[MD] From each... to each

[Ham Priday]

Hey SA --


> 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.
> [snip]
> 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.

So, what is your point?  Are you asking for a definition of morality, or do
you just want to ramble on different ways of experiencing it?

Concerning you earlier message (with all the "$" signs) I 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.

I still don't know the point you're trying to make.  Why don't you make the
point, pose your questions, and then we can discuss it.

SA continues:

> 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 ... etc., etc.

More from SA's previous message:

> 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 had responded:

>  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.

SA replies:

> 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.

Again, are you asking me to respond in a different way, or to give you a
different answer?
Life has always been a struggle for survival, a balance between personal
contentment and our obligation to others, health and sickness, finding
success amidst discouragement, joy amidst unhappiness.  To achieve this
balance requires a combination of value appreciation and intelligent
decisions -- what we commonly call "establishing priorities".  When our
priorities get out of balance, we become stressed or confused; we lose
control of our lives and our objectives, and become ineffective as human
beings in a diversified world.

(But all of this is only common sense: You don't need me to tell you this.)

Again I say, all value is relative because we live in a relational world.
We may sense the value of "something better", and strive for excellence; but
the values we realize in existence are related to the things and events of
our experience.

What more can I say?  You'll have to be more specific if there's a question
you expect me to answer.


Best regards,
Ham