From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Fri Mar 01 2002 - 03:34:35 MST
> Or if it is an unavoidable fact of human nature (perhaps only evidenced
> under unfortunate circumstances).
You are confusing emotional involvement with emotional dependency. We all
need interaction with those around us, but the point at which we cannot
function independently (your 'coping strategy') is a very unhealthy one.
> Understood - you want verifiable sources.
It would also be accurate to say that I want accountable sources. A being
that imposes moral coda without providing any explanation of them is no
different to a dictator.
> How about, as G. I. Gurdjieff suggested, that the supervision is benign
> but "imperfect"?
You would have to provide background for the comment - frequently the idea
of divinity has always been concurrent with perfection (which requires
christians to explain the cock-up in the garden of eden as an example of
god's love). Divinities without perfection are rarely set up as moral
arbiters (i.e. the greek gods).
>So far I'm not incredibly impressed.
Given that you seems to me to have made up your mind on all topics prior to
arrival, I cannot claim to be surprised by that. You appear to be demanding
an absolute standard of ethics that determine every single aspect of your
life. I would contend that other than a minimal set of virtues and vices,
this is something that virus will actively refuse to provide. Having started
from that desire there is little anyone could say to persuade you otherwise.
Given that, it is entirely inevitable that discussions of this kind will run
around in circles - it seems a bit unreasonable for you to blame us for not
supplying you with want to hear.
> There are "religions" with no Supreme Being, such as Taoism.
Personally, I would not count taoism as a religion (I see it as having more
in common with plato than christ), though the point is well made.
> I will admit that I was a bit put-off by Kant as what I read of him
> seemed like an unwieldy edifice of notions. As you have asked me for a
> summary, I ask you now for one.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi023/kantLEC.HTM
> I have. But I'll hesitate to put us on a tangent.
Do elaborate. I will be very surprised if the argument does not have a
religious origin. Prohibitions of that sort cannot possibly be reversible or
universal.
> No, but they take more of my money.
Consider the church throughout history and the tithes that went to it,
consider the selling of indulgences. The CofE and the Catholic Church remain
very wealthy institutions.
> We need some form of population control.
Are you attempting to suggest to me that burning witches or massacring the
cathars were a welcome means of population control? If so, I would have to
suggest that you need to research the subject of contraception. And that
you're probably off your rocker.
> Sorry. It was in the Rhetoric, as found here:
> http://www.public.iastate.edu/~honeyl/Rhetoric/rhet2-17.html
"respect for the divine power, in which they believe because of events which
are really the result of chance."
It's not the most ringing endorsement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT