Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Harumpheror's Old Clothes Message-ID: <1540@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 16:30:39 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1540 Posted: Sun Aug 18 16:30:39 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:17:29 EDT References: <1334@pyuxd.UUCP> <2168@pucc-h>, <1411@pyuxd.UUCP> <2186@pucc-h>, <1440@pyuxd.UUCP> <2195@pucc-h> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 206 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2347 net.religion.christian:1105 [By the way, I did misread your "Do not prevent". Too many negatives there.] > 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). And I still say that the only way you can set up a societal morality that has everyone actively helping is to force everyone to actively help. As a personal morality, it is fine. In fact, it is an outgrowth of rationally knowing that helping others will eventually help you in the long run, so again even this is based in selfishness (which you of course consider "bad"). But you cannot get everyone to participate in such active helping to the same degree that you choose to participate. The only way to do so is to force everyone to help. (Which is, in a way, what taxation is all about: you contribute to the development of society at large to your advantage---tell that to the libertarians.) Also, you claim unilaterally that a person's fullest potential can only be reached by helping others, and that is just assuming your conclusion. A person's potential need not solely be rooted in his/her relationship to others in this manner. >>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. You can choose to interpret "do only these things and not those because I say so" as "positive" in a Newspeak sort of way, but that's just one personal opinion. > 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? First, it's apparent that you haven't come that far away from not seeking guarantees against getting hurt, as you yourself have said. Second, why does "the experience and wisdom" of a book necesarily apply to you? You are an individual human being, with different needs from everyone else. You may not like that, you may rather that you fit into some preset mold so that you can have an ordered planned life, but it ain't so. When this book says things that apply to the general experience of human beings (e.g., if it said "don't jump off a building because you'll fall and die"), that's very different from saying "this is what you should do because we say so", regarding things like sexuality or other matters of personal taste and action. Because such things involving personal choice cannot be carved in stone for the whole human race, no matter how much you would like for that to be so. >>>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. Ah, then you agree that there's no such thing as "unconditional" love. > 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. And if you choose not to love, then what? What makes a person follow this code? Only a code where a thinking person can see a good reason for following it is going to sustain itself. Since even so-called atruistic love is selfish in the long term, that may be a reason to offer love, but it doesn't necessarily apply in all situations. In fact, a sort of "self-actualized" love level in a relationship might occur when you feel so sure that the other person will return your love that you give it freely. You even accept minor fluctuations in mood and action in the other person because you know they really love you in the long term. Of course, there's the other side of the coin: some people see the other person reaching this level of acceptance and uses it against him/her, as if to say "now I've got you, I can act the way I really feel and not bothering offering you love in order to get it". All too often, the point where this happens is within the first few years after the wedding day. > Your instance of "common sense" above sounds a lot like fear; and perfect > love throws out fear. Yes, common sense often involves fear: if you don't do this, something bad will happen. I don't understand why you judge that so negatively. As for "perfect love", what you call unconditional love, yes, that would "throw out fear". If you could get the other person to buy into it. And the only way you can do that is the way I described above: to get the other person to accept you enough that they know so well that you love them that they offer love in return freely, and without concern about "getting something back on their investment". Where one person breaks this faith chain, thinking that "now he/she loves me completely, I can get away with murder" or "... I no longer have to 'work' to offer love to him/her", your perfect love becomes very imperfect indeed. As the Residents sang "There's one thing I must tell you, there's one thing I must say, the only really perfect love IS ONE THAT GETS AWAY". (The CAPS aren't for emphasis, that's just where the deep basso voice comes in.) > 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; You've got it!! The only way to achieve it is to FORCE everyone to love everybody else the way you describe. (The way they do in California, where insensitivity is a capital crime, but where somehow the assholes use this to their advantage. :-) I'm glad you admit that. Now, let's concentrate on moral systems that CAN and should be implemented here on earth. > 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? I already said that it's different from person to person, since each of us are individuals. Why must you insist that there is one "best" thing for everybody, just because you seem to want that to be so? >>>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.) Just as I have been curious to know why this sort of question makes you believe that because you ask this question there thus must be a life after death? Without which, you would see no point in living. First off, Jeff, death is a very painful experience, and I have no desire to go through it, though I know that someday I will. Thus, I seek to maximize my pleasure in life in such a way as to enjoy life while I can. Note that I do this in a rational fashion: I don't kill and maim (not that such things would give me pleasure in any case), because I know that doing so will provoke retribution (not from a god but) from other people. Thus, even if I wanted to do something that would hurt and interfere with other people, I don't do it, because doing so will actually DECREASE my pleasure and my chances at life. Second, quite simply, I do get pleasure out of living. I do things that I enjoy, that bring me pleasure, that are within the bounds of non-interference. And even in times of displeasure or even depression, I know that there are enough good things in life that make it worthwhile. The fact that YOU may see no point in living in this world if there is not an afterlife is just your opinion. Religious beliefs like this were formulated to keep people (who had little or no hope of achieving anything) alive. "Listen, peasants, yes, your life may be miserable, and it may be awful working for the master, but realize that by doing this (heh heh) you get this great afterlife for being good." The fact that many other people see plenty of reason to live without any belief in an afterlife tells us that your beliefs are not absolutes for all. >>>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?) The cart is afterlife. The horse is life. You say "I don't have to worry about being hurt or dying in this life because god offers an afterlife." I ask "How do you know this?" And you respond "Because otherwise there wouldn't be any point in living." Yes, I've been overusing that cliche lately. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr