Teleological ethical systems

Evan Tucker · Post by **Evan Tucker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:59 am

a few definitions

Teleological moral systems are characterized primarily by a focus on the consequences which any action might have (for that reason, they are often referred to as consequentalist moral systems, and both terms are used here). Thus, in order to make correct moral choices, we have to have some understanding of what will result from our choices.
http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/

From a teleological point of view, something is good as determined by its consequences, and morality is seen as a phenomenon where the consequences are the cause, although in some cases, morality has to be imputed, or attributed, to the cause. Consequences matter, but so does doing good. The clearest example of a teleological system is UTILITARIANISM
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/415/415lect02.htm

So does any one agree with this idea?

I myself disagree with the idea and viewpoint. While a good idea the problem is who defines wrong? If a decision is based off of morals than who is to say that their choice actully benifits more than it does injure? Also the question is, is more always better. Some good decisions come through sacrafice. There may be many benefits to killing everyone in a certain age ,gender, area , faith, name and last name in order to kill a spy.(granted if it did actully amount to more bvenifits like less chances of false accusation, precedent and so forth)Would this choice actully be the better choice? Opinions.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:14 am

Evan Tucker wrote:

The clearest example of a teleological system is UTILITARIANISM

Iâ€™ll use your example of utilitarianism to rebuke teleological moral systems. Iâ€™ve studied many of these ideas at the university level and they're all horribly incomplete.

The basic idea of utilitarianism is that as a society we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number. At first this idea sounds nice, but there are countless reasons why this moral system and others like it are incredibly inadequate.

First of all: â€˜goodâ€™ in the academic world is commonly defined in a â€œcapitalist contextâ€ meaning â€˜goodâ€™ according to utilitarianism would suggest that the greatest â€˜profitâ€™ for the greatest number is the primary objective.

Companies often operate according to these moral systems because the ideas lack any real depth. For instance Ford Motor Company moved their assembly plant to India for cheap labour and they justified the move by suggesting that the greatest profit is achieved while helping the greater number by employing three times as many starving Indians.

However they ignore the blatant fact of exploitation.

Ideaâ€™s like this always end up being incredibly one-dimensional because they never take into account â€œall objective truthsâ€ when defining their moral system.

For instance a philosopher such as Solway, Quinn or someone may suggest that â€œgoodâ€ should be defined as humanity working towards eliminating all delusions from the mind.

But a philosophy professor or business CEO wouldnâ€™t think in these terms, most are too short-sighted in their thinking probably because they are so far-sighted in their personal financial goals.

They are striving towards the achievement of personal security, not truth. Most of the current ethical moral systems that the academic world so generously bestowed upon us functions merely to sustain the status quo.

Evan Tucker · Post by **Evan Tucker** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:03 pm

And to you i recomend Power and Greed: a short history of the world by Philip Gigantes a canadian (well mainly )
politicain. you would be deeply surpised at his views. In most cases he shuns how the corprate world acts. He also goes over how continuesly people are always being exploited and so forth. great book and short read to!!

I agree with your statements fully. But what if people followed these with a true morally right (to their understanding) heart and intentions. Would there be more good or just as much bad.
I meen we see christians act good for the sole purpose of eternity in heavan and the chance to give this same oppurtunity to some one else. (mind to those christians out there. I was raised and stil am raised in a very christian family. I follow the baptist faith of christianity. You will learn that while i am agnostic and searching for my own religion whether i have to create it or i find it in something else i still respect the ideas and teachings of the bible. The same also applies to the Koran.) While this may offend many non-belivers and in the past as we have seen resulted in mass murders that rival those of genocides today (if you compare the percentage of people it is awfully and sickenly close. )

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:43 pm

Evan Tucker wrote:

The same also applies to the Koran.) While this may offend many non-belivers and in the past as we have seen resulted in mass murders that rival those of genocides today

I wonder why religions such as Christainity and Islam have caused so much more bloodshred compared to religions such as Taoism and Buddishm, have you ever wondered this?

Are there higher quality religious texts?

Evan Tucker · Post by **Evan Tucker** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:43 am

Well actully islam has just recently began to act with violence when in the past they would never kill based soley on ethnicity. They always allowed captured or surrenderd soldiers to live. Also they never harmed civilians. This to this day can't be said by christians.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:43 am

Here is the Islam timeline: It appears that the history of Islam has been plagued with nothing, but confusion and violence/hatred/barbarity in the form of conquering different nations.

Evan, what is your motivation to defend something which is absolutely worthless as a medium to transmit wisdom?

Mohammed was a shifty rogue, the facts speak for themselves:

Mohammed: circa 570 to 632. Born a polytheist, he is considered by Muslims to be God's last and greatest prophet.

* 610: Mohammed receives first revelations in a cave on the summit of Mount Hira just outside Mecca. He adopts the name of "Prophet" and prepares to convert the Quaraish to monotheism.

* 612: Mohammed begins to preach.

* 616: Mohammed and his converts feel persecution.

* 620: Mohammed invited to lead Arabs in Medina.

* 622: The Quaraish resist his new religion. With 70 Muslim families, Mohammed makes the migration (Hijrah, or Hegira) to Yathrib. After making himself ruler he changes the name of the town to Medina. This marks the beginning of the Muslim era and Medina became seat of the Caliphate.

* 630: Mohammed captures Mecca. With the Quaraish now in submission, the Kabah, the central place of worship for Arabian tribes, becomes the main shrine of Islam.

* 632: Mohammed dies. Abu-Bakr, Mohammed's father-in-law becomes caliph (deputy of the Prophet). With Umar, he devises a system whereby Islam enforces religious and political fealty. Military conquest of Middle East begins.

* 634: Abu-Bakr dies and Umar become caliph.

*637: Arabs occupy the Persian capital of Ctesiphon.

* 638: Muslims defeat the Romans enter Palestine.

* 741: Conquest of Syria completed. Catholic Archbishop invites Muslims to help free Egypt from oppressive Rome. These alliances formed between Muslims, Christians, and Jews were based on liberation, rather than subjugation, of conquered peoples. Egypt, Persia and the Fertile Crescent came under the rules of four "Righteous Caliphs" until 662.

* 661: The Fertile Crescent and Persia yield to the Omayyad and Abbasid caliphates, whose reigns last until 1258 and 820, respectively.

* 662: Egypt falls under the control of the Omayyad and Abbasid caliphates until 868.

* 669: Muslim conquest reaches Morocco in North Africa. The region is ruled by the Omayyad and Abbasid caliphates until 800.

* 680: Death of Mu'awiya, who is succeeded by his son, Yazid.

* 685-687: Shi'ite revolt in Iraq.

* 700: Islamic mysticism arises and becomes known as Sufism. In this tradition an individual establishes an intimate relationship with Allah. It is based on the Qu'ran verse 7:172 which describes the covenant between God and the individual's soul before the creation of the universe. The Sufi objective is a freedom that promotes harmony with one's physical life, resulting in mystical union.

* 710: Conquest of Spain begins.

* 717-718: Attempt to conquer Constantinople fails.

* 732: Battle of Tours or Poitiers halts Islamic expansion into France.

* 750: Abbasids rule the Islamic world except for Spain which falls under the rule of a descendant of the Omayyad family. They move the capital to Baghdad in Iraq. Their orientation resembles Persian absolutism. The Arabian Nights, a compilation of stories written under the reign of the Abbasids, is representative of the lifestyle and administration of this Persian influenced government. Abd al-Rahman of the Omayyad dynasty flees to Spain and creates the "Golden Caliphate" in Spain.

*751: Battle of Talas: Arabs learn paper making from Chinese prisoners of war.

* 765: A school of medicine is established in Baghdad.

* 750-850: The Four orthodox schools of law are established.

* 768: Oral histories of Mohammed are first recorded by the historian Ishaq ibn Yasar.

* 857: Sufi Al-Muhasibi introduces the study of conscience into Sufism.

*865: Rhazes distinguishes between measles and smallpox. Historians consider him the greatest medieval physician.

* 877: Syria and different sects of Lebanon are ruled by various Muslim dynasties of Egypt until 1250 CE.

*945: Shiites invade Baghdad; The Abbasid Empire becomes a powerless symbol. Until the sixteenth century, rule of Islamic civilization is decentralized and different sects are ruled by various caliphs.

*950: Al-Farabi, the greatest Arabic philosopher, teaches that the enlightened individual could perfect his life through philosophy and not be corrupted by the common beliefs.

*997: Mahmud, the "Sword of Islam," ruler of a Turkish dynasty in Gujarat, raids northwestern India until his death in 1030.

* 1010: Firdawsi completes his Epic of Kings, the great epic poem of Persia.

*1037: Avicenna teaches a rationalistic philosophy which borders Sufi mysticism. As a physician, he discovers that disease can be spread through the contamination of water and that tuberculosis is contagious.

*1100E: Islamic rule weakens because of power struggles among Islamic leaders and Christian crusades.

*1123: Omar Khayyam, the greatest of the Islamic poets, writes The Rubaiyat which becomes popular in the West.

*1126: The Aristotelian Averroes of Cordova is the last important Islamic philosopher.

* 1243: Turkish nomads settle in Asia Minor

*1248: Muslim control in Spain is reduced to the Kingdom of Granada.

* 1260: Roger Bacon wrote down the formula for gun powder: "Saltpetre VII parts, V parts charcoal and V parts sulphur. ...with such a mixture you will produce a bright flash and a thundering noise, if you know the trick" Similar information was known to the Chinese. It was not long before warfare depended on gunnery, which Islam rejected as not chivalrous.

* 1350-1918: The Ottoman Empire.

* 1258: Mongols sack Baghdad.

* 1379-1401: Tamerlane establishes an empire in Persia, Iraq and Syria.

* 1402: Tamerlane defeats Ottomans at Ankara.

* 1436 Johann Gutenberg invents the printing Press. Unlike their embrace of paper, the Muslims outlawed the use of printing press. Other cultures forthwith became better informed.

* 1453: Constantinople conquered by Ottomans.

* 1492: Ferdinand and Isabella end Muslim rule in Spain. Columbus dealt a second historical blow to Islam by essentially delivering a new world to Western Europe. Islam turned increasingly inward; the enlightenment and other Western achievements in governance and modernization passed it by.

* 1520-1566: Suleiman II the Magnificent revived the Ottoman prospects for war.

* 1543: Blasco de Garay, a naval officer under Charles V, is said to have propelled a ship of two hundred tons, by steam, in the harbor of Barcelona. This innovation hastened the demise of Islam.

* 1571: The naval Battle of Lepanto. The Spaniards defeat the Ottoman Turks decisively.

*1603: Battle of Urmiyah. Turks suffer defeat. Persia occupies Tabriz, Mesopotamia.

* 1683: The Turks lift the siege of Vienna and retreat. Kara Mustafa the Grand Wazir executed for the failure of the expedition. This ended any immediate threat of Islam to Europe.

* 1703-1730: Cultural revival under Ahmed III, an Ottoman Sultan

* 1774: Treaty of Kucuk Kaynarca was a most repressive treaty. The Ottomans signed to end their war with Russia. Crimea was completely lost. Turkish domination in the Black Sea was at an end.

* 1822-1830: Greek War of Independence

* 1853-1856: The Crimean War

* 1876: Ottoman Constitution is promulgated

* 1914: Ottoman Empire enters World War I

* 1915: Mustafa Kemal AtatÃ¼rk emerges as a military hero at the Dardanelles. He became the charismatic leader of the Turkish national liberation struggle in 1919. He put an end to the Ottoman dynasty.

* 1923: AtatÃ¼rk creates a Republic in Turkey, establishes a new government representative of the nation's will. He instituted sweeping reforms in politics as well as in the social, legal, economic, and cultural spheres. Islam remains the mainstream religion, but the government is secular.

Evan Tucker · Post by **Evan Tucker** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:15 am

I love the koran out of the three religouse books of the middle east for its poetry and its beautifull scriptures.

Here is the Islam timeline: It appears that the history of Islam has been plagued with nothing, but confusion and violence/hatred/barbarity in the form of conquering different nations.

Evan, what is your motivation to defend something which is absolutely worthless as a medium to transmit wisdom?

Mohammed was a shifty rogue, the facts speak for themselves:

I find that although both christianity and islam have been represented for the most part by savages. For jesus we cant speak directly of him. For his time it was a easy thing to belive one walked on water. Also the speaking of jesus by his immediate followers (apostles) was not told untill years after his death. That is a diffrent arguement though. Upon reading the koran one learns that one should love its neighbor regardless. This idea is precise throughout the whole koran unlike the christian speaking were treat them with kindness and god will deal with them. The koran if read correctly and not mis-interpreted (like much of the bible is today. Becouse of past poeps and kings) is a very beautifull book. I try to defend all religouns toa certain point.I just have a burning hatred towards the way christianity has turned out.

emma · Post by **emma** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:33 am

Evan wrote

I myself disagree with the idea and viewpoint. While a good idea the problem is who defines wrong? If a decision is based off of morals than who is to say that their choice actully benifits more than it does injure?

The best system is belief in God and Truth, not morals, but no system exists. Religions have tried to capture the essence but whilst all have good in them, they also have bad (bipolar/split/2/yin/yang) This is because they are man-made.
The only system that would work would be a purely subjective "belief in God" one hence not a system at all

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:43 am

Evan Tucker wrote:

I love the koran out of the three religous books of the middle east for its poetry and its beautifull scriptures.

Perhaps you could share a few of the scriptures that you enjoy from the Koran and we could analyze the text.

