Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Jonaitis]

A super-personal intelligence.

I think Plato and Jung were onto something, but perhaps miss the mark. Perhaps the eidetic Forms or archetypes are not the result of eternally pre-existant realities, but the result of novelty interacting with other fundamental drives of cosmogenesis, then there is a concrescence of the forms within deep consciousness.

I don't remember Jung calling these archetypes as eternally pre-existent realities? You provide thought-provoking ideas, but I disdain it, because they are speculative. I believe that the material is a prototype of the truly real, and what can be known of cosmogensis is present before our eyes, as it were. I'm not sure about a super-personal intelligence, it sounds like a ubermensch, which I am personally trying to figure out if possible to create in principle using the idea of consciousness.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I haven't objected to it. I'm still searching for some common ground. Can you tell me if you have a preference to not get beaten up?

There is no common ground, I have a basis for my morality and you don't. But to answer your question AGAIN, I don't care if I get beaten up or if I die. I have no preference because I'm going to do my utmost to embody Christ and respond with love whatever the circumstance.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm curious to know where the evolution is taking us? Is it a never-ending game of adaptation with no real completion? Sri Aurobindo affirms the idea of lila, that is, divine-play in creation. I agree with him on this, and so think that evolution at all levels isn't really achieving anything except expansion, and if so, then 'pious' autotelic living is the optimal way to live.

There's an argument that as we control our environment, then we are becoming separated from the evolutionary process. As to what evolution achieves, it's a continuation of genetic information. Not, it has to be pointed out, always very successful.

 

[Bradskii]

I still want to ask, though.

If motive is chiefly important, where does that "good reason" behind it come from? By what or whose standard? I could create my own good reasons to harm you. Should there be correct judgement to properly inform our motives?

Indeed. I think that we can both agree that violence for no good reason is immoral. Where we may disagree is whether we think the reason for violence is acceptable or not. Then we have debates on the trolley problem, just war theory, justification for extreme retaliation in the face of violence, or even justification for a first strike. All difficulty questions, answers to which will change according to who is answering them and the various relevant conditions.

Who has the right answer? Well, we should listen to the arguments and make up our own mind. It was ever thus.

 

[Jonaitis]

There's an argument that as we control our environment, then we are becoming separated from the evolutionary process.

I have disagreed with this. I believe the evolutionary challenge presented before this generation and the following will be largely psychological and will usher in new genetic changes that will help us get out of the smaller social structures that we had designed for survival in the wild. It will usher in a new kind of man, one who controlled the environment, and will one day control the rest. But then, again, it sounds too speculative.

 

[Bradskii]

"do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

Now you've let the cat out of the bag. I was going to take a day or two to get there. Step by incremental step.

 

[Bradskii]

I answered it here:

Here's the other question in the same post.


You responded sarcastically. I gave not only the initial answer I would give, that we're all made in the image of God, but also a further extrapolation for you.

I didn't want a theological treatise. I wanted to know your personal preference. I've explained that in subsequent posts. What is your personal preference as regards being beat up?

 

[Jonaitis]

Indeed. I think that we can both agree that violence for no good reason is immoral. Where we may disagree is whether we think the reason for violence is acceptable or not. Then we have debates on the trolley problem, just war theory, justification for extreme retaliation in the face of violence, or even justification for a first strike. All difficulty questions, answers to which will change according to who is answering them and the various relevant conditions.

Who has the right answer? Well, we should listen to the arguments and make up our own mind. It was ever thus.

Perhaps, from this analysis, is the problem overall with higher intelligence? I hear that plants have a basic form of touch-awareness with no sense of pain/pleasure stimulus. Do they represent the ideal life? Would it be possible that plant life was the only life on earth?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I didn't want a theological treatise. I wanted to know your personal preference. I've explained that in subsequent posts. What is your personal preference as regards being beat up?

I don't care if I get beaten up or if I die. I have no preference because I'm going to do my utmost to embody Christ and respond with love whatever the circumstance.

My preference is that if it so pleases God, so let it be.

 

[Bradskii]

But to answer your question AGAIN, I don't care if I get beaten up or if I die.

Then there is nothing to discuss. I cannot in all honesty hold a sensible conversation with someone who says when given the option of being beaten up or not: 'I don't care'.

You have not started this conversation in good faith.

 

[Bradskii]

I have disagreed with this. I believe the evolutionary challenge presented before this generation and the following will be largely psychological and will usher in new genetic changes that will help us get out of the smaller social structures that we had designed for survival in the wild. It will usher in a new kind of man, one who controlled the environment, and will one day control the rest. But then, again, it sounds too speculative.

Evolution doesn't work on the scale of a generation or two. Maybe you're thinking of sociology.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Then there is nothing to discuss. I cannot in all honesty hold a sensible conversation with someone who says when given the option of being beaten up or not: 'I don't care'.

You have not started this conversation in good faith.

It's my genuine response but because it doesn't fit your rails you reject it. I started the conversation in good faith but because it's not leading where you desire it to go you won't accept it. You're on a Christian forum, talking with a real Christian. I love God and I trust Him with whatever circumstance I'm in, if it's His preference that I might suffer injustice for His glory and exemplifying His grace then I would love to do so. My propositions have been all well and good (and uncontested by you) but because your paradigm doesn't allow for this type of thinking I guess it's not in good faith. Ridiculous.

 

[Jonaitis]

Evolution doesn't work on the scale of a generation or two. Maybe you're thinking of sociology.

Maybe not on a large scale, but certainly if you change enough variables in the environment.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps, from this analysis, is the problem overall with higher intelligence? I hear that plants have a basic form of touch-awareness with no sense of pain/pleasure stimulus. Do they represent the ideal life? Would it be possible that plant life was the only life on earth?

Higher intelligence brings benefits. But it allows us to contemplate our own existence. Which admittedly is not always a good thing. Pros and conns. as Plato said, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

 

[Jonaitis]

Higher intelligence brings benefits. But it allows us to contemplate our own existence. Which admittedly is not always a good thing. Pros and conns. as Plato said, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.

I have been randomly spouting nonesense on this thread. Thanks for staying up with me on this side of the planet, it was fun.

 

[Bradskii]

It's my genuine response...

As I said, it's not a response that offers any hope whatsoever for the prospect of a reasonable discussion. Nor any desire, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe not on a large scale, but certainly if you change enough variables in the environment.

Agreed. Up to a point. But we control the environment. And by that I mean that we are both typing these messages back and forth in a warm and comfortable situation, free from danger with food and drink a few metres away. And any drastic changes to those variables would take an exceptionally long time to impact on our genetic make up.

There could be exceptions. Maybe another virus that kills most of us but leaves those with a specific genetic combo alive.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

As I said, it's not a response that offers any hope whatsoever for the prospect of a reasonable discussion. Nor any desire, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe next time dispute the premises I posed in the OP with reasons as apposed to asking a rigid line of questioning that strings 4 pages only to receive specific answers to your question that only you deem 'reasonable'. How hard is it to say "I disagree with x because y"? Surely you see how absurd this is?

 

[Bradskii]

I have been randomly spouting nonesense on this thread. Thanks for staying up with me on this side of the planet, it was fun.

No worries. It was enjoyable. Hasta la vista from this side of the planet...

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe next time dispute the premises I posed in the OP with reasons as apposed to asking a line of questions that strings 4 pages only to receive specific answers to your question that only you deem 'reasonable'. How hard is it to say "I disagree with x because y"? Surely you see how absurd this is?

Hey, unless you didn't get the memo, we are done. Please don't expect a further response in this thread. Maybe the next one you involve yourself with will offer better chances of a productive discussion.