literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?for...ilosophy&show=0&cid=83189

http://www.zen-forum.com/a16/b2002/c12/d1/e2815/z7

I wrote some things several years ago about relative vs. absolute
morality in response to questions from someone who leaned towards
christian views and absolute morality, but had some questions... and
I took the side of relative morality

During the course of that correspondence on realtive vs absolute
morality, one reader posted a fascinating paragraph in response, at a
message board:

Is the American Indian way better or the African-American way? Am I
unnecessarily agonizing over Hamlet's dilemma?

Was Karna, the hero of Mahabharata or was it Yudhishthir or Arjuna?
Was Antigone right or Kreon?

Did Tennyson say it all in Ulysses or The Lotus Eaters?

Which group is right, Steven Weinberg and Sartre, Mother Teresa and
Gandhi, or J .Paul Getty and Mick Jagger?

During that correspondence on relative vs. abs. morality, I wrote:

(HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION) could you personally be moral in a world in
which there ARE NO ABSOLUTES? And what would be your MOTIVE for being
moral (remaining moral) in such a world of no absolutes? This is a
most interesting question.

I took the position (in that dialogue), that someone who is ethical
in a world of no absolutes manifests a higher, nobler ethos than
someone who acts from fear of consequences (or out of desire for
consequences)

Socrates frequently argued that it is impossible (in a certain sense)
for someone to literally desire other than "the good" (at least their
notion of what good is)... and recently, I have been thinking how, in
nature, survival and evolution is driven by "good" in the sense of
survival, dominance, propagation,... a mechanistic form of ethos
inherent in matter and mathematics... i.e. nothing could mutate and
evolve towards other than that sort of good, or it would become
inefficient, unstable, extinct

The fellow I corresponed with (names Sean), had in mind a universe
ruled by an absolute god, and his notion of absolute was something
like 10 commandements, one true faith, that sort of thing... (i
called the post "the Sean dialogues")

For me, in the human sphere of thought and action, that which is not
motivated by "quid pro quo" is higher (and when you think about it,
more absolute and less relative in its nature)

Aristotle spoke of "anangke" (necessity), which is a sort of
morality, but an inescapable one, since we do not have the option to
elect otherwise

Consider the "morality/ethics" of the surface area of a growing
sphere in relation to its volume... (which is like a growing cell),
as the surface area increases by a function of the square of the
radius, the volume is increasing by a function of a CUBE of the
radius..

and in organisms, cells, surface area is "prime realestate" for
metabolism, hence the ananke (necessity) that one cannot have a cell
the size of philadelphia (or a monster that devours cleveland)

The devil is in the details, as they say. Kissenger said "nothing
clears the mind more quickly than a total lack of alternatives"

It is when we are faced with choices, free will, alternatives (the
devil in the details), that ethical issues arise, it seems to me

100 years ago, kidney failure was not a choice, it meant write your
will. now, it is a choice, and may involve various ethical questions

It occurs to me that nothing exists for humanity until it is
recognized or discovered (man is measure of all things notion,
weak/strong anthropomorphism), yet obviously things like calculus
and "imaginary numbers" were "there" when the neandrathals were
scavanging for morsels...

Sexual morality would have no meaning until the point in time when
organisms evolve with a sexual form of reproduction... yet religions
seek some "absolute" morality regarding sexuality

I suppose the Rosetta stone was "unthunk" (and sunk in mud) for a few
centuries... in the sense that it was forgotten by civilization

"unthinking" may be "re-thinking" in certain circumstances, which
religion terms repentance (with regard to lifestyles), and science
would call disproof (spontaneous generation, phlogiston, ether)

Koko the gorilla was taught a several hundred word sign language
vocabulary. Koko thought up "cursing" on her own, putting signs
together to say "you stnkng toilet", and koko was asked the very
existential question "What are you"

to which the gorilla answered : "me GOOD gorilla, koko" (which is a
rather thought provoking answer to hear from a gorilla)

In sartre's "being and nothingness", the "I" is afloat in a sea of
otherness. everything is "other" to "I". Duality is a different sense
of otherness, true/false, hot/cold, up/down

Kant's antinomies are another aspect of otherness

Speaking of "self" and "other", I wonder why shakespeare chose to
explore various profound issues, rather than limit himself to simpler
pagentry which would surely have amused his audiences just as well.
did shakespear do it for himSELF or for OTHERs ... surely much of
the profoundness flew over the audiences head (and even a scholar
must study the writings, rather than simply attend a performance)

Lately I am intrigued with the question: power corrupts and knowledge
is power, so can knowledge corrupt?

Perhaps everything is a tool, and it is we who corrupt ourselves, and
misuse tools

It is interesting to consider that Socrates taught Plato, Plato
taught Aristotle, Aristotle was tutor to Alexander the Great, and
Alexandar the Great attempted to conquer the world

As Plato points out, the best Guardian must of necessity have the
knowledge/potential to be the best thief

Since the best guardian would know how every thiefs mind works, in
order to guard against them

An expert moralist/ethicist must by definition know
unethical/immorality inside and out (and spend much time
speaking/writing about it)

In modern terms, I suppose, the best anti-virus software designer has
the knowledge/ability to be the best hacker (and vice versa)

Socrates was accused, among other things, of making the weaker
argument defeat the stronger

and, of course, corrupting the youth (though contemporary youth are
so clever in that arena that they seem to need little outside help)

There is an amusing account in ancient Greek, about Aristides the
Just being present at the very assembly where he was ostracised, and
someone in the crowd next to him was writing "Aristides" upon the
ostraka (pottery shard),... so Aristides asked him why (the man did
not recognize Aristides), ... the man answered "I am just so tired of
hearing 'the just', 'the just' all the time!"

I suppose ignorance and envy and suspicion fuel the ill will which a
simple person (like the soldier who slew Arcimedes) feels towards
some philosopher/scientist/intellectual

When a bedouin nomad found the Nag Hammadi manuscripts buried in the
sand in a jar (in a leather pouch, together with a copy of Plato's
Republic), he brough them home and an illiterat family member used
some manuscripts for fire kindling before they were discovered by the
world

or... I should say.. before the remainder were rescued

I was so enthralled when I learned that Plato's republic was among
the manuscripts

I am suddenly reminded of Nabakov's remark that "curiosity is the
highest form of insubordination", that iranian professor who
wrote "Reading Lolita in Tehran" greatly emphasizes that remark, with
regard to the zeal of tyrranous regimes in suppressing intellectual
curiosity and free speech

I just now remembered how Martin Luther (of the Reformation), said
that one must pluck out the eyes of reason

http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml

Scholars hesitated to include the Book of Esther among canonical
books, because it does not have a single occurance of the
tetragrammaton, ... and it is so interesting that among the dead sea
scrolls, fragments were found from every old testament book, EXCEPT
Esther

The greek orthodox point to the significance of the funeral shroud
remaining in a heap, explaining that in those times, it was a winding
sheet, just like an egyptian mummy, so that to find it lying intact
(undisturbed, retaining the form of the body), would indicate
something supernatural, since human intervention would have
necessitated UNwinding the strips...

but... there is a wonderful point in Esther about the supremem
importance of free will choice, when her uncle Mordecai implores her
to aid her people, he says (paraphrasing) "it is within your free
will choice to help your people, but IF you choose not to, the help
will come from elsewhere, but you shall not share in the reward)....
free will choice is emphasized so exquisitely in various passages

A search engine will reveal that the word "sacred" occurs nowhere in
the KJV, and occurs only ONCE in the apocrypha, in one of the books
of Maccabee, where they deside to institute a "sacred" holiday

Sartre says we are free to do anything except give up our freedom
(since such a "giving up" itself would be an exercise of freedom)

It is very interesting that the word "faith" occurs only TWICE in the
entire old testament, the first in Deut. in the NEGATIVE, "becaue of
your FAITHlessness, my anger has been kindled like a fire and shall
burn to the lowest sheol (hell, also the first occurence)"... and of
course the second is in Habbakuk, which Martin Luther used as a
foundation (for the just shall live by faith)... but the Hebrew
meaning of the word is VERY different from the new test.
greek "pisteos"

Some scientists once did an experiment with two monkeys (true story),
one monkey was termed the "executive" monkey, since he controlled a
push button, and had to make certain decisions. Whenever
the "executive monkey made the wrong decision, he received an
electric shock. The second monkey had no control over the button, but
received a shock every time the executive monkey was in error (i
think he was the blue collar monkey). The executive monkey developed
cardiovascular disorders and depression.

