that at times suffering is painful but I like to
suffer at times to sprout any compassion that I could
be missing out in expressing especially if I become
too happy.  If I am too happy I don't feel something. 
Something becomes missing and I ignore the heaviness
in my heart that helps to ground me in a reality that
has both joy and pain.  Too much suffering does the
same and I sense, especially in hindsight after these
terrible times of pain, that I have not been able to
see the smile and song that is here and this too much
pain is missing out in expression of a reality that
has both joy and pain.

     SA said:  "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."

     Ham says:  "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."

     This is just your SOM, it is only this and not
that, and your use of separating the universe into
smaller and smaller bits and pieces without noticing
the skin that covers and thus defines a larger whole
that connects sensual and intellect together.  Without
comprehending the sensual pain and joys we could not
intellectually understand that if I do this it will or
will not lead to this.  Thus, I begin to value certain
experiences and as I mentioned above it takes
intellect to understand that I cannot always shove joy
or pain aside as wrongs or rights, unless, I seek too
much joy or too much pain and then we find ourselves
comprehending and trying to understand the balance
which relies on our intention to not have too much joy
or too much pain.  How  will we do this?  Think about
it.  Experience it.  And then put your effort in
intellectually changing our habits using our brain to
overcome unconscious habits of 'it's only sensual'
type behaviors.   

[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.

     Ham said:  "I detect some irritation in your
comment, for reasons I don't understand."

     Yep, I was irritated.  Not your fault, my fault. 
I was irritated, not you.  Sorry if my irritation was
contagious and you caught something.  I am being
sincere now.  I really didn't intend to spread
irritation.  :-)

     Ham continued:  "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.)"

     Yes, you express a philosophy of life.  A
philosophy of survival.

     Ham said:  "Morality is workable as a means of
controlling family 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."

     Morals are codes.  Morality is code in action in
which I believe provides a sense of 'keeping ones
spirit up'.  This spirit or sense of life we have is
full of joys and suffering and wind and rain.  On
rainy days, like today, my spirit is calm with the
steady patter of rain hitting the tree branches
outside the window.  

     The quality my spirit walks,
       I do not always give gratitude.
       I do not always express value.  
     The value my spirits walks,
       I do not always recognize.
       I do not always express quality.

     Yet all this non-expression of value,
       all this non-expression of quality
     This is all hog wash and foolish
       due to my ignorance of value and quality.

     The quality my spirit walks,
       I do always give gratitude.
       I do always express value.
     The value my spirits walks,
       I do always recognize.
       I do always express quality.

     Yet all this expression of value,
       all this expression of quality
     This is all clean and wise
       due to non-ignorance of value and quality.

     Which one is right? wrong?
       COME ON WAKE UP... Sleepy head.


     Sleepy head is not intended towards you in
particular.  It is a general wake up call poem to what
we all value and experience as quality/essence. 

     By the way, (slashing) these words
(quality/essence) because you know where I stand, I
know where you stand.  I believe in G-d.  Do I fill in
all the spaces?  no.  Do I know everything?  no.  So
I'm not trying to pull our discussion back into a
'what is essence?' or 'what is G-d?'  I'm just not in
that mood so I'm letting your essence go side by side
with quality so we don't philosophically argue and
debate that issue.


Peace,
SA

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