Emma wrote:

The only system that would work would be a purely subjective "belief in God" one hence not a system at all

I tend to come from the school of thought that says no belief is necessary. There is no reason to belief in anything. Seeing truths is merely seeing facts which is quite different from believing.

There is no God separate from what you are; God as an â€˜ideaâ€™ in your mind is an illusion. A false construction.

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:02 am

Cosmic Prostitute wrote

I tend to come from the school of thought that says no belief is necessary. There is no reason to belief in anything. Seeing truths is merely seeing facts which is quite different from believing.

There is no God separate from what you are; God as an â€˜ideaâ€™ in your mind is an illusion. A false construction.

So you believe everything that you see to be a fact?
God is a paradox. God is separate from you, a part of you, greater than you and so on....You cannot define GOD

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:30 am

Natan wrote:

So you believe everything that you see to be a fact?

No I see facts, I do not believe anything.

Natan wrote:

God is a paradox. God is separate from you, a part of you, greater than you and so on....You cannot define GOD.

You just made an attempt to define God.

My point is that a subjective belief in a higher god separate from you is self-deception. What is the psychological motivation for wanting to believe in something that one cannot confirm factually?

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:44 am

CP wrote
No I see facts, I do not believe anything.

Therefore you are limited by your senses ..Is that an actuality or a goal?

I wrote:

God is a paradox. God is separate from you, a part of you, greater than you and so on....You cannot define GOD.

CP wrote
You just made an attempt to define God.

I agree I made an attempt and failed

CP wrote
My point is that a subjective belief in a higher god separate from you is self-deception. What is the psychological motivation for wanting to believe in something that one cannot confirm factually?

So Kierkergaard deceived himself. Can you prove this, NO
The motivation is that there is more to this world than what we see with our eyes and some of us want to know what it is.

Emotional illogicallity exists in this world. This is a fact....Therefore do you embrace ths too

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:03 am

Natan wrote:

Therefore you are limited by your senses ..Is that an actuality or a goal?

Yes, the organism is incredibly limited, the senses is all you have.

Natan wrote:

The motivation is that there is more to this world than what we see with our eyes and some of us want to know what it is.

What you see is what you get and thatâ€™s assuming youâ€™re clear-minded, You will never â€˜knowâ€™ anything deeper, you will chase your tail for eternity in that pursuit, there is nothing to find, Understanding is like a fire, once it burns out nothing remains. Logic is a bridge to get to an island that doesnt exist at all.

Natan wrote:

I agree I made an attempt and failed.

I define god as rationality and you and I can discuss what rationality is, however the description is not the described; the signifier is not the signified.

Natan wrote:

So Kierkergaard deceived himself. Can you prove this, NO

Kierkegaard got a little carried away with his conception of god.

Natan wrote:

Emotional illogicallity exists in this world. This is a fact....Therefore do you embrace ths too.

I see irrationality as a fact in the world, but I do not embrace it, I merely see it.

Many thinkers in this forum have abandoned the conception of cosmic consciousness altogether and instead weld the conception of causality which is actually more useful in maturing oneâ€™s awareness.

The problem with believing in cosmic consciousness is one can use the belief to ensure the personal continuity of the ego; so one needs to be careful with belief. It is safest not to believe in anything and to purely rely on facts.

Relying strictly on facts is facing what death is.

Here are some of the fundamentals that I have come to value:

1. There is no choice; the self is an illusion.

2. All â€˜thingsâ€™ are caused meaning they have no permanent existence in themselves. Each form is just a temporary expression until causality destroys it and is changes into something else.

3. The universe lacks meaning/purpose, it is empty. In other words: there is nothing to get excited about.

4.The pursuit of sensual pleasure prevents man from sustaining clarity.

5. Reason should be primary and the emotions should be secondary. If reason is primary then oneâ€™s emotions are incredibly subtle, almost nonexistent.

5. Aloneness is key; conventional man/woman relationships are dangerous to the health of ones being; attachment equals suffering; attachment equals earthlyness.

6. Attachment to people and things is a form of self-deception.

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:16 am

I wrote

Therefore you are limited by your senses ..Is that an actuality or a goal?

CP wrote
Yes, the organism is incredibly limited, the senses is all you have.

Really? What sense do I feel with, what sense do I feel compassion, love with

I wrote:
The motivation is that there is more to this world than what we see with our eyes and some of us want to know what it is.

CP wrote
What you see is what you get and thatâ€™s assuming youâ€™re clear-minded, You will never â€˜knowâ€™ anything deeper, you will chase your tail for eternity in that pursuit, there is nothing to find, Understanding is like a fire, once it burns out nothing remains. Logic is a bridge to get to an island that doesnt exist at all.

I agree that understanding is a temporary state, but it returns in slightly different forms thoughout your life. there is much to find, God for one, understanding of self and others for another
We "judge people with our senses, but we often get things wrong because there is more to it than just our senses can receive. Seek and you will find......I have found much with my heart than I ever could with my senses. I see myself seeing others, rather than just seeing others. I see myself as nothing and God as everything. Its not about knowing anything deeper..in fact its a simplification

Many thinkers in this forum have abandoned the conception of cosmic consciousness altogether and instead weld the conception of causality which is actually more useful in maturing oneâ€™s awareness.

The problem with believing in cosmic consciousness is one can use the belief to ensure the personal continuity of the ego; so one needs to be careful with belief. It is safest not to believe in anything and to purely rely on facts. [/quote]

...Belief in God means you are nothing, your ego is meaningless, useless, a thing of vanity, to be discarded

Relying strictly on facts is facing what death is.

Here are some of the fundamentals that I have come to value:

1. There is no choice; the self is an illusion.

We have one choice God or the world,

2. All â€˜thingsâ€™ are caused meaning they have no permanent existence in themselves. Each form is just a temporary expression until causality destroys it and is changes into something else.

Cause and Effect.........Infinite or finite ......Prove it disprove it.How is this relevant to anything. What is the benefit for any single thing

3. The universe lacks meaning/purpose, it is empty. In other words: there is nothing to get excited about.

I agree the universe is empty but the God/human thing is not. I am beginning to think I am on the wrong forum here, don't get me wrong I find it very pleasant to communicvate with you but what you are saying has no usefulness...they are just theories that over time will be disproved (like string-theory) and if the universe has no meaning, why explain it?.
.

4.The pursuit of sensual pleasure prevents man from sustaining clarity.

I agree with this

5. Reason should be primary and the emotions should be secondary. If reason is primary then oneâ€™s emotions are incredibly subtle, almost nonexistent.

The two should be in balance, the yin and the yang (and Schopenhauer (who I think you like) did a lot of eastern reading

5. Aloneness is key; conventional man/woman relationships are dangerous to the health of ones being; attachment equals suffering; attachment equals earthlyness.

This is very wrong. Family is not an attachment, it is a micocosm of Gods world . One cannot truly know God without family and an attachment is only an attachment if it cannot be given up ie an addiction. I am in my family out of free-will. if I wish it I could let go.......I have left wife and children before, but I do not wish it. I know too that to put family before God is failing God .and that is a test of God's as well

6. Attachment to people and things is a form of self-deception

I was a Buddhist once and even did Falun Gong for a few years Attachment is a form of self-deception, I agree, to both people and things , but an attachment is something that cannot be given up
I gave up God for twenty years and have returned to God and I know that the sensory factual world is an illusion, an attachment which is very difficult to give up and instead choose God,

I cannot accept that proposition that life is basically meaningless. Logic dictates that we are so very well equipped with both reason and emotion for it to be so empty as you describe...............How do you deal with your loneliness, despair and depression or if you do not have these, what do you have..I can't quite grasp how you live......by pleasuring the senses, guilt free knowing there is no God, you cant contem[plate the Universe cos there is nothing there......

The question is I suppose What occupies your thoughts? [/quote]

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:55 am

Natan wrote:

Really? What sense do I feel with, what sense do I feel compassion, love with.

I agree, there is â€˜feelingâ€™ from the center of onesâ€™ being, but logic is needed to find emotional balance so logic has its value. In other words: One needs to see the relationship between â€˜thingsâ€™ in order to be emotionally stable.

Natan wrote:

I have found much with my heart than I ever could with my senses. I see myself seeing others, rather than just seeing others. I see myself as nothing and God as everything. Its not about knowing anything deeper..in fact its a simplification

Instead of heart, I have been wondering if â€˜subjective configuration based on unique genetic/environmental blueprintâ€™ is more effective.

Natan wrote:

Belief in God means you are nothing

I donâ€™t feel a belief in god is necessary to be nothing. All one needs to do is understand â€˜thingsâ€™ factually.

Natan wrote:

and if the universe has no meaning, why explain it?

Because some feel it has meaning; some believe there is divine protection; and they operate on pure superstitution rather than fact; some feel that there is magic in the universe and so on. Causality in a meaningless universe destroys the credibility of these things.

Natan wrote:

The two should be in balance, the yin and the yang (and Schopenhauer (who I think you like) did a lot of eastern reading

I agree; in other words; a logical understanding of all truths beget a heightened emotional state that is of higher quality than the masses.

Natan wrote:

This is very wrong. Family is not an attachment, it is a micocosm of Gods world . One cannot truly know God without family and an attachment is only an attachment if it cannot be given up ie an addiction. I am in my family out of free-will. if I wish it I could let go.......I have left wife and children before, but I do not wish it. I know too that to put family before God is failing God .and that is a test of God's as well

I donâ€™t agree with you here, having a family and being completely free is difficult in the present civilization.

Natan wrote:

How do you deal with your loneliness, despair and depression or if you do not have these, what do you have?

these days: there is subtle aniexty/strong sexual desire and subtle despair/discontent. However sometimes there is a heightened state of sensitivity which only occurs when all external stimulus are negated. Usually happens at night.

Natan wrote:

I can't quite grasp how you live......by pleasuring the senses, guilt free knowing there is no God, you cant contemplate the Universe cos there is nothing there...

There are facts that can be studied, relationships can be discerned and the body needs to be taken care of in the most minimal way possible.

Natan wrote:

The question is I suppose What occupies your thoughts?

As of late I have been wondering what is the relationship between moral judgment, subjectivity and uniqueness among wise men? (not the deluded)

Moreover because each wise-man has a unique genetic/environmental blueprint, this means their subjective configuration is slightly different so when two wise-man judge each other, they are never seeing the entire picture because their judgment is always based on their own experience which is unique to only them.

Wise-men unwittingly try to transform others into their own subjective state which is silly because the other person has their own subjective state which is not going to change.

What a rotten world it would be if all thinkers had identical subjective states; it would be like having a relationship with an identical copy of yourself; thinkers would go insane and commit suicide on mass.

This is why having an ideal of the perfectly enlightened Buddha is poppycock because the ideal goes against the fact of unique subjective configurations.

It is subjective imperfection that defines distinction and this is absolutely necessary it the species is able to communicate with each other.

UG krishnamurti said â€œthe world is not trying to create a perfect individual, only a perfect speciesâ€

Sartre said â€œOn Kierkegaard's religious views, Sartre offers the usual argument against existence of God: If existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect.â€

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:49 am

Natan wrote:...Belief in God means you are nothing, your ego is meaningless, useless, a thing of vanity, to be discarded

What do you mean by "God"? Please give your definition.

For example, is it a name for the Totality, the All, Everything, the One? Or is it something less than this?

The two should be in balance, the yin and the yang (and Schopenhauer (who I think you like) did a lot of eastern reading

Hatred and fear are emotions. Do you think these two emotions are a good thing that should be "in balance" with other things?

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:58 am

CP Wrote
I agree, there is â€˜feelingâ€™ from the center of onesâ€™ being, but logic is needed to find emotional balance so logic has its value. In other words: One needs to see the relationship between â€˜thingsâ€™ in order to be emotionally stable.

I agree with this

I wrote:
I have found much with my heart than I ever could with my senses. I see myself seeing others, rather than just seeing others. I see myself as nothing and God as everything. Its not about knowing anything deeper..in fact its a simplification

CP wrote
Instead of heart, I have been wondering if â€˜subjective configuration based on unique genetic/environmental blueprintâ€™ is more effective.

hmmmmmmmm I find myself not disagreeing with you here..Its a possibity

I wrote:

Belief in God means you are nothing

CP
I donâ€™t feel a belief in god is necessary to be nothing. All one needs to do is understand â€˜thingsâ€™ factually.

To believe in God means that you realise you are as nothing. In your world as everything is really nothing I do not understand how you can see yourself as nothing. Surely you put yourself at the centre and all that there is ....is you

I wrote
and if the universe has no meaning, why explain it?

CP
Because some feel it has meaning; some believe there is divine protection; and they operate on pure superstitution rather than fact; some feel that there is magic in the universe and so on. Causality in a meaningless universe destroys the credibility of these things.

Perhaps so but remember facts ie understanding constantly change. it is less likely I will be proved wrong than you are in the future

Natan wrote:

CPI donâ€™t agree with you here, having a family and being completely free is difficult in the present civilization.

Yes but within the difficulty lies the possibility of great self-improvement..the Buddhist student should not live in the hills but practice what he has learnt with all others

I wrote:

I wrote :
The question is I suppose What occupies your thoughts?

CP
As of late I have been wondering what is the relationship between moral judgment, subjectivity and uniqueness among wise men? (not the deluded)

Moreover because each wise-man has a unique genetic/environmental blueprint, this means their subjective configuration is slightly different so when two wise-man judge each other, they are never seeing the entire picture because their judgment is always based on their own experience which is unique to only them.

Wise-men unwittingly try to transform others into their own subjective state which is silly because the other person has their own subjective state which is not going to change.

What a rotten world it would be if all thinkers had identical subjective states; it would be like having a relationship with an identical copy of yourself; thinkers would go insane and commit suicide on mass.

This is why having an ideal of the perfectly enlightened Buddha is poppycock because the ideal goes against the fact of unique subjective configurations.

It is subjective imperfection that defines distinction and this is absolutely necessary it the species is able to communicate with each other.

I agree with you and have a strange feeling of respect for you, even tho we disagree on the God thing ...I would say this heightened sensitivity of which you speak could be used to give God the benefit of the doubt and then I think you would notice a strangely benign force .....perhaps

CP wrote
Sartre said â€œOn Kierkegaard's religious views, Sartre offers the usual argument against existence of God: If existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect.â€

God is a paradox or rather The Paradox ...Sartre's understanding fell short . God is the Paradox of the Subjective (I just made that up and I do like it

I wrote:
...Belief in God means you are nothing, your ego is meaningless, useless, a thing of vanity, to be discarded

I wrote :
The two should be in balance, the yin and the yang (and Schopenhauer (who I think you like) did a lot of eastern reading

Hatred and fear are emotions. Do you think these two emotions are a good thing that should be "in balance" with other things?

Hatred turns to Love and Love to hate. Fear turns to courage and courage to fear in the cycle of yin-yang. However the yin/yang is merely a symbol showing the nature of things ie there is a little hate in Love and a little love in hate. Also when love has reached its peak so hate begins

However its only a symbol. We have the power to transcend these cycles by simply understanding the nature of yin/yang and the nature of opposites. We can select where on the cycle we want to be ie with you and DQ too much masculine (so butch) logic reaches a peak and then gives rise to so much emotional feminine outpouring .......its what you encourage.
A balance of logic and emotion is probably best

Oh my definition of God ....The Paradox of the Subjective

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:00 am

Sorry for the editing mess....I pressed the wrong button..Silly emotional me

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:21 am

Natan wrote:

God is the Paradox of the Subjective.

Perhaps we should go into this further, your sentence has a nice ring to it, it may look catchy on a T-shirt perhaps, but I still find it ambiguous.

Letâ€™s go into it slowly:

God (?) is the paradox - (self-contradiction) of the subjective - (individual expression)

I would be inclined to say that there is individual expression, however the separation between two individuals is an illusion.

If we replace the word god with rationality then perhaps we could say this:

Rationality is the emergence of intelligence into this world. If two individuals are rooted in rationality then in actuality they are rooted in the same intelligence.

Intelligence is intelligence. The separation is an illusion.

However there is still distinction between them due to the unique genetic/environmental blueprint that will never ever be repeated.

Natan, I donâ€™t use the word God because it creates a lot of confusion, the word has been misused throughout the ages.

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:55 am

Perhaps, but God is a subjective feeling, not an objective fact. one paradox is that I can know God, he can know God, but neither of us can prove God exists. Neither can you prove God does not exist. To be with God one has to surrender the world, but we live in the world, this is the paradox of the subjective. To be with God is to give up our very instinct to survive and in this Society strive for food etc. Instead we should purely focus on God, this is a paradox (I'm using a loose definition of paradox) .

I suppose the Tao that can be defined is not the Tao and it is the same for God. I cannot define God but I know what God means to me, the Benignity, that which is benign and loving in the world. yes there are paradoxes and yes it is subjective, but yes, I was trying to be clever.

I like this quote from Einstein

Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own." ... "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262.

Its not a big step from this to use this God as a light to light one's life by .

I take care over my thoughts, and my actions and follow the teachings of and the life of Jesus Why?, because I know what one gives out is returned to one many times over. I believe that we are here to struggle and improve ourselves and whilst I respect your views I can't help feeling you are missing something. Call it God or call it rationality it is still something unknown

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:13 am

CP If I am to be brutally honest then God to me is all that is Benign in this world. All that is negative is from the hands of human. It our negativity, our adherence to silly beliefs that prevent us from being what we truly should be..We havent even begun to develop, to return to God.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:43 am

Natan wrote:

I can't help feeling you are missing something. Call it God or call it rationality it is still something unknown

Can we both agree that there is a state of unknowing wonder in which all creativity is born? In that state; no-one and nothing exists.

the only way I can come to know anything is if I spent a sufficient amount of time in that state;

Moreover creation is involutionary and it happens when all striving/occupation in the mind ceases. when there is a state of 'creating', the organism becomes increasingly sensitive.

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:48 am

Natan wrote:

I wrote
I can't help feeling you are missing something. Call it God or call it rationality it is still something unknown

CP
Can we both agree that there is a state of unknowing wonder in which all creativity is born? In that state; no-one and nothing exists.

the only way I can come to know anything is if I spent a sufficient amount of time in that state;

Moreover creation is involutionary and it happens when all striving/occupation in the mind ceases. when there is a state of 'creating', the organism becomes increasingly sensitive.

This state of nothingness, where no-one and nothing exists, if focused on for long enough leads you to where you are now, you are finding what you seek
However if I may be so bold, a word of warning, achieving this state is like enjoying the desert, its a break from the pointless noise of reality.

Why not go to wher I go......before a presence of utter and pure benignity

I get there by looking at any negativity, lets take illness as an example and tracing where illness is simplya dis-ease of the mind. Take this further. we need not die. We are self-programmed to fade. The mind tells the body it is weak, getting old. Illnesses are due to incorrect thinking about self and others. In this way I always re-gain the insight that everything that is Benign to self and others is from this presence (I am doing my best to avoid the word God) and everything that is negative is down to us.
We wantedknowledge in the Garden, we could have been happy without knowledge. Instead the things we think we know make us finite.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:11 pm

Natan wrote:

Illnesses are due to incorrect thinking about self and others

your example could apply in unique circumstances, but it is not a universal statement, most illnesses have other causes.

if you avoid the cause, you avoid the illness. Here are a few examples of how one needs to 'know' causality:

1. I will not smoke cigarettes because it causes cancer.
2. I will not drink because it causes liver disease and distorts the clarity of the mind.
3. I will not get â€œstressedâ€ because I realize that there is no pressure to perform, I am not striving to â€œget aheadâ€ so there no stress.

Stress is also caused by people who get themselves into outlandish financial situations and are unable to keep the bills paid with their slavish 9-5 job.

Illness is caused by ignorant behavior. Indulgence in vices in the number one cause. People who live in middle-class homes with lots of luxury suffer from the most stress and therefore they will be prone to illness.

The man who is nothing in this world circumvents most illnesses only because he has a deep understanding of causality in that he is able to see relationships between things like luxury, comfort, security and stress, slavery and misery.

He sees clearly how pleasure causes pain.

Natan wrote:

we could have been happy without knowledge. Instead the things we think we know make us finite.

There are definitely things we need to know, one needs to know what freedom is in relationship to slavery, this can only be observed in relationship. There is knowledge that liberates and knowledge that enslaves, and one must know the difference.

Natan · Post by **Natan** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:36 am

I wrote:

Illnesses are due to incorrect thinking about self and others

CP
your example could apply in unique circumstances, but it is not a universal statement, most illnesses have other causes.

if you avoid the cause, you avoid the illness. Here are a few examples of how one needs to 'know' causality:

1. I will not smoke cigarettes because it causes cancer.
2. I will not drink because it causes liver disease and distorts the clarity of the mind.
3. I will not get â€œstressedâ€ because I realize that there is no pressure to perform, I am not striving to â€œget aheadâ€ so there no stress.

Stress is also caused by people who get themselves into outlandish financial situations and are unable to keep the bills paid with their slavish 9-5 job.

Illness is caused by ignorant behavior. Indulgence in vices in the number one cause. People who live in middle-class homes with lots of luxury suffer from the most stress and therefore they will be prone to illness.

You are only part of the way there. Smoking does not cause cancer, the stats are distorted..........twisted thinking that damages the thinker causes cancer. Anger causes heart problems, fear causes kidney problems, hatred causes all sorts of things including arthritis.
Just because medicine likes to ignore the fact that the way we think directly affects ourhealth, purely for self-preservation reasond does not mean it is not so......medicine is a huge con. Yes it can do vital plumbing etc but that's about it.
We fool ourselves in this way . Stress does not come from lifestyle nor possessions but in the way we think of these two.

CP
The man who is nothing in this world circumvents most illnesses only because he has a deep understanding of causality in that he is able to see relationships between things like luxury, comfort, security and stress, slavery and misery

.

I would argue it is because he has a clear way to think about his thinking and guard it accordingly. The next time you feel envy, note the actual physical effects such a negative emotion has on the body. A lifetime of envy causes great harm

I wrote:

Quote:
we could have been happy without knowledge. Instead the things we think we know make us finite.

There are definitely things we need to know, one needs to know what freedom is in relationship to slavery, this can only be observed in relationship. There is knowledge that liberates and knowledge that enslaves, and one must know the difference.

Yes I agree, but again its the things we think we know that can harm us