morality within evolution

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your post!

I agree with Glenn when he says we have to do the distinction between what we know, independently of our beliefs, and what we can prove.

This was a good beginning. It was harder to follow him after.

Yes. FWIW, the response was to Mr. Morton, he is not the one who wrote it. I thought I included the author's name, at least I hope so.

Do you understand what he's talking about ?

Not conversantly. I think he did a good job defining things like "ontology" and "epistemology", but I wouldn't know if he was spouting B.S. Using his definitions to understand what he wrote though, seems to me to make sense.

What Christian ethicist tries to prove the existence of an universal moral code ?

I know they exist, somewhere in academia. Like unicorns, they are a little hard to keep track of.

So, you do believe we have a ground for an universal moral code.

I want to believe it, it would make a lot of things begin to make sense. Otherwise, the house of cards falls down and we have to begin again. But belief alone does not make a thing be. If the search is for absolute truth, for something to place belief in, one would like to hold as much certainty as possible. This may be an exercise in speculation, but I want to believe it is logical speculation. Logic may not be the whole of a thing, but it does provide something to justify a belief.

I agree a Christian theism offers an ontological ground for morality. Still, Christianity is only one among other religions of the world.

Yes, but by the preceeding definition an ontological ground for morality would transcend a specific tradition or culture. The common examples, no murder, no rape, etc, do seem to be universal across cultures. As Abogado pointed out though, it is subjective and relative to the group. That is, murder may be immoral within the group. Outside of the group, murder and mayhem may be perfectly acceptable. In some instances, as I pointed out long ago, something like murder may even be a rite of passage. According to Frazer in the "Golden Bough," it was not uncommon in certain places and times for strangers to be sacrificed to the nature gods. It was nothing personal. When members from within the group served as surrogates for the same purposes (some form of sacrifice to nature gods), they were far more likely to have their lives spared, and only be "killed" in effigy.

"the Christian morality fails to recognize this critical distinction between ontology and epistemology." Hhm

If I understood the definitions correctly, the one dealt with what is (or what may be, what we have been calling "universal" morality), and the other dealt with what we want to believe, our traditions, our "subjective" interpretations of morality, whether real or imagined when held to what really IS. These are our "proofs," our justifications to ourselves.

We talk about a religion and not a science.

It would not be improper to say that this is from the science of religion, Theology, or something like it.

In the Christian religion the 10 commandements are laws for their beilivers. If we accept the equation : moral = law, even an atheist who believes in law (judiciary system) can be a moral person.

Yes, but this makes an assumption I don't particularly hold. Law is not inherently moral. Most certainly not all laws. Are traffic laws "moral?" This does not negate the possibility of an atheist being moral. Even so, how moral are people really, atheist or devout, when their lives, their families, their fortunes, are at stake? Generally speaking, are religious people really any more moral under such circumstances?

I don't like the "prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction" 's part.

I'm not crazy about that choice of words either, but as it was a quote of yet a third person, I am trying to understand it in that light. The concept is not incorrect. We do have to justify our moralities (or lack of) to ourselves, one way or another.

I think that's why we have this challenge on line.

Indeed, that is exactly why!

It seems ... didn't take at all in consideration the eastern religions.

You are right, eastern religious considerations were overlooked.

Is he an adept of eugenics ?

In defense of Mr. Morton, I saw nothing by him to indicate that he was concerned with eugenics. Even the guy that did write, only touched on the subject for the purpose of example, and pointed out the flawed reasoning behind it. Mr. Morton, I believe, is a Christian with a strong scientific background. He has been a very vocal proponent of evolution despite his religion. He has been something of an apologist trying to reconcile the Bible with scientific observation.

It appears the bulk of the storm will pass to the east. A relief for us, but as it is a strong storm, I feel for the people that are in its path.

 

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

I'll be out of the site for a while. I've got a Firewall who's driving me crazy. I'll be back as soon as I can.

Alexa

 

[juantoo3]

I hope its something simple, not a big hassle. See you soon!

 

[alexa]

Hello Juan,

Here I am again.

[QUOTEI know they exist, somewhere in academia. Like unicorns, they are a little hard to keep track of.[/QUOTE]
That was really funny !

I want to believe it, it would make a lot of things begin to make sense. Otherwise, the house of cards falls down and we have to begin again. But belief alone does not make a thing be. If the search is for absolute truth, for something to place belief in, one would like to hold as much certainty as possible. This may be an exercise in speculation, but I want to believe it is logical speculation. Logic may not be the whole of a thing, but it does provide something to justify a belief.

I would like to belive too in an universal moral code on Earth. The only problem is there are too many religions and they keep spreading all over the world. I don't know if it is appropiate, but they are for me like another Babel tower. I know we have the same destination, but the paths are so diverse. What will happen the day we'll find life on another planets ?

According to Frazer in the "Golden Bough," it was not uncommon in certain places and times for strangers to be sacrificed to the nature gods. It was nothing personal. When members from within the group served as surrogates for the same purposes (some form of sacrifice to nature gods), they were far more likely to have their lives spared, and only be "killed" in effigy.

Oh, I see ! That's why you don't like the pagan religions !

And the answer to your question in post no.1, regarding Earth based religions is no. These religions cannot claim a scientific basis for their belifs. In my research I could identify in the antiquity 4 mains groups of paganism : witchcraft&wicca, ancient greek, ancient roman and ancient drudism. Only druids had a rigorous education and were able to provide cultural and intellectual impute to their communities for the benefit of all.

I have to say no for the another question. The moral developement should not be held only in the care of a religion. It's the responsability of every human being to be a moral person if we still want to have future generations alive on this planet.


Let's take the thread from a different angle : What should an universal moral code look like ?

I mean beyond any religion. If we are able to find its caractheristics, then it should be easier to look into its evolution.

What do you think ?

Best regards,

Alexa


P.S. I hope you and your family are all right. I saw on the news Charley destroyed a lot of houses. I cannot believe there were only 16 deads.

 

[alexa]

I would like to add something from Osho Rajneesh's opinion about the moral. I cannot give it as a quote, as I have to do a translation of another translation.

In his comments about Gospels he said that moral had nothing absolute. Every society has its own culture and moral. Something accepted in a country maybe not accepted in another one. ( I know we already agreed on it, but I have to write Osho's opinion) Example : it is imoral to divorce in a country, while in another one it is imoral to live with a person you don't love. The moral is a play, it varies from a society to another one, from an epoch to another one, it depends on circumstances, it changes ceaselessly. Instead, the religion is absolute. It is a new state of conscious in a human being, it is the birth of a new being inside of him. Religion gives you a new look. You can see your problems and they dissapear. You are not the one who solved them, they just dissapear.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

It's midnight, and I have a big day tommorrow...what better time to write back?

I would like to belive too in an universal moral code on Earth. The only problem is there are too many religions and they keep spreading all over the world. I don't know if it is appropiate, but they are for me like another Babel tower. I know we have the same destination, but the paths are so diverse. What will happen the day we'll find life on another planets ?

Well, if universal morality does indeed exist, would it not also apply elsewhere, at least in accord with the natural laws in effect on another planet? As for other religions and the same destination (which I hold for the sake of tolerance), universal morality would provide a commonality between them. Unless universal morality does not actually exist, then all bets are off!

Oh, I see ! That's why you don't like the pagan religions !

Oh my! No, I do not hate anybody, provided they give me no reason to hate them, or cause justification for my self-preservation. And that is on an individual basis, not a cultural one (war being a possible exception, only of necessity, morally speaking).

I made the comment as a historical fact. Human sacrifice to nature gods, to my knowledge, has not been culturally acceptable commonly in Western cultures for a long time, at least a thousand years or more. But Frazer pointed out that in rural parts of Europe within the last 200 years, it was a common practice to sacrifice in effigy. He presented examples that still echo in some of the modern festivals and holidays, such as May Day. I am not well versed, but I think this is related to what is commonly called "sympathetic magick." I wish I had a copy of the book here to quote.

And the answer to your question in post no.1, regarding Earth based religions is no. These religions cannot claim a scientific basis for their belifs. In my research I could identify in the antiquity 4 mains groups of paganism : witchcraft&wicca, ancient greek, ancient roman and ancient drudism. Only druids had a rigorous education and were able to provide cultural and intellectual impute to their communities for the benefit of all.

Yes, but each of these had major sub-groups, sects or denominations as it were. There are many subgroups of pagans in general during the last thousand years, just in Europe. There may well be influences from Druidic sources, or Norse, or remnants of the Greek/Roman agricultural beliefs, or combinations. Was a certain group originally dependent on agriculture, or fishing, or hunting, or war, to sustain themselves? This would influence the particular choice of deity(s). I am still trying to connect the root base of shamanism into this. And these pagan sects were also subject to the reigns of power held by Christian and Muslim (dare I include Hindu and Buddhist, at least in the East?) authority, diluting the original rituals.

I have to say no for the another question. The moral developement should not be held only in the care of a religion. It's the responsability of every human being to be a moral person if we still want to have future generations alive on this planet.

I agree morality should not be confined to religion. Right now I am thinking ultimately morality is an individual thing. We have to be convinced of the morality (or not) of an action. But our parents, just as likely using religion, are our first and probably most formidable moral teachers. Few of us actually fully take on a moral system completely alien to our roots (unless it is a fashion or social statement), IMHO.

Let's take the thread from a different angle : What should an universal moral code look like ?

I mean beyond any religion. If we are able to find its caractheristics, then it should be easier to look into its evolution.

Well, I don't know. Are we looking for a needle in a haystack, or a needle in a stack of needles? What do you think?

P.S. I hope you and your family are all right. I saw on the news Charley destroyed a lot of houses. I cannot believe there were only 16 deads.

Yes, we are OK. About a half hour of driving rain, and not enough wind to talk about. But they had predicted for three days that it was coming directly for us, so we were expecting the worst. I really feel for the people that got hit, I think it might have caught them off-guard, because the computer models all had the storm going right on by them. Tragic.

I am glad to see your computer problems were not all that bad, or maybe better said that you were able to get it fixed easily enough.

 

[juantoo3]

Instead, the religion is absolute. It is a new state of conscious in a human being, it is the birth of a new being inside of him. Religion gives you a new look. You can see your problems and they dissapear. You are not the one who solved them, they just dissapear.

I think this is something religion would have us believe, it is comforting to think. But religions, and what is considered moral within them, change over time too. Christianity today, is nothing like Christianity a thousand, or two thousand years ago. There were times when Christianity justified killing other Christians, not to mention any others, even while preaching "thou shalt not murder!" Other faiths are equally, or at least relatively, just as guilty. Self-preservation, at the level of authority. In other words, politics.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

As for other religions and the same destination (which I hold for the sake of tolerance), universal morality would provide a commonality between them. Unless universal morality does not actually exist, then all bets are off!

What if the morality - the rules or the "right" and "wrong" is neither the real destination of religion or the common ground between them? What if they DO share a common destination - it just has nothing to do with morality? If so, what could that common ground be if it weren't a "universal morality"?

Oh my! No, I do not hate anybody, provided they give me no reason to hate them, or cause justification for my self-preservation. And that is on an individual basis, not a cultural one (war being a possible exception, only of necessity, morally speaking).

Why do people do the things they do? Why does one person murder another? Why does one person hoard possessions while his neighbors starve? Why do powerful men declare war for their own political gains? Why do con artists use people's dreams and fears to manipulate others into following to their own detriment? Why does poplular culture encourage us to look at ourselves for what we don't have and what we aren't rather than for what we do have and who we are?

Where you see lists of moral rules that serve as the common ground between religions, I see the rules that justify the barriers we put up between each other and that keep us apart. To paraphrase Paul - the law is the source of our death, not the source of our life.

Glad to hear you are okay after the storm, BTW.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Juan:

Here's an interesting excerpt from one of Nietzsche's letters from "Will to Power" that touches upon the idea of universal morality projected into nature. I thought you might find it interesting:

Nihilism as a psychological state will have to be reached, first, when we have sought a "meaning" in all events that is not there: so the seeker eventually becomes discouraged. Nihilism, then, is the recognition of the long waste of strength, the agony of the "in vain," insecurity, the lack of any opportunity to recover and to regain composure-being ashamed in front of oneself, as if one had deceived oneself all too long.-This meaning could have been: the "furfillment" of some highest ethical canon in all events, the moral world order; or the growth of love and harmony in the intercourse of beings; or the gradual approximation of a state of universal happiness; or even the development toward a state of universal annihilation-any goal at least constitutes some meaning. What all these notions have in common is that something is to be achieved through the process-and now one realizes that becoming aims at nothing and achieves nothing.- Thus, disappointment regarding an alleged aim of becoming as a cause of nihilism: whether regarding a specific aim or, universalized, the realization that all previous hypotheses about aims that concern the whole "evolution" are inadequate (man no longer the collaborator, let alone the center, of becoming).
Nihilism as a psychological state is reached, secondly, when one has posited a totality, a systematization, indeed any organization in all events, and underneath all events, and a soul that longs to admire and revere has wallowed in the idea of some supreme form of domination and administration (-if the soul be that of a logician, complete consistency and real dialectic are quite sufficient to reconcile it to everything). Some sort of unity, some form of "monism": this faith suffices to give man a deep feeling of standing in the context of, and being dependent on, some whole that is infinitely superior to him, and he sees himself as a mode of the deity.-"The well-being of the universal demands the devotion of the individual"-but behold, there is no such universal! At bottom, man has lost the faith in his own value when no infinitely valuable whole works through him; i.e., he conceived such a whole in order to be able to believe in his own value.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nihilism as psychological state has yet a third and last form.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given these two insights, that becoming has no goal and that underneath all becoming there is no grand unity in which the individual could immerse himself completely as in an element of supreme value, an escape remains: to pass sentence on this whole world of becoming as a deception and to invent a world beyond it, a true world. But as soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from psychological needs, and how he has absolutely no right to it, the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and false divinities -but cannot endure this world though one does not want to deny it.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What has happened, at bottom? The feeling of valuelessness was reached with the realization that the overall character of existence may not be interpreted by means of the concept of "aim," the concept of "unity," or the concept of "truth." Existence has no goal or end; any comprehensive unity in the plurality of events is lacking: the character of existence is not "true," is false. One simply lacks any reason for convincing oneself that there is a true world. Briefly: the categories "aim," "unity," "being" which we used to project some value into the world-we pull out again; so the world looks valueless.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Suppose we realize how the world may no longer be interpreted in terms of these three categories, and that the world begins to become valueless for us after this insight: then we have to ask about the sources of our faith in these three categories. Let us try if it is not possible to give up our faith in them. Once we have devaluated these three categories, the demonstration that they cannot be applied to the universe is no longer any reason for devaluating the universe.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Conclusion: The faith in the categories of reason is the cause of nihilism. We have measured the value of the world according to categories that refer to a purely fictitious world.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]~ Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world-all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination-and they have been falsely projected onto the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things.[/font]

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Thank you for your posts!

What if the morality - the rules or the "right" and "wrong" is neither the real destination of religion or the common ground between them? What if they DO share a common destination - it just has nothing to do with morality? If so, what could that common ground be if it weren't a "universal morality"?

I am presuming you have done some thinking in this direction, what is it that you see?

Why do people do the things they do? Why does one person murder another? Why does one person hoard possessions while his neighbors starve? Why do powerful men declare war for their own political gains? Why do con artists use people's dreams and fears to manipulate others into following to their own detriment?

Does this not enter abnormal psych? I cannot presume to speak for others' rationales or justifications. People do strange, even immoral or unmoral things, under perceived duress, or if they think they can get away with it from an "other." Reasons could range from inadequate teaching to overwhelming pessimism, to physiological imbalance.

Why does poplular culture encourage us to look at ourselves for what we don't have and what we aren't rather than for what we do have and who we are?

This one I can better address through advertising psychology. Advertising appeals (behavioral psychology) to human emotions of fear, love and rage. All successful advertising I have looked at encompasses one or more of these components, even if overtly applying Maslow's hierarchy. In short, because it works, and no other method has been show to work better (read: more efficiently).

Where you see lists of moral rules that serve as the common ground between religions, I see the rules that justify the barriers we put up between each other and that keep us apart. To paraphrase Paul - the law is the source of our death, not the source of our life.

I can see this, in application. What would you say could circumvent this? Or better, encompass the whole?

Glad to hear you are okay after the storm, BTW.

Thanks.

And thank you for the quote by Nietzsche.

~ Final conclusion: All the values by means of which we have tried so far to render the world estimable for ourselves and which then proved inapplicable and therefore devaluated the world-all these values are, psychologically considered, the results of certain perspectives of utility, designed to maintain and increase human constructs of domination-and they have been falsely projected onto the essence of things. What we find here is still the hyperbolic naivete of man: positing himself as the meaning and measure of the value of things.

I suppose I see this, again in current application. Is Nietzsche so jaded as to believe humans are base, unredeemable animals that have somehow managed to convince themselves they have a worth they do not actually have? I am still at a loss to apply love, and spirit. And again, if humanity is inclined away from morality, why then are we moral to begin with? If I read this right, the answer is to perpetuate a myth of unwarranted value. But somewhere, sometime, somehow, a shaman or other spiritual leader brought forth to "his" people "morality as a concept." This would, hypothetically, raise the people out of mere superstition and instinct into a realm that continues today, a transformational paradigm. If Nietzche is mistaken, perhaps that is a means to assume worth for humanity when none previously existed? Or to reach out and grab a new value that was offered?

Deception of the masses for political purposes is not to be dismissed, history is full of examples. But the essence of morality seems to me to denote a connection with spirit that could not be, at the first dawning beginning, arrived at by an insincere individual with personal motive to deceive (whatever the motivation and justification). A person "hung up" on ego (or id, in Freudian terms) could not see to penetrate the barrier of spirit, to understand and comprehend morality in a universal sense. In other words, I would think the "inventor" or "finder" of morality could not have been a person with personal, political power as intent. Could such power-minded people later abuse and distort such a spiritual message? Of course, and likely did. This is what we call "religion."

And then we have the utilitarian ethic of "whatever works." Is it wrong to deceive, if the end result is a better and more productive outlook on life? Is a human mind healthier in a mindset of eternal optimism, or perpetual pessimism? Can love be generated in an air of pessimism? Is it easier to achieve, build and do in an optimistic frame of mind, or a pessimistic one?

Is the physical body healthier in an optimistic frame of mind, or a depressed mind? (this even begs the question, if healthier is more balanced and harmonious, in other words more like it should naturally be, then is not optimism a much preferred state of being? And how does morality, factual or invented, play into that physiological exchange?) I am inclined for the moment to think that morality is the preferred state of being for humans, even requisite in some form. While the current question is whether or not a universal morality exists, I think there is a lot of circumstantial support to believe that something like universal morality does, or at least might, exist. There are too many things interwoven, (love, spirit, morality), to remove one would seem to me to unravel the tapestry. Does removing morality subvert love, and disconnect spirit?

Yes, brutal honesty serves a purpose, but brutal honesty of necessity requires looking at everything, the good and the bad.

 

[alexa]

Well, I don't know. Are we looking for a needle in a haystack, or a needle in a stack of needles? What do you think?

Dear Juan,

In this moment, I really belive we are looking for a needle in a haystack.
As the time pass, the situation gets worst with every new religion or sub-religion or sect in the world.

Right now I am thinking ultimately morality is an individual thing. We have to be convinced of the morality (or not) of an action. But our parents, just as likely using religion, are our first and probably most formidable moral teachers. Few of us actually fully take on a moral system completely alien to our roots (unless it is a fashion or social statement), IMHO.

Our family is the cell unit and the society should be the systeme to support morality in the world.

Yes, but each of these had major sub-groups, sects or denominations as it were. There are many subgroups of pagans in general during the last thousand years, just in Europe. There may well be influences from Druidic sources, or Norse, or remnants of the Greek/Roman agricultural beliefs, or combinations. Was a certain group originally dependent on agriculture, or fishing, or hunting, or war, to sustain themselves? This would influence the particular choice of deity(s). I am still trying to connect the root base of shamanism into this.

Neo-pagans (wicca, neo-druidism, astrau) are usually duotheistic or polytheiestic and they have their basis in the old pagan religions. Of course, the had to adapt to a modern society.

From latin, paganus means paysan (french) or farmer.

I could identify shamanism in Africa, Siberia and South America. As I understand it's a sort of witchcraft.

I am glad to see your computer problems were not all that bad, or maybe better said that you were able to get it fixed easily enough.

Well, this is the second time I try a firewall. And this is the last time, that's for sure ! I had lost my Outlook Express (my defaut e-mail program) so I had to re-install it. I'll survive without a firewall.

Regards,

Alexa

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Thank you for your posts!

I am presuming you have done some thinking in this direction, what is it that you see?

I'm not sure yet. But I will update you if I can.

Does this not enter abnormal psych? I cannot presume to speak for others' rationales or justifications. People do strange, even immoral or unmoral things, under perceived duress, or if they think they can get away with it from an "other." Reasons could range from inadequate teaching to overwhelming pessimism, to physiological imbalance.

But could it also be that they simply do not feel bound by a "moral" obligation? Certainly you can find limitless examples of men of power who acted in compelete disregard of the principles you would associate with "evidence of a universal morality." And many of these would be men of remarkable education and ability. To judge them abnormal or immoral is to argue in a circle. (BTW, this thread may be starting to converge with Brian's new thread about whether Ethics are for the "lower classes." Interesting.) You have to conclude that this conduct is "abnormal" because that coincides with the moral template by which you judge the universe. But to them, it may seem perfectly rational to not acknowledge any moral obligation - only expediency and purpose. But if there is no universal morality - there is nothing "wrong" with being a "sociopath." Hence, the challenge Ivan Karamazov faces in "Rebellion" often paraphrased as "without God, everything is permissible."

This one I can better address through advertising psychology. Advertising appeals (behavioral psychology) to human emotions of fear, love and rage. All successful advertising I have looked at encompasses one or more of these components, even if overtly applying Maslow's hierarchy. In short, because it works, and no other method has been show to work better (read: more efficiently).

That it's "utility." What about its moral "propriety?"

I can see this, in application. What would you say could circumvent this? Or better, encompass the whole?

Suggesting a need to change would be contrary to the whole idea of moving beyond "morality" in the first place, wouldn't it? You'd be right back to precepts of "good" and "evil" supported by reasons. Only it would be different precepts and different reasons -- but the same problem -- it places your ends at the center of the Universe.

I suppose I see this, again in current application. Is Nietzsche so jaded as to believe humans are base, unredeemable animals that have somehow managed to convince themselves they have a worth they do not actually have?

Absolutely not. The whole idea of placing a judgment like "base", "unredeemable" or "animal" would be out of place. I'll find Nietzsche's specific resposne to this notion and post it. Paraphrasing however, he says that it is a jaded view of life (a "suspicion against life" as it is often translated) driven by reason and the false sense of knowledge about "good" and "evil" or that the ideal world of reason is the "true" world, that compels us to despise ourselves, our life, our Universe and to demand meaning - not where there is no "meaning" (nihilism) but where no "meaning" is actually necessary.

And again, if humanity is inclined away from morality, why then are we moral to begin with?

I don't think I've argued that humans are inclined away from morality. I think I am saying that they are amoral but create morality to satisfy a psychology created by fear and utility.

If I read this right, the answer is to perpetuate a myth of unwarranted value. But somewhere, sometime, somehow, a shaman or other spiritual leader brought forth to "his" people "morality as a concept." This would, hypothetically, raise the people out of mere superstition and instinct into a realm that continues today, a transformational paradigm.

The problem is, I read those myths of the earliest Shamans in the great wisdom traditions and I see a call to step beyond the ego, beyond judgment and morality, to experience a oneness beyond the Self and its judgments - to override "reason" and tap back into the joy of life. I don't see them as a reinforcement of the meaning and value of moral judgment. That was the doorway to love and spirit for me. And once I started through that doorway, I saw that the law was the door - not the doorway. I hate to be so cryptic, but language is a poor vehicle for conveying experience.

And then we have the utilitarian ethic of "whatever works." Is it wrong to deceive, if the end result is a better and more productive outlook on life?

There's that word "wrong" again.

Is a human mind healthier in a mindset of eternal optimism, or perpetual pessimism?

Neither.

Is it easier to achieve, build and do in an optimistic frame of mind, or a pessimistic one?

Niether.

Is the physical body healthier in an optimistic frame of mind, or a depressed mind? (this even begs the question, if healthier is more balanced and harmonious, in other words more like it should naturally be, then is not optimism a much preferred state of being?

Is that the criteria? Also, I'm not sure that it has be be "pessimistic" or "optimistic." If you find "truth" and joy what difference does the label make?

I am inclined for the moment to think that morality is the preferred state of being for humans, even requisite in some form.

While I don't disagree, I am at the point of seriously questioning it. I am a lion becoming a child (my dragon is dead). But I am not yet a child.

While the current question is whether or not a universal morality exists, I think there is a lot of circumstantial support to believe that something like universal morality does, or at least might, exist.

There is consensus. But is that really circumstantial evidence of existence?

There are too many things interwoven, (love, spirit, morality), to remove one would seem to me to unravel the tapestry. Does removing morality subvert love, and disconnect spirit?

That's quite similar to the very problem that led me through the doorway! Love and spirit are intertwined, but the law subverts love and disconnects spirit by elevating ego. And yes, once you use language, it is the ordinary human way of being.

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. - 1 Corinthians 13:2

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. - Romans 7:4-6

Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. - Romans 7:9-10
________________________________________

The more prohibitions you make,
the poorer people will be.
The more weapons you posses,
the greater the chaos in your country.
The more knowledge that is acquired,
the stranger the world will become.
The more laws that you make,
the greater the number of criminals.

Therefore the Master says:
I do nothing,
and people become good by themselves.
I seek peace,
and people take care of their own problems.
I do not meddle in their personal lives,
and the people become prosperous.
I let go of all my desires,
and the people return to the Uncarved Block. - Tao te Ching

 

[alexa]

Juan,

Here you have some info on pagan religions from Callista's Universe :

[font=Times, Times New Roman]Ancient Religions Misunderstood[/font]
[font=Times, Times New Roman]When most people think of Paganism, it conjures up images of primitive savages painted with mud dancing wildly around a fire or evil spirits and demons or wicked people sacrificing maidens to a golden idol or old hags in black cooking evil spells in a cauldron. Most Christian-raised people think Paganism is either an evil devil-worshipping religion or a religion of mindless primitives who don't know any better. Many also believe that Pagan religions are long dead, destroyed by righteous warriors of God, and good riddance! In reality, they couldn't be farther from the truth.

Paganism is not a primitive religion. It an ancient religion, the oldest religion on Earth in fact. But it is not practiced by sacrificing savages, nor is it a religion of devil-worshippers casting evil spells. Most Pagans don't believe in any sort Devil figure. Some have a Devil-like figure that they see the same way Christians see their Devil, as Evil to be avoided. Pagan religions are not opposed to Christianity or any other major religion, not seeking to undermine, overtake, or destroy them as many right-wingers would have you believe. Their followers are not amoral perverts, murderers, racists, torturers, rapists, pedafiles, etc. There are in fact far more members of the mainstream religions that fit into those catagories than Pagans.[/font]

[font=Times, Times New Roman]What Paganism IS[/font]
[font=Times, Times New Roman]The word "pagan" is Latin for "country dweller." It referred to the people who refused to convert to Rome's Christianity in favor of their ancient traditions and were therefore made to live outside the city. It has since been used to mean any polytheistic (more than one god) religion such as Native American, Mayan, Incan, Egyptian, Celtic, Norse, Viking, Pre-Christian Greek and Roman, etc. Paganism, like I said, is the oldest religion on Earth, older than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by thousands of years. This is because Paganism focuses on Nature, the world around us, which was the only thing our ancient ancestors knew. The God and Goddess "myths" were metaphors for the natural processes happening around them that they could not explain any other way.

In most Pagan religions, the Earth is the Mother Goddess because she gives birth to all forms of life. The Sun and Sky is the God who's light and rain helps the Mother bring forth that life. The Moon is also seen as a part of the Goddess because her changing phases seem to control the emotions of people (emotions are considered feminine territory) as well as women's monthly menstrual bleeding. By observing the movements of the Sun and Moon and Stars, the ancients formed a picture of the divine world. They learned how to use these movements to make a calendar to tell them when to plant crops and when to harvest them. They created special festivals to celebrate the never-ending cycle of the seasons, the cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth.[/font]

[font=Times, Times New Roman]Ancient Paganism
Egyptian Mysticism

Modern Paganism
Wicca and Witchcraft
Paganism and Christianity

Rants & Essays
Why the Bible is Wrong

[/font]

[font=Times, Times New Roman][font=Times, Times New Roman]Remnants of Paganism in Today's World[/font]
[font=Times, Times New Roman]To this day, we still call nature "Mother Nature" and our planet "Mother Earth." Our word "month" comes from the word "moon" because a month and the moon's cycle are almost identical in length. If you've ever noticed how people act strange when there's a full moon, you can be sure it's not a coincedence. The Latin name for the moon is Luna which is where we get the word "lunacy." The days of our week come from Paganism also. Sunday of course is the Day of the Sun God, Monday is the Day of the Moon Goddess, Tuesday is Tiw's Day, the Norse god of war, Wednesday is Woden's Day, the Norse god of communication, Thursday is Thor's Day, the Norse god of thunder and lightning, Friday is Freya's Day, the Norse goddess of love, and Saturday is the Day of the Roman god Saturn. The month of January is also named for a pagan god. The Roman god Janus was the god of new beginnings who announced the new year. Today I believe there is an insurance company with the name and ancient Roman symbol of Janus. [/font]

[/font]

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here's more from Nietzsche on "morality" in nature. Is this perhaps a "prototype" for Deep Ecology?

From "Twilight of the Idols":

What alone can be our doctrine?— That no one gives man his qualities—neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself (—the nonsense of the last idea was taught as "intelligible freedom" by Kant—perhaps by Plato already). No one is responsible for man's being there at all, for his being such-and-such, or for his being in these circumstances or in this environment. The fatality of his essence is not to be disentangled from the fatality of all that has been and will be. Man is not the effect of some special purpose, of a will, an end; nor is he the object of an attempt to attain an "ideal of humanity" or an "ideal of happiness" or an "ideal of morality"—it is absurd to wish to devolve one's essence on some end or other. We have invented the concept of "end": in reality there is no end ...One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole; there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole ... But there is nothing besides the whole!— That nobody is held responsible any longer, that the mode of being may not be traced back to a causa prima, that the world does not form a unity either as a sensorium or as "spirit"—that alone is the great liberation; with this alone is the innocence of becoming restored ... The concept of "God" was until now the greatest objection to existence ... We deny God, we deny the responsibility in God: only thereby do we redeem the world.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

And Nietzsche's conclusion about morality, which could be just as easily found in the writings of Jung and Campbell:

Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena—more precisely, a misinterpretation. Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which the very concept of the real, and the distinction between what is real and imaginary, are still lacking: thus "truth," at this stage, designates all sorts of things which we today call "imaginings." Moral judgments are therefore never to be taken literally: so understood, they always contain mere absurdity. Semeiotically, however, they remain invaluable: they reveal, at least for those who know, the most valuable realities of cultures and inwardnesses which did not know enough to "understand" themselves. Morality is mere sign language, mere symptomatology: one must know what it is all about to be able to profit from it.

Compare this with Joseph Campbell's statements to Bill Moyers in "The Meaning of the Myth" from "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth":

CAMPBELL: The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu.

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That’s literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy, Astronomy and physics have simply eliminated that as a literal, physical possibility, But if you read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward – not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their reflection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body’s dynamic source.

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MOYERS: Aren’t you undermining one of the great traditional doctrines of the classic Christian faith – that the burial and the resurrection of Jesus prefigures our own?[/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.[/font]


[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are.[/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.[/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."[/font]

 

[alexa]

And Nietzsche's conclusion about morality, which could be just as easily found in the writings of Jung and Campbell:

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.[/font]

[font=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."[/font]

You spoke like a true lawyer, Abogado !
This is a "heavy artillery" , difficult to compete with.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa and Abogado!

Awesome posts!

My regret is that I haven't time just now to look deeper into them, but I will, soon.

Many, many thanks! You have given me a lot to consider.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

Well, it was sad to end my vacation trip but it brightened my day to see that this thread is still alive and kickin'. No way will I have time to catch up completely, but I hope to skim through and catch some of the nuggets posted.

Cheers,
lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

We have a big storm coming, so responding tonight will likely not be possible.

Good to hear that you survived Charlie intact. Weather certainly can make life interesting, in that Chinese curse sort of way.

So unless there is mass delusion that affects (effectively) all humans since the dawn of civilization, there is a spiritual component to morality that evolution cannot dare to properly address. Even in drawing upon the concept of memes (Vaj will understand), memes readily explain the subjective components of morality, but do not adequately address the universal components.

I see that after this quoted post there is further discussion of the universality of morality. If one means universal as unchanging since the dawn of mankind, the only thing I can think of is "love thy neighbor." I think that this basis of morality was born with humanity and perhaps is more important and more distinguishing than any human trait ever found in the fossil record. This law certainly was not acted upon as we strive to in this day. Perhaps at first the only ones who could qualify as "neighbor" would be an extended family or clan. Now we can see the whole world as our neighbor and not only as a potential enemy. But of course this is an ideal. Maybe we don't do much better than our earliest ancestors. I think the important new meme is "love thy enemy." I think this is the one meant to take us to our next higher level of "evolution." But it took 6 millions years to work on just the first one.

Our physical evolution, including the evolution of the brain, is based upon the selfish gene and our behavioral , including moral, evolution is based upon the selfish meme, the question still is, what is the ultimate source of the gene and the meme?

 

[lunamoth]

Fear?

I see there is a bit more about fear and utility below, which I hope to read more carefully.

In short, yes.