From: No name given (vampier@mac.com)
Date: Thu Feb 28 2002 - 17:04:52 MST
On Thursday, February 28, 2002, at 01:50 PM, L' Ermit wrote:
> [nng 2] Read "To Thine Own Self Be True: The Relationship Between
> Spiritual Values and Emotional Health" by Lewis M. Andrews, Ph. D. and
> then tell me what you think.
>
> [Hermit] In general, if you can you provide a web source, please cite
> it. If not please present your own arguments rather than someone else's
> (that the vast majority of the upwards of 500 people listening to you
> are not going to read). As it is, before anybody is daft enough to read
> your recommendations (daft as you have not proven yourself a reliable
> source of recommendations in this forum, and time is precious), can you
> explain exactly what differences you see between "spiritual values" and
> "worthless coin"?
The summary can be found in my reply to Mr. Ridge's message.
To call my recommendations daft because of what has not been proven is
to presume "guilty until proven innocent".
Anyone with an open mind and a decent library can investigate my
recommendations as they see fit.
And anyone without can be as kind as Mr. Ridge and request as summary.
> [nng 1] I have yet to see well-reasoned, consistent, well-supported
> secular ethics. They all wind up appealing to something unprovable.
>
> [Hermit 1] Have you seen a set of "well-reasoned, consistent,
> well-supported non-secular ethics"?
Yes, but they have underlying axioms (transcendental sanction) and
sources (transpersonal research) that no-one here has yet evidenced that
they have an open mind to.
> Or was this more a general complaint about the nature of the Universe?
That too.
> Would you please explain your understanding of the scientific method
> and game-theory and their application to ethics?
>
> [Hermit 1] As an elementary starting point in diagnosing the analytic
> methodology you apply to ethical systems, kindly explain how you would
> determine that a system of ethics grounded in a simple "tit-for-tat"
> strategy is not "well-reasoned", "consistent", "well supported" or
> "secular" and identify which of these aspects you find problematic.
As Gandi so eloquently stated, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind".
The message of forgiveness is essential, both on an individual and a
collective level, or else ancient squabbles based on potentially minor
misunderstandings can result in "bad blood" between powerful entitites.
> [Richard Ridge] Not so long ago you were citing Godel's theorem as
> grounds for asserting that faith is a required component in areas where
> rationality does not reach (Which sounds like having found a flaw in
> your calculations, you invent an unprovable quantity (god) to fill the
> hole. Which must make for a somewhat unstable edifice - and certainly
> makes for hypocrisy on your part) . On that occasion you appeared to be
> rather more enamoured of uncertainty :-)
>
> [nng 2] You are equating faith with unprovability and uncertainty in
> the above in order to deduce hypocrisy and my alleged enamorement with
> uncertainly.
>
> [Hermit 2] Not at all. Your presence here indicates that you are
> rational or seek to become so or are attempting to determine if
> rationality is desirable.
Yes.
> Gˆdel is well-reasoned, consistent and well-supported. Thus it would
> not be rational to reject Gˆdelian uncertainty, thus I (and I assume
> Richard) conclude that you should support Gˆdel.
I do. Thus, you can conclude that I am, at a fundamental level
attempting to determine two things:
1) is rationality desirable
2) is rationality sufficient
You need not convince me too much about (1) (if I needed convincing
about that, I know there's a lot out there about it already that I could
read), but (2) is where I am not convinced (and have not been convinced
by what I've read).
> However I see the apparent contradiction that you are seeking certainty
> beyond what is necessary when it comes to an ethical system, which
> apparent conclusion presumably leads Richard to seek your motivation to
> transcend uncertainty knowing that this cannot be done. I too would be
> interested in your answer.
"beyond what is necessary": the search for truth is a continual thing,
and whenever one encounters an obstacle, (such as the incompleteness of
rationality in determining truth) it is the visionary that tries to
transcend it, but the person that makes no attempt to improve things
that winds up not making progress and accepting things as they are.
Properly founded ethics needs to be visionary - clearly some rules (that
have been categorized as ethical) are antiquated (as for which ones, I'd
rather not go on such a tangent now) - and to that do I ascribe a lack
of vision on the part of the creator of such rules.
