Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes
Message-ID: <2195@pucc-h>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 21:39:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.2195
Posted: Fri Aug  9 21:39:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:28:19 EDT
References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> <2168@pucc-h>, <1411@pyuxd.UUCP> <2186@pucc-h>, <1440@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 119
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2014 net.religion.christian:1051

YA response to Rich Rosen (pyuxd!rlr):

>> Your morality still
>> boils down to "Do not prevent others from reaching their fullest potential".

> By telling them that the ONLY restrictions on their freedom are that they
> not interfere with other people, this system "prevents" people from reaching
> their fullest potential???  Huh?  On the contrary, it provides the very best
> means for them to do so.  It took me ten or so readings before I figured out
> what the heck you are trying to say:

And you still got it absolutely wrong!!!  Please note that I *said* that your
system says "Do NOT prevent others from reaching their fullest potential";
how on earth could a "rational" and "objective" person infer that I meant
that it did prevent them??  But I still say (as I said in a piece of that
article that you did not quote) that a morality of merely keeping out of
others' way makes less of a person than a morality of actively helping.
In other words, it prevents YOU from reaching YOUR highest potential (see
later in this article for my ideas of highest potential).

> I think you're implying that "only this book can tell you the best way, and
> by reading it and avoiding all life's dangers and pitfalls, you are 'helped'
> to reach your best potential".  Even if you accept the erroneous notion that
> this book contains only "best ways", one gets the most out of life by living
> and learning.  If I accepted a list of proscriptions as the "best ways", and
> avoided any other possibilities open to me, how have I grown?  What have I
> learned?  What use has my life been? It is ONLY through having as many possi-
> bilities open to you as possible, and learning that choosing from among them
> and living them through, AND even MAKING MISTAKES that your life is maximally
> enhanced.

I mentioned in a letter to you that I actually read the Bible infrequently.
It is true that I, personally, do have an aversion (out of which I am only
gradually growing) to life's dangers; and it is probably true that a great
many people (but by no means all) operating under the name of Christian use
it as an "opiate", an escape from the darkness of life.  As I have commented
before, many times, apparently to deaf ears on your end, the Bible was
written not just as proscriptions, but as a guide to positive ways to act.
I am beginning to deal with the fact that acting in these positive ways is
no guarantee that you won't get hurt; but where the Bible does come down
hard on things is when they are things whereby you are only working against
your own (and/or others') fullest personhood -- i.e., the Bible does, in a
sense, "proscribe" hurting yourself and others, but not in the sense of
legally forbidding them.  You're still free to choose any possibilities,
and if you make a mistake, you will learn, often painfully; but why do you
insist on ignoring the experience and wisdom of those who have fallen into
some of life's pitfalls and have lovingly left this guidebook to show others
how not to fall in?

Now mind you, there's a big difference between "dangers" and "pitfalls".  The
most cursory examination of the Bible would show that being a Christian does
not free you from danger, and that in fact, the more dedicated a Christian
you are, the more likely you are to take all sorts of risks and often suffer
for them -- because you are working toward a better goal than merely avoiding
temporal suffering.  Just look at what happened to Paul.

>> I'm not saying [Rich's non-interference morality] is bad at all; it's
>> certainly better than a lot of societal arrangements which exist in the
>> world.  I'm just saying it's not the best.  A society of love would beat
>> a society of non-interference any day, and be a lot more joyous (because a
>> lot less self-conscious) into the bargain.

> But how do you MAKE people love each other?  By force?  By edict?  By
> indoctrination?  The beauty of the non-interference system is that there is
> little or no need for actual force; common sense is your MOTIVATION for living
> up to that morality:  if you do interfere, you're likely to get in trouble
> with those you interfere with.  The "society of love" is an unrealistic
> concept, because unrequited altruistic love is not in everyone's self
> interest, and thus anyone who sees through this just doesn't bother.

Where did you get the idea that I was advocating MAKING people love each
other?  People come to love each other because they have been loved.
People love each other when they are "not conformed to this world, but ...
transformed by the renewing of [their] mind."  The beauty of the love system
is that force is unnecessary; love is your motivation.  Your instance of
"common sense" above sounds a lot like fear; and perfect love throws out
fear.  The "society of love" I was referring to was a world of REQUITED
altruistic love.  Jesus came to bring abundant life, and he spoke of the
disciples' joy being full.  In other words, the ideal person is one who
has his own needs so abundantly met (partially because he has a clear
knowledge of what his real needs are) that he is enabled not to worry about
himself any more, but can overflow with love toward others.  [Generic
pronouns in preceding sentence, of course.]  The ideal society is one where
everyone is like this.  Chances of reaching that on earth aren't the biggest;
but it is more to our own benefit to be overflowing so much that we are
enabled to give to all who cross our path, that we don't have to worry about
ourselves any more -- to be overflowing, rather than to be always concerned
only with our own self-interest (which implies that our self-interest has
not been satisfied).  This overflowing person is my idea of a person's
highest potential (as above); what's yours?

>> Eventually, none of us will get out of life alive, no matter
>> how much or little others interfere with us.)

> I can't think of too much we can do about this, which is precisely why we
> try to maximize our lives.

This could make for an interesting (and practically applicable) discussion:  
Why should we try to maximize our lives, if we're going to die?  Particularly
is this question apposite for those who don't believe there's anything after
death.  If you're just going to die and rot, why live?  (This is not an
attack; I'm genuinely curious to know your answer.)

>> Biblical Christianity is closer to this idea:  "So what if I am hurt?  It's
>> not forever." and even "So what if I die?  It's not forever."

> But, of course, that's putting the cart before the horse.  (Why am I
> using that phrase so much lately?)  You don't want to be hurt, you seek
> an extension to life, so you make one up.

No, no!  The point of Biblical Christianity is that you are free to get
hurt and even to die.  It is not, alas, a means to avoid hurt.  (Mind
explaining exactly what's the cart and what's the horse in your favorite
cliche?)

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
.signature temporarily out of service