on strike...

[moralist]

I don't recall you ever invoking the divinity of Jesus (Christ the Lord) which makes you, like me, not a Christian...

There is a perfect Bible answer to this so I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to use it...

"Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven,

but he who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven."

It's not our words... but the morality of our actions by which we define ourselves.

Greg

[moralist]

I do think that his "moral narcissism," as you expressed it, indicates a character flaw...

Of course you think that...

...because we each live by different moral standards. As an atheist, you recognize no moral authority greater than yourself, so naturally my confidence in Something greater than myself will appear to you as hubris. I understand that there exists no possibility of your ever seeing this any differently than you do right now, as that is your chosen view by which you will live and die. So, considering your view, I'm totally ok with you regarding me as being a moral narcissist, and will wear it as a badge of honor...

...for to you it is a completely illogical confidence in Something you freely chose not to see.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg exists on two planes. The lower, basic one where he's best, and the upper one he tries to connect, without much uncontradictory success, to the basic using parallelism instead of logic. It's a kind of metaphorical reasoning in reverse, using abstractions instead of concretes.

--Brant

That's pretty close, Brant...

I reverse engineer my life from moral principles which are exquisitely designed... but not by me. I just follow the blueprints and build according to code. And while I don't know the precise nature of what moral principles ultimately are...I do have a practical understanding by my own experience of precisely how they operate in this world... and in my life.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I do think that his "moral narcissism," as you expressed it, indicates a character flaw...

Of course you think that...

...because we each live by different moral standards. As an atheist, you recognize no moral authority greater than yourself, so naturally my confidence in Something greater than myself will appear to you as hubris. I understand that there exists no possibility of your ever seeing this any differently than you do right now, as that is your chosen view by which you will live and die. So, considering your view, I'm totally ok with you regarding me as being a moral narcissist, and will wear it as a badge of honor...

...for to you it is a completely illogical confidence in Something you freely chose not to see.

Greg

Is it not perhaps different ways to the same moral standard? Objective reality dictates an objective morality reference the objective human being (that which is common to all human beings qua human nature). I submit you are conflating moral standards with moral results. Ellen references not herself but reality and you reference not yourself but God cum reality and for that it's all the same except she has the modesty of a scientist and you the hubris of a preacher. On the personal and concrete level you bump into something and it hurts so you stop. It's not polite to assume Ellen et al. don't do the same; it's common sense. On the abstract and philosophical level you try to project your concretes into the world of abstraction completely unaware you merely spin your wheels while Ellen uses reasoning and in modesty she knows it may become a cropper when applied, while you think you know the result before the result is in: aka, hubris or the eschewing of philosophy. Don't feel alone; even some great scientists eschew philosophy out of ignorance too, but not reasoning applied to their professional pursuits.

Thus Ellen and I are on the same page, but for you to state we place ourselves above reality ("God") referencing morality is your necessary smear to cover up with the help of "God" your broad swath of irrationality when you address greater bites of reality than from your local situation. You are the ultimate bunker man and your world is not very big.

--Brant

do I think you have a character flaw?--no, I think you have a deeply embedded thinking flaw ironically shared with most people, but redeemed by your thinking locally creating the additional irony of leaving most people behind in their unnecessary misery and/or confusion for you use what you have where you are but the next irony is is I don't really care flaw yes or flaw no; it's just fun to try to figure all this stuff out for I could do business with you but I'll never show up at your home with a six-pack of beer and a pizza

[moralist]

This means to trust in the objective moral indications of your Conscience instead of trusting in your own thoughts and emotions.

Your thoughts and the emotions they evoke are NOT to be trusted to guide your actions.

Greg

Hey, Greg: I find I'm often nodding my head to what you say (I accept where you're coming from - metaphysically; no point in debating that!)

You got that right, Tony. The metaphysical stuff becomes almost irrelevant when compared to the results of doing what's morally right in our lives.

Consider this for a moment...

Do you act upon every thought that runs through your head and every emotion you feel? I do hope your answer is no, because if you did, you would either be in prison or dead!

So if you do not... then why not? Are not your thoughts and emotions just you and nothing else? Ah, but you can choose to act contrary to your own thoughts and emotions. This is proof that you are not them, but are that which chooses from them the ones to act upon and the ones to leave unresponded.

Where do you imagine your wiser words come from? Or your conscience? Oh hell, I know...;)

I sat still and quiet long enough to discover something fascinating. I am not my thoughts. I'm what observes my thoughts. And Conscience is like a silent light that shines on my thoughts revealing right from wrong. Now I can have subjective thoughts and emotions as reactions to the objective moral indications of Conscience... but I'm not that objective moral light. However, I can choose to see by its light and to walk on the path it illumines.

Greg

[moralist]

Is it not perhaps different ways to the same moral standard? Objective reality dictates an objective morality reference the objective human being (that which is common to all human beings qua human nature). I submit you are conflating moral standards with moral results.

There can be no moral standards without moral results, Brant. Just like good intentions are utterly meaningless unless backed up with real action.

Ellen references not herself but reality and you reference not yourself but God...

...and it is only our own lives that have the power to render the final judgement on the validity of what each of us references.

...for you to state we place ourselves above reality ("God") referencing morality is your necessary smear to cover up with the help of "God" your broad swath of irrationality

So does that mean you acknowledge the existence of an objective standard of cause-and-effect moral law which is greater than yourself?

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

One identifies the "objective standard" using one's mind and it is neither higher nor lower than oneself if one's self matches up. "Higher" is delusional and "lower" means you've fallen down (and may not be able to get up or recover). It's true that conscience in an adult is a warning not to go off the tracks, but it is only the end result of learning right and wrong. If you meet someone for the first time you can get an emotional warning something is wrong with that person, a feeling, that has nothing to do with conscience. Almost invariably you will not be able to think your way out of that warning. To transcend that you need more interaction and that feeling might change to positive emotional evaluation. Conscience kicks in as you prepare to act and that's a huge warning something is wrong and you know it's wrong. It can be--actually is--so automatic it obscures all the life experience you've accumulated and your previous evaluations including those you had to consciously think through that you can all too easily label it as visited upon you by some higher authority, either an active "God" or a passive reality doing it's own thing regardless of what you do. Reality is like a bunch of never-stopping merry go-rounds you jump off and onto depending on what you need and/or want to do. If not done right you can easily be hurt. Sometimes that represents a mistake and you learn and recover. Sometimes it's a moral transgression of a mistake. The merry go-rounds keep turning. As an atheist--or pantheist (my favorite word)--I don't see any "God" in all this, only the god of reality.

Conscience is not infallible respecting reality for someone young can be so pervertedly taught as to destroy its accuracy and life-affirming utility. I also assume a sociopath has no conscience at all. How a sociopath becomes a sociopath I've not the slightest idea except a continuous indulgence in bad choices that eventually overwhelm him.

Since neither Ellen nor I are moral narcissists we are in inevitable conflict with anyone who interjects themselves into our common epistemological situation who is. We are about thinking through to a conclusion while all you have are your own conclusions from wherever they came from ("God") you dump on us. Unlike yours truly Ellen is not in the intellectual refining business; she's all about the thinking. I see the value respecting personal conduct and pluck it out. It makes things a lot easier for me living my life. But I have reason to think Ellen is well ahead of me in developing a strong and sound psychology--she sure got there long before I did however much I must have caught up--so she has no need for you or being constantly irritated by the preacher in the OL parlor who won't go home.

Your value to me now is I can keep coming up with these evaluations such as I've written here. I hope it helps in countering any approaching dementia. My inner Ayn Rand would call this "gravy."

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I do think that his "moral narcissism," as you expressed it, indicates a character flaw...

Of course you think that...

...because we each live by different moral standards. As an atheist, you recognize no moral authority greater than yourself, so naturally my confidence in Something greater than myself will appear to you as hubris. I understand that there exists no possibility of your ever seeing this any differently than you do right now, as that is your chosen view by which you will live and die. So, considering your view, I'm totally ok with you regarding me as being a moral narcissist, and will wear it as a badge of honor...

...for to you it is a completely illogical confidence in Something you freely chose not to see.

Greg

In point of fact, I know quite a few people who have confidence in "Something greater" than theirselves - among them some dear friends - who don't appear to me as having a shred of hubris.

You've once again presumptuously told me what I think, feel, do, but - in point of fact - you don't know. It's your presuming which I think indicates a character flaw. I think that willful blindness is probably a prerequisite to the degree of presumptuousness you display.

Ellen

[moralist]

If you don't mind, Brant... since you offered so many points, I'd like to respond to each one with a question. I might not get to all of them, but I'll do my best...

One identifies the "objective standard" using one's mind and it is neither higher nor lower than oneself if one's self matches up.

If that objective moral standard is not greater than yourself, are you the one who created it? If not you... then who?

Higher is delusional

So does that mean you are acknowledging that nothing exists which is greater than yourself?

and "lower" means you've fallen down (and may not be able to get up or recover).

Lower doesn't need to mean something pejorative... and can simply be the awareness to recognize moral guidance enough to follow it.

It's true that conscience in an adult is a warning not to go off the tracks, but it is only the end result of learning right and wrong.

So do you mean that objective moral standard you "learn" is solely a product of your mind?

And if you are "learning"... what is teaching?

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If you don't mind, Brant... since you offered so many points, I'd like to respond to each one with a question. I might not get to all of them, but I'll do my best...

One identifies the "objective standard" using one's mind and it is neither higher nor lower than oneself if one's self matches up.

If that objective moral standard is not greater than yourself, are you the one who created it? If not you... then who?

ans: Reality is infinitely greater than oneself, though you are a part of it. You create, assume, adapt a congruent morality.

Higher is delusional

So does that mean you are acknowledging that nothing exists which is greater than yourself?

ans: No. See previous ans.

and "lower" means you've fallen down (and may not be able to get up or recover).

Lower doesn't need to mean something pejorative... and can simply be the awareness to recognize moral guidance enough to follow it.

ans: You are your moral guide.

It's true that conscience in an adult is a warning not to go off the tracks, but it is only the end result of learning right and wrong.

So do you mean that objective moral standard you "learn" is solely a product of your mind?

ans: No. Other minds too.

And if you are "learning"... what is teaching?

ans: Observation and analysis.

--Brant

[moralist]

If that objective moral standard is not greater than yourself, are you the one who created it? If not you... then who?

ans: Reality is infinitely greater than oneself, though you are a part of it. You create, assume, adapt a congruent morality.

YOUR RESPONDING WITHIN THE QUOTE BUBBLE HAS MADE IT A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT , BUT I'LL TRY TO MAKE IT MY COMMENTS APPEAR DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU CREATE YOUR OWN MORALITY? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I JUST WANT TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR AS TO YOUR MEANING.

Higher is delusional

So does that mean you are acknowledging that nothing exists which is greater than yourself?

ans: No. See previous ans.

IS REALITY THE SOURCE OF AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD, OR ARE YOU THE SOURCE AS THE CREATOR OF YOUR OWN MORALITY?

and "lower" means you've fallen down (and may not be able to get up or recover).

Lower doesn't need to mean something pejorative... and can simply be the awareness to recognize moral guidance enough to follow it.

ans: You are your moral guide.

AGAIN... SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD GREATER THAN YOURSELF?

It's true that conscience in an adult is a warning not to go off the tracks, but it is only the end result of learning right and wrong.

So do you mean that objective moral standard you "learn" is solely a product of your mind?

ans: No. Other minds too.

OTHER PEOPLE CREATE YOUR MORALITY?

And if you are "learning"... what is teaching?

ans: Observation and analysis.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS ARE ONLY YOUR DESCRIPTION OF HOW YOU LEARN. THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT TEACHES YOU.

WHAT TEACHES YOU?

GREG

[moralist]

(continuing...)

It's true that conscience in an adult is a warning not to go off the tracks, but it is only the end result of learning right and wrong.

How do you know what you learned is right or wrong?

Since neither Ellen nor I are moral narcissists we are in inevitable conflict with anyone who interjects themselves into our common epistemological situation who is. We are about thinking through to a conclusion while all you have are your own conclusions from wherever they came from ("God") you dump on us.

Of what value is it to play the poor helpless victim who is being "dumped on", Brant? And only because another person happens to hold a view that is different from your own?

We are about thinking through to a conclusion...

Since you are all about thinking... do you create every thought in your head? And if you are the sole creator of thought, do you then act upon every thought that you yourself have created in your head? And if not, why not? Aren't they all you?

Becoming upset is always a free choice, but it is also your free choice to blame me as the cause of your upset, as long as you understand the principle that whatever can upset us, has the power to control us through our own need to be upset.

Greg

[anthony]

This means to trust in the objective moral indications of your Conscience instead of trusting in your own thoughts and emotions.

Your thoughts and the emotions they evoke are NOT to be trusted to guide your actions.

Greg

Hey, Greg: I find I'm often nodding my head to what you say (I accept where you're coming from - metaphysically; no point in debating that!)

You got that right, Tony. The metaphysical stuff becomes almost irrelevant when compared to the results of doing what's morally right in our lives.

Consider this for a moment...

Do you act upon every thought that runs through your head and every emotion you feel? I do hope your answer is no, because if you did, you would either be in prison or dead!

So if you do not... then why not? Are not your thoughts and emotions just you and nothing else? Ah, but you can choose to act contrary to your own thoughts and emotions. This is proof that you are not them, but are that which chooses from them the ones to act upon and the ones to leave unresponded.

Where do you imagine your wiser words come from? Or your conscience? Oh hell, I know...;)

I sat still and quiet long enough to discover something fascinating. I am not my thoughts. I'm what observes my thoughts. And Conscience is like a silent light that shines on my thoughts revealing right from wrong. Now I can have subjective thoughts and emotions as reactions to the objective moral indications of Conscience... but I'm not that objective moral light. However, I can choose to see by its light and to walk on the path it illumines.

Greg

Greg, the "observer" of your thoughts is also the thinker who thought them. Same for emotions. That's introspection. Separation of these aspects is either pretty schizo -- or in your case as I know you to be, basically mystical.

I have a rough theory that "conscience" is induction by the subconscious: a vast amount of intake of early experiences and influences, a reservoir lending one a simple pre-conceptual sense of morality (and so related to sense of life). Or, a pre-formed system of value-judgments about life in general. But conscience isn't just 'there' in us, a spiritual given ... or the Soul. All experiences are of reality, and have to come through the senses. Mostly though, "conscience" is too subconscious and subjectively-varied to be a reliable moral guide.

Mistaking man's inductive ability for what seems a mystical insight and revelation, is a phenomenon I've noticed before with religious friends.

Of course yours is an ethical system you created and pieced together yourself, from different sources and life-observation! In the final analysis, aren't most people's? Yours is probably more unusual, is all.

Which means I for one don't hold you to 'ideal' standards of Christianity, or any ideology. Reality is the final arbiter, and while you've fully acknowledged this, let's just say that our fundamental ideas of reality differ.

I've often mentioned that several reasonable religious persons I've known have the capability to hold personal standards, convictions and principles - which many non-believers appear to have discarded, along with the whole religious thing. (I don't fully understand the reason). But I still admire the religious their ability to HAVE conviction, while at the same time I can't accept most of the principles themselves, or the methodology they came by them.

[moralist]

Greg, the "observer" of your thoughts is also the thinker who thought them. Same for emotions. That's introspection. Separation of these aspects is either pretty schizo -- or in your case as I know you to be, basically mystical.

You have just described TWO states of being, Tony.

1. In this state we are immersed in our thoughts as if they were the totality of our being, indiscriminately emoting on them and as the result of also being immersed in emotion as if that was the totality of out being... indiscriminately acting out on them.

2. But in the other state, we are the observer of thought and emotion... as if we were someone else watching our mind. In this state we can choose which thoughts, and the emotions they bring into existence, on which to act and which thoughts and emotions it is better to leave unresponded.

(more later...)

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, enough is enough. I know what you are doing.

--Brant

I won't participate

[moralist]

Tony wrote::

I have a rough theory that "conscience" is induction by the subconscious: a vast amount of intake of early experiences and influences, a reservoir lending one a simple pre-conceptual sense of morality (and so related to sense of life). Or, a pre-formed system of value-judgments about life in general. But conscience isn't just 'there' in us, a spiritual given ... or the Soul.

It certainly can appear to us in that way. Another view is that Conscience is already there fully formed in us... but we are not aware of it... much in the same way babies start out with a very limited awareness of the world around them. Then as they grow, they become increasingly aware of the world as well as their place in it.

Zen Buddhism contains the idea that objective perception takes place before cognition and emotion... that people have the ability to perceive reality directly before they think words and feel emotions about it. But because they have become creatures solely driven by intellect and emotion, they are unaware of this instantaneous precognition.... and what blocks the awareness of this direct perception they call "monkey mind". Monkey mind is the constant wordy monologue going on in people's heads. Their approach is not to try to quiet monkey mind by the force of will, but rather to learn how to calmly observe it. Most people do not see the world directly, but only experience the world indirectly through their thoughts and emotional reactions to it.

So one approach is to sit still long enough while being calm, aware, and alert so as to allow our mind the time to settle down and become quiet all on its own. It is at that time we can clearly see what's what. The trick is to taste that state of awareness and then to invite it into our life so that we are able to take it with us no matter where we are.

All experiences are of reality, and have to come through the senses.

Yes... and there is a infinitesimal gap in time between that direct sensing... and the clumsy wordy thoughts and irrational emotions from which we form our responses. So you see, there are two ways to perceive and respond to the world around us.

1. Directly... spontaneously... before thought and emotion.

2. Indirectly... by forming reactions through the distorted reflection of our thoughts and emotions.

Mostly though, "conscience" is too subconscious and subjectively-varied to be a reliable moral guide.

I agree... which is why I don't call the subconscious Conscience at all.

Mistaking man's inductive ability for what seems a mystical insight and revelation, is a phenomenon I've noticed before with religious friends.

In many religions there is a desire for a transcendent experience. This can be similar to people who use dope. Like a drug, emotion can supply the illusion of having a "mystical insight and revelation". This, of course, is only a transitory state, and must constantly be reinforced with more emotion... not unlike using dope.

Of course yours is an ethical system you created and pieced together yourself, from different sources and life-observation! In the final analysis, aren't most people's? Yours is probably more unusual, is all.

I only have the objective reality of how my own life has unfolded as confirmation of whether or not I'm walking on the right path.

Which means I for one don't hold you to 'ideal' standards of Christianity, or any ideology.

...and if you were to ask 100 Christians to describe those "ideal standards, you would get 100 different answers. That's why there are so many different sects of Christianity. I heard Dennis Prager say that the differences within religions are greater than the differences between religions.

That humorous statement points to the reality that there are universal moral ideals which transcend religious doctrine.

Reality is the final arbiter, and while you've fully acknowledged this, let's just say that our fundamental ideas of reality differ.

I'm totally ok with that, Tony.

I've often mentioned that several reasonable religious persons I've known have the capability to hold personal standards, convictions and principles - which many non-believers appear to have discarded, along with the whole religious thing. (I don't fully understand the reason). But I still admire the religious their ability to HAVE conviction, while at the same time I can't accept most of the principles themselves, or the methodology they came by them.

God can be a powerful influence for doing what's morally right... but not from the fear of punishment for doing what's wrong... but rather from enjoying the blessings of doing what's right.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg, enough is enough. I know what you are doing.

--Brant

I won't participate

That's smart to know when to quit, Brant.

It'll save you a lot of emotional discomfort.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, enough is enough. I know what you are doing.

--Brant

I won't participate

That's smart to know when to quit, Brant.

It'll save you a lot of emotional discomfort.

Greg

I also understand your need for this ignorant insult. It's the same kind of insult you've been visiting on people who've disagreed with you since you arrived all your many posts ago. There is no "emotional discomfort" aside from the realization I can't do business with you, that your way of discourse is a huge smoke screen (or "the man behind the curtain") in spite of all the value you've brought here for anyone wanting and needing it. I paid for what I got from you and now I'm gone.

--Brant

[moralist]

Greg, enough is enough. I know what you are doing.

--Brant

I won't participate

That's smart to know when to quit, Brant.

It'll save you a lot of emotional discomfort.

Greg

I also understand your need for this ignorant insult. It's the same kind of insult you've been visiting on people who've disagreed with you since you arrived all your many posts ago. There is no "emotional discomfort" aside from the realization I can't do business with you, that your way of discourse is a huge smoke screen (or "the man behind the curtain") in spite of all the value you've brought here for anyone wanting and needing it. I paid for what I got from you and now I'm gone.

--Brant

It's only an insult because you chose to become offended by it, Brant. That is always your free choice to make.

This was actually a pretty good demonstration in real time of how what can upset people can control them. As our discussion was moving towards a point, you were becoming more uncomfortable as that point became more clear. So it was better for you to choose to become insulted so as to provide enough emotional energy to avoid going there... and that's fine with me. No one has to go anywhere they don't want to be. Your participation in this discussion is totally voluntary. In contrast, Tony isn't uncomfortable exploring the topic because he sees it as innocuous and not personally threatening.

Greg

[moralist]

(duplicate)

[Jonathan]

Greg, please identify which of the following three syllogisms are logically valid and which are not. If any of them are not logically valid, then identify which specific type of logical fallacy they employ.

1)
If someone saws through a tree branch, then the tree branch will fall.
An oak tree branch next to my house has fallen.
Therefore someone sawed through it.

2)
Eating poison will cause a person to die.
Karen has died.
Therefore Karen ate poison.

3)
If current is run through windings surrounding magnets mounted to a shaft, it will cause the shaft to rotate.
Shaft X and its magnets are rotating.
Therefore current running through windings surrounding it is causing it to rotate.

J

[moralist]

1. Don't sit on the branch you're sawing.

2. Everyone will die from something.

3. Understanding the Divine intelligent design of magnetism is a blessing to the lives of billions of people.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Greg, the syllogism examples that I gave are very basic stuff in the realm of logic. Grade school kids grasp their fallaciousness with ease. How is it that you have such difficulty with them?

I find it stunning that you've built an entire "philosophy" on the fallacy of the converse. You employ it repeatedly, every step of the way. It's really quite an accomplishment.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Notice how it's always on the other fellow. An insult doesn't have to affect the target qua insult if it just misses. Maybe I should have said, "would-be insult"? If so, my bag.

I have decamped to Ellen's camp. I no longer trust Greg so will no longer trade with him on any level, present and future.

--Brant

that was easy

[moralist]

I find it stunning that you've built an entire "philosophy" on the fallacy of the converse.

Each of us builds on a different foundation, Jonathan.

You build on your liberal government education,

while I build on the values I learn in the real world..

And each of us is getting what we deserve as the results.

Greg