> [nng 2] I am merely postulating the existence of a provability beyond
> that of rationality that can lead to a certainty beyond that of the
> "provisional truth" that rationality leaves us with.
>
> [Hermit 2] Upon what grounds do you postulate this? What evidence do
> you offer in support?
I offer the entire field of transpersonal research.
> [Richard Ridge] On the whole, I am far from persuaded that a consistent
> set of ethics grounded in transcendental sanction is a good thing.
>
> [nng 2] I am willing to concede that it may not be - a grounding in
> something other than transcendental sanction might very well be better.
> But I have found nothing else that works nearly as well.
>
> [Hermit 2] So having failed to find an ethical system which contradicts
> the nature of the universe, you now claim to have selected one which
> contradicts the nature of reason and allege that it is "better". I find
> the probability that you are correct to be slight. Would you lay it out
> for inspection?
As you have mentioned, the nature of the universe is emergent.
An ethical system which contradicts the nature of reason, but not the
nature of the universe, allows for anything that might emerge from it to
be consistent with the nature of the universe.
And indeed, the nature of the universe may contradict the nature of
reason - this is a possibility I am open to.
> [Richard Ridge] Such certainty is precisely what accounts for the
> manifest evils of religion.
>
> [nng 2] I hypothesize (as do others) that there exists a central core
> of good teachings in each religion.
>
> [Hermit 2] Upon what grounds do you hypothesize this? Are you familiar
> with the ad populem fallacy?
And by no means was I attempting to invoke said fallacy - but merely to
remark that I am not alone in this endeavor.
> I suggest that the history of religious men does not tend to support
> this assertion.
Where may I be convinced of your suggestion?
> [nng 2], around which tradition (of mediocre value) and nonsense (of
> detrimental value) have accumulated over the ages (where sometimes an
> "age" is a very short period of time).
>
> [Hermit 2] Why is this necessary. Are you familiar with Ockham's razor?
Yes.
> Do you think that perhaps you might be "multiplying entities
> unnecessarily"? If not, why not?
Enlighten me. I do not believe that Ockham's razor applies here -
because we are talking about the history of religion, which itself
expects to be above the laws of logic. But if you do believe it applies
here, please tell me how.
> [nng 2] I suggest that all the "manifest evils of religion" are a
> consequence of the accumulated nonsense.
>
> [nng 2] To get to what is worthwhile you must, to borrow the Buddhist
> phrase, "peel the onion".
>
> [Hermit 2] What makes you imagine that that the center of the onion is
> different from the outside? After all, if you saw a tray full of
> apparently rotten food, would you really scrabble through it in search
> of a bit that was not rotten? If so, why? What you be your motivation
> for doing so? The hope of a discount? Or something else?
If you were hungry enough, you would.
> [Richard Ridge] I would suggest that a great many of our ethical
> notions today have much more to do with JS Mill than the Bible (which
> can only be good - were it otherwise we would still be incarcerating
> homosexuals or stoning adulterers), namely that individuals should have
> the liberty to behave as they wish as long as that behaviour does not
> adversely impact on others. What was particularly noteworthy about Mill
> was that he did not consider a lack of consistency of application a
> problem - it is far more sensible to judge each case on its individual
> merits than shoehorning them into a set of moral absolutes.
>
> [Hermit 2] Nods vigorously again.
>
> [nng 2] Legal law, by definition, is written down. Judging each case,
> on it's own merits, while simultaneously allowing for an appeals
> process that may, at any point it time, reach the highest court in the
> land, winds up with people appealing, not on any sound reason, but
> merely because they didn't like how that court chose to judge that
> case. Without guiding "moral absolutes", the legal profession will
> continue to grow well beyond what I think it should.
>
> [Hermit 2] What do you see as a "moral absolute", where does it come
> from and what court applies it? How is this "moral absolute"
> disseminated and enforced? Were these moral absolutes in favor of
> slavery until recently? Are they still in favor of slavery? How come,
> if you assert the existence of such a "moral absolute", does it appear
> very different in different cultures and over time? If you assert that
> such a "moral absolute" existed, but is not currently enforced (and
> presumably has not been enforced over a long period of time) is there
> any difference between that law and no law? Consider that there are
> precedents in this issue. How is an unwritten, unenforced, "moral
> absolute" different from "no law"?
The traditional answer (which I'm not entirely convinced of) is that it
is enforced in the afterlife, and that it is written "in our hearts" -
as that which gives us a conscience.
Legal law is an attempt at an approximation to "moral absolutes" - we
make mistakes as we aim for it.
> [Hermit 2] A law which is not "written down" (published) cannot be
> fairly applied and will give the appearance of being capricious and
> arbitrary. Exactly the opposite of good law. Appeals are a part of law,
> and there are procedures for managing the process. If laws are
> inadequate or faulty, there are procedures to rectify or correct them.
> What is the equivalent process for a "moral absolute"?
Without the guiding principles of "moral absolutes" the degree to which
people "rationalize" (and thus spread memes that were created for the
sole purpose of escaping the punishment - which can hardly be good
reasons to create them) winds up being unbounded - precedent winds up
becoming the rule, rather than the exception - and increasingly
permissiveness abounds as rules continue to be slowly etched away.
> [nng 2] Aristotle and various others in the religious and philosophical
> arenas
>
> [Richard Ridge] I hardly think the Nicomachean ethics is something we
> would wish to rely on - the idea of a unity of virtues is not one of
> Aristotle's happier conceits. Aside from anything else, the
> Aristotelian list of virtues is far from being identical to a christian
> list and does not count 'faith' in that particular calendar.
>
> [nng 2] There may be some slight twisting of words necessary here.
>
> [Hermit 2] LOL. Slight? Justify please.
Reference found in other thread.
> [nng 1] I've give the sources he mentions above. Feel free to discredit
> or follow up on them as you see fit.
>
> [Richard Ridge] Discrediting it is not difficult.
>
> [Hermit 2] It takes time. So far I see nothing worth taking the time to
> respond to.
>
> [nng 2] Then go for it.
>
> [Hermit 2] Justify why we should. We do not insist on your money, your
> attention, your worship, or your belief. We ask you (and do the same
> ourselves) to examine and query, to determine things on a rational
> basis, to support assertions made if asked, and a willingness to learn.
> People here are willing to, and do, dedicate time to these tasks, the
> church and its members, but we do anticipate a reasonable likelihood of
> a return in terms of personal growth from such investments.
I cannot presently promise such a thing.
> As we do not yet know you very well, and do not yet comprehend what you
> are advocating,
I am questioning. But I'm getting the impression that rationality is too
limited for me to properly frame my question.
> we are asking you to make explicit to us exactly what you are
> recommending,
1) recognition of the field of transpersonal research as a valid source
of scientific inquiry
2) by extension, recognition of the limitations of the scientific method
as a means to determining truth
3) and as a consequence, recognition of the extension to the scientific
method that transpersonal research holds
4) your help in all the above - and a slightly less antagonistic tone to
the (tiresome, but valid) criticisms,
5) open-mindedness in (4) - before criticizing, see if you can't come up
with the response yourself
6) eagerness to explore - and thus not demand that I force-feed all
relevant material to you all through the list
> so that we can determine, using rational criteria, whether it is worth
> while investing the time in it.
I don't have the time or effort to attempt to advocate 1-3 without you
all also offering up 4-6.
> [Richard Ridge] If a search for faith were universal, Europe would not
> be becoming increasingly atheistic, while most Europeans now appear to
> be happily devoid of any faith (contradicting your assertion that most
> people do need faith).
>
> [nng 2] Please provide me a link to a survey result of Europeans that
> indicates
> that they consider themselves devoid of faith.
>
> [Hermit 2] Appended below.
>
> [nng 2] I have heard that in America, there definitely has been an
> outcry against the crimes of organized religion (and, through
> association, against organized religion), but a great majority
> continues to believe in some form of "spirituality" - which gets
> defined in different terms based on the individuals' background.
>
> [Hermit 2] The US is undoubtedly the most religious developed country,
> but even here secularism is on the rise, "The non-religious (not a
> member of a religion, not "having faith in a Divinity") comprises 29
> million odd people with a margin of error at the 95th
> percentile not exceeding 1%." [American Religious Identification Survey
> infra]
>
> [hr]
>
> [url=http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm]"American
> Religious Identification Survey"[/url]
Thank you for your statistics. I will contemplate them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT