Carlos Castaneda

[Brant Gaede]

Not "everyone." You have no way of knowing everyone or perhaps even very many. The way you state it you invalidate your own generalization not because you are wrong generally, but because of your traducification of generalize.

--Brant

Moral law is as ubiquitous as gravity.

No one in this world is exempt from it.

Greg

(I think we've been down this road before... )

You're only repeating yourself with a physics fillip. If you want to mix up physics and morality you might be interested in The God of the Machine. In the meantime, you've not demonstrated the ubiquity of moral law, just asserted it--here and elsewhere--and gravity is only ubiquitous in kind, not effect, which changes with distance. Can we say the same of morality or not logically extend the principle through misuse of analogical reasoning? Aside from all this, all getting what they deserve assumes no acts of Zod--I mean, God. Need I say more, or will you continue to say less?

--Brant

being stuck in a catechism means no need to get out, but the world is bigger than your catechism, Horatio

[moralist]

... you've not demonstrated the ubiquity of moral law...

I haven't, because I can only demonstrate the ubiquity of moral law it to myself.

However, you can prove the truth of this principle for yourself. And this is how:

Simply do something that you know is wrong.

Then see if you can escape the consequences

you had set into motion by your own action.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

... you've not demonstrated the ubiquity of moral law...

I haven't, because I can only demonstrate the ubiquity of moral law it to myself.

However, you can prove the truth of this principle for yourself. And this is how:

Simply do something that you know is wrong.

Then see if you can escape the consequences

you had set into motion by your own action.

Greg

No, no, no. There are always consequences. Say water is "wet." Same thing. It's practically axiomatic. What kind of consequences is not.

--Brant

all I'm saying is you habitually over-generalize making evaluation of the basic supposition impossible with your participation, for you simply keep repeating it--say wrong actions seem to lead to bad consequences in most cases, but this does not necessarily extend to wrong actions for right reasons as opposed to wrong actions for wrong reasons and even then the results may be bottom-line beneficent albeit accidentally (there may be five consequences to one action and three might be good and two bad and with each weighed one might come up with one-up positive belying moral perfectibility both in a person and in practically applied philosophy)

[anthony]

Greg, I think Brant has got you there. Isn't your harping on consequence an attempt to trace back to First Cause, the Creator?

As I've said, I have never minded that implicit premise very much in Christian friends, as they do develop a staunch character along the way.

However, the epistemological and ethical cracks don't get any better, and widen with time.

[PDS]

I don't get the impression that Greg cares a whole lot whether CC had a right to expect any privacy on this issue,

No one who is out in public has any right to expect privacy because they never had it in the first place and never will. In any city you are constantly being filmed by countless numbers of hidden and visible security cameras.

I'm aware of your efforts to try to couch this in terms of an innocent betrayed victim Ceasar being stabbed while he cries "Et tu, Brutus", so you are welcome to try your very best.

In fact, according to Greg's oft-stated perspective, CC got exactly what he chose and what he deserved.

There's no need to make it personal. Everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions. That includes you, me, and everyone else.

Greg

Okay. I didn't know you were filming CC "out in public." I thought you were filming him within the context of privacy, i.e., where he was among people he considered friends, etc.

[moralist]

Greg, I think Brant has got you there. Isn't your harping on consequence an attempt to trace back to First Cause, the Creator?

I actually didn't even have that in mind because it's impossible to prove God to others. It's only possible to know for yourself. I was just referring to the mundane causal relationship between what we do and what happens as the result of what we do.

Greg

[moralist]

I don't get the impression that Greg cares a whole lot whether CC had a right to expect any privacy on this issue,

No one who is out in public has any right to expect privacy because they never had it in the first place and never will. In any city you are constantly being filmed by countless numbers of hidden and visible security cameras.

I'm aware of your efforts to try to couch this in terms of an innocent betrayed victim Ceasar being stabbed while he cries "Et tu, Brutus", so you are welcome to try your very best.

In fact, according to Greg's oft-stated perspective, CC got exactly what he chose and what he deserved.

There's no need to make it personal. Everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions. That includes you, me, and everyone else.