The blue collar monkey suffered no ill effects, and retired after 20
years

I recently read the comment that science never convinces anyone, it
is simple that the next generation gradually learns the lessons of
science, and it becomes accepted, commonplace (common sense)

I also read that the reason moses wandered in the wilderness with his
people for 40 years, is that 40 years is the length of one
generation, so all the fogies who remembered the fleshpots of egypt
would die off.... there is something cleansing about the succession
of new generations

+++++

"Wisdom Number Measure Hunger Thirst"

http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page311.htm

Michael: not always, in fact ... Ps 63 has got thirst first ... (vs
2/3), and vs 6 speaking about hunger

Sitaram: in which translation... I did this a while ago, cant
remember about other occurances

Michael: or Amos 8:11 .. it reads: 11 Days are surely coming, (My
Lord Adonai's oracle.)
Michael: when I will send hunger on the land;
Michael: not hunger for bread, or thirst for water,
Michael: but for hearing Adonai's words.

Sitaram: huger comes first there

Sitaram: hunger

Michael: ah true , sorry I was searching somewhere else

Sitaram: the first occurance of "love" in old testament is where
Jacob says that he loves the game meat which Esau brings him, ... how
curious that this is first mention of love, in context of hunger for
meat

Michael: Psalm 63 :: King James Version (KJV)

Michael: Listen to this Printer-FriendlyPage BookmarkthisPage See
this passage inPrevious chapter | This chapter | Next chapter

Michael: Psalm 63 :: King James Version (KJV)

Michael: Psalm 63

Michael: 1O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul
thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty
land, where no water is;

Michael:
Michael: darn sorry

Michael: verse 5 has this :My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow
and fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips:

Sitaram: maslow once wrote (and this was repeated by Abraham Hershel
in "The Prophets") : we must learn to understand what we see, rather
that to see only what we understand...
Michael: so here thirst comes first... but I rewckon the Hebrew term
is the same for both... just checking that

Sitaram: but... as a PHRASE, you will not find, I think "thirst and
hunger", but only "hunger and thirst"
Sitaram: ha ha, and of course, those other verses you found were
inserted by the wicked heretics
Sitaram: demonic verses
Sitaram: salman rushdie
Sitaram: just joking

Michael: lamentations ...lol... 4
Michael: The tongue of the sucking child6 cleaveth1 to the roof of
his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man
breaketh [it] unto them.
Michael: there we have thirst first and hunger second

Michael: but I'm not yet finished
Michael: now I check hunger

Sitaram: good work... hmmm.. interesting... a nursing child knows
only thirst,... cannot eat yet.... (aquinas wrote that his summa
was "weak milk" rather than "strong meat")

Michael: theres Isaiah 55 too, sorry im still searching...

Michael: 55:1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,
and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine
and milk without money and without price.

Michael: the problem is that _in English_ it's always hunger and
thirst
Michael: not in Hebrew

Michael: the lamentations verse is surely a chiasm... so sucking
child is paralleled with young child, and thirst is paralleled with
search for bread... which is hunger

Michael: The tongue of the sucking child6 cleaveth1 to the roof of
his mouth for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man
breaketh [it] unto them.

Michael: there we have thirst first and hunger second

Michael: but I'm not yet finished

Michael: now I check hunger

Sitaram: good work... hmmm.. interesting... a nursing child knows
only thirst,... cannot eat yet.... (aquinas wrote that his summa
was "weak milk" rather than "strong meat")

Michael: theres Isaiah 55 too, sorry im still searching...

Michael: 55:1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,
and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine
and milk without money and without price.

Michael: the problem is that _in English_ it's always hunger and
thirst

Michael: not in Hebrew

Michael: the lamentations verse is surely a chiasm... so sucking
child is paralleled with young child, and thirst is paralleled with
search for bread... which is hunger

Michael: it seems that not all of the verses you quoted do have the
doubled ra'ab we tameh'

Sitaram: thanks for these insights,... I am saving them off the
screen

Get your own free IRC Chat room