Greg

Okay. I didn't know you were filming CC "out in public." I thought you were filming him within the context of privacy, i.e., where he was among people he considered friends, etc.

I understand. It's easy to assume the worst.

Greg

[anthony]

Greg, I think Brant has got you there. Isn't your harping on consequence an attempt to trace back to First Cause, the Creator?

I actually didn't even have that in mind because it's impossible to prove God to others. It's only possible to know for yourself. I was just referring to the mundane causal relationship between what we do and what happens as the result of what we do.

Greg

Is it true that - as part of this causal chain - you are equally affected by the influence of others on yourself? Or does it start from you?

To be consistent, should those others also assume responsibility for your outcome?

This reminds me of quantum physics. Simply, I think the options are: either men are particles, or man is a volitional end in himself.

{In case it isn't clearly self-evident, this does not preclude all the ways that an individual can and does affect another - as they affect him. But those come in categories we call: friendship, love, respect, acknowledgement, etc. - chosen values and individuals}.

[moralist]

Greg, I think Brant has got you there. Isn't your harping on consequence an attempt to trace back to First Cause, the Creator?

I actually didn't even have that in mind because it's impossible to prove God to others. It's only possible to know for yourself. I was just referring to the mundane causal relationship between what we do and what happens as the result of what we do.

Greg

Is it true that - as part of this causal chain - you are equally affected by the influence of others on yourself?

I can only be affected by how I choose to respond to the influence of others, so the effect is ultimately up to me by what I choose to make out of it.

Or does it start from you?

It starts from me by the consequences I set into motion by how I choose to respond to the influence of others.

To be consistent, should those others also assume responsibility for your outcome?

For the influence, yes... for the outcome, no. For I'm the only one who determines the outcome by the consequences of my own response to their influence.

This reminds me of quantum physics. Simply, I think the options are: either men are particles, or man is a volitional end in himself.

That's a neat analogy. You can accurately predict the behavior of a group of particles, but not the behavior of an individual one. In terms of people, freedom of action is inversely proportional to the size of the group you are in.

{In case it isn't clearly self-evident, this does not preclude all the ways that an individual can and does affect another - as they affect him. But those come in categories we call: friendship, love, respect, acknowledgement, etc. - chosen values and individuals}.

Yes. Those are various beneficial agreements in which we freely choose to participate. And just because I think that others are responsible for how they respond to my influence, does not absolve me from the personal responsibility of being mindful of my own affect upon others.

Greg

[dldelancey]

...does not absolve me from the personal responsibility of being mindful of my own affect upon others.

This is the only hint you've ever given that you acknowledge this aspect of personal responsbility. Still, while it seems that you are obliged to expect this of yourself, others should not expect it of you. Is this correct?

[moralist]

...does not absolve me from the personal responsibility of being mindful of my own affect upon others.

This is the only hint you've ever given that you acknowledge this aspect of personal responsibility.

It's just the Golden Rule. I assumed everyone here already knew that and agreed with it.

So I focused on the more controversial issue of self inflicted consequences, because the current collective cultural politically correct societal consensus is to be a perpetually emotionally offended "innocent" victim who angrily blames (unjustly accuses) others for the consequences of their own failure to do what's morally right.

Still, while it seems that you are obliged to expect this of yourself, others should not expect it of you. Is this correct?

Everyone can expect the reality that others will treat them as decent as they are... because that is what actually happens.

Greg's axiom:

"People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

I have yet to see this violated in my own personal experience.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Greg's axiom:

"People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

I have yet to see this violated in my own personal experience.

Greg

I'm not clear on what that means.

Does it mean that you treat indecent people indecently?

Does it mean that Hitler or Dahmer treated people exactly decent as they were?

Is your theory that if a group of thugs were to approach you to play "knockout" with you, they'd change their minds if they got a chance to see how decent you are, and then they'd tip their hats and say "Jolly good day, old chap"?

J

[moralist]

Greg's axiom:

"People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

I have yet to see this violated in my own personal experience.

Greg

I'm not clear on what that means.

...and you never will be.

Note that I said "in my own personal experience".

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg's axiom:

"People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

I have yet to see this violated in my own personal experience.

Greg

I'm not clear on what that means.

...and you never will be.

Note that I said "in my own personal experience".

Greg

Here we embrace lucidity while denying it.

--Brant

a master

[PDS]

I don't get the impression that Greg cares a whole lot whether CC had a right to expect any privacy on this issue,

No one who is out in public has any right to expect privacy because they never had it in the first place and never will. In any city you are constantly being filmed by countless numbers of hidden and visible security cameras.

I'm aware of your efforts to try to couch this in terms of an innocent betrayed victim Ceasar being stabbed while he cries "Et tu, Brutus", so you are welcome to try your very best.

In fact, according to Greg's oft-stated perspective, CC got exactly what he chose and what he deserved.

There's no need to make it personal. Everyone gets what they deserve as the consequences of their own actions. That includes you, me, and everyone else.

Greg

Okay. I didn't know you were filming CC "out in public." I thought you were filming him within the context of privacy, i.e., where he was among people he considered friends, etc.

I understand. It's easy to assume the worst.

Greg

Perhaps I assumed the worst because of your statement up-thread: "We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public? I assume so, since that is the strong impression your attempting to give in our exchange.

[anthony]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

[Selene]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Thanks. I like that concept. I have always been in that modality, as a team mate, coach, mentor, lover, etc.

There is nothing like positive reinforcement to allow someone to unfurl.

[Selene]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

[PDS]

"We became curious about Carlos because he was so secretive, and absolutely no one outside of the cult knew anything about him, how he lived, or even where he lived. We secretly followed him for a year before deciding to see if we could film him, which was forbidden. Gabi's decision to write a book was made long after the fact."

This doesn't sound like filming somebody in public to me.

Did you film him only in public?

Frankly, I think they are both lucky they didn't get shot by his predatory female phalanx...

Adam: you forget, however, that there is no luck in Greg's system.

[Mikee]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

[Jonathan]

Greg's axiom:

"People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were."

I have yet to see this violated in my own personal experience.

Greg

I'm not clear on what that means.

...and you never will be.

Note that I said "in my own personal experience".

Greg

Your personal experience has included me calling you "a very confused and ignorant yet pompous novice" on the Do We Learn to Love Bad Art? thread, as well as a "guru-wannabe" who displays "irrationality and incoherence" and has "foolish," and "nonsensical" beliefs.

I've accused you of being dishonest, and of being "incapable of comprehending and answering the simplest of questions that everyone else in the discussion is grasping with ease." I've ridiculed you for your "half-baked theories" and for "posing as a sage while apparently unknowingly showing [yourself] to be hopelessly incoherent on subjects about which [you offer your] la-la land judgments and guidance." I've said that you "bluff and bluster and dodge and evade, and that you pose as a guru while obviously not having a clue what you're talking about."

I've scolded you for dishonestly editing my comments, and I've reported that "objective reality says that you're being a total asshole."

Therefore, according to "Greg's Axiom" ("People will treat you exactly as decent as you are, and even if they are not, they will treat you as if they were"), I have treated you as decent as you are.

J

[dldelancey]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Are you saying this is equivalent to Greg's stated axiom? Because I don't see it. If that is what he is trying to say, then he's saying it poorly.

[anthony]

Given half a chance -or an example- often people rise to the best in themselves.

[PDS]

Given half a chance -or an example- often people rise to the best in themselves.

I have not seen evidence of this. I would switch the word "often" with "sometimes."

[Brant Gaede]

"Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you help them to become what they are capable of being." Johann Wolfgang van Goethe

Wow, talk about name dropper. Goethe: highest IQ of any human who ever lived?

You are confusing IQ with genius. And we cannot say what the IQs of people were who were never tested. Durk Pearson graduated from MIT in 1965 with a triple major and an IQ so high MIT couldn't measure it. While I have to think of him as a genius--what else is there to do with so much brain power?--there are also authentic geniuses, historically, with not much more than half of that for they get called a genius by virtue of their actual accomplished work, not any test.

--Brant