|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
Hmmm...poor dog. He feels alone and frightened by the new surrounding. It's important to not get him mad, because then he will become a chronic barker. One idea would be to open your fence for the dog, so he can come to you, or into your house in the night for shelter But I think the neighbor will close the fence. Another idea would be, to buy a dog yourself and let him in and out into your house in the night (so he would stay calm). The other dog could learn from him, that there's nothing to worry about. Or you do it like Mr. Hetherman in King of Queens and ask your neighbor if you may take his dog for a walk at the evening, through the suburbs, so the dog gets a little tired from walking and learns to know his environment and surroundings  Or, simply talk to your neighbor, saying him that there needs to be a solution and the neighbor has to do his part in finding the solution, too.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: BlueCoyote]
#5496014 - 04/09/06 09:21 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the great suggestions. My neighbor is paranoid to begin with, and pissed that we have had the cops wake him up at 4 am. Any contact will have to wait quite a while.
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496322 - 04/09/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
" Okay so you're saying that there is an objective world, and that it is people who subjectively interpret the world as 'good' or 'evil'."
people assign names and labels to the things they experience.
" And now you're saying that evil is actually objective. That there exists a perfect Form or Ideal of evil. That evil exists outside of people's minds and is a part of Nature, appearing in varying degrees. This strikes me as a contradiction."
why?
" So then your worldview is that there are two ultimate and absolute objective forces that are competing against one another, and it is man who labels them as 'good' or 'evil'?"
no, evil is not an ultimate force.
" If this is indeed your worldview, then I'm curious as to how God or the equivalent fits into your view. Surely if God is Good then He wouldn't allow for Evil. However, you surely would agree that evil exists. So then we must revise the earlier statement to say that God is Good and Evil. If He is both at once, then clearly He doesn't discriminate between them, otherwise how else could He be both polarities simultaneously? If God and accordingly Nature don't discriminate between Good and Evil (since both exist), then neither should we. We must recognize that there are merely events, and it is our minds which interpret these events as either good or bad, depending upon our preferences and desires. "
im not talking about events, im talking about psychological forces which drive behavior. states of consciousness. the ultimate "good" consciousness is the christ consciousness which is only good because its sees reality. as jesus said "why thou callest me good? only God is good". evil is based on varying degrees of ignorance. however, evil is not the polar opposite of God. evil is not sustainable. because it is out of accordance with the laws of God it will eventaully self destruct. God can still exist in the absense of evil, he requires no no opposition to function.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496357 - 04/09/06 12:00 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
people assign names and labels to the things they experience.
This is true.
why?
Because first you say that evil is subjective, and then you say that it is in fact objective. Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I don't see how evil can be both purely subjective AND purely objective.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496386 - 04/09/06 12:11 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i never said evil was subjective. the confusion lies over how is evil is defined.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496418 - 04/09/06 12:25 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
the word "evil" is an interpretation
I interpreted that to mean that evil was subjective. Guess my own interpretation was faulty 
How do you define evil?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496446 - 04/09/06 12:36 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i haven't come up with a fully working definiton yet but i define it as that which is not sustainable. for example lets say you have a cornfield and in the spring everyone plants their corn. when the corn ripens one person who didn't plant any corn comes and steals corn from several of the people who did. this is evil because if everyone did what he did, society would not be able to function and would eventually self-destruct. so evil is the misuse of energy. what i'm still confused over is this: suppose someone went into the corn field and just killed all the corn out of love for destruction, is that different from the scenario? is it a greater degree of evil?
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496500 - 04/09/06 01:00 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
this is evil because if everyone did what he did, society would not be able to function and would eventually self-destruct.
Ah! Kant's Categorical Imperative "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."
suppose someone went into the corn field and just killed all the corn out of love for destruction, is that different from the scenario?
I'd say that indeed, intention plays a role in the interpretation of an action as evil or not.
Here though, check out some of the criticisms of Kant's theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative#Normative_criticism
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496552 - 04/09/06 01:15 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Deviate said: i haven't come up with a fully working definiton yet but i define it as that which is not sustainable. for example lets say you have a cornfield and in the spring everyone plants their corn. when the corn ripens one person who didn't plant any corn comes and steals corn from several of the people who did. this is evil because if everyone did what he did, society would not be able to function and would eventually self-destruct. so evil is the misuse of energy. what i'm still confused over is this: suppose someone went into the corn field and just killed all the corn out of love for destruction, is that different from the scenario? is it a greater degree of evil?
I'd personally suggest that such a term "evil" does not represent any aspect of reality itself, and is simply just a reference to a vauge, subjective definition of what actions one does not prefer.
For example, your cornfield example is not evil. It is simply what it is. From other perspectives, it could be classified as "good". To a Native American who recognizes that land as being a holy site of power, destroying the cornfield would be an act of reclaiming the land and allowing it to grow naturally. From that perspective, it would surely be a good act.
Evil is not inherent within reality itself, and to claim that it is would require a demonstration that it actually is. Interpreting actions through such a limited sense of categorization certainly is not productive, and will not reveal the nature of reality for what it is - it is simply that which it is. 
Defining evil as the "misuse of energy" means that one must define what is proper usage of energy and what is improper use of energy. How can one know which is proper usage of energy and which is not? We've brought this into an even deeper realm of subjective meaning!
As no objective textbook that proclaims what is proper usage of energy and what is not exists, we cannot state that there is an objective sense of evil.
There is energy, and there is action. That is enough.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
I'd personally suggest that such a term "evil" does not represent any aspect of reality itself, and is simply just a reference to a vauge, subjective definition of what actions one does not prefer.
I'd personally agree with you completely. Evil is a subjective interpretation, and your example with the native american is very valid.
However it is obvious that there has to be some common ground on what is considered 'evil' in order for a society to function, thus in most societies the leaders determine what is evil (generally based on their own desires and opinions). In a true democracy, the majority of a society would determine what is considered good and evil.
One issue I think this raises, especially in a society with so many varying and even opposing interests, is the question of what basic set of rules should be in place in order to ensure security for all?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496620 - 04/09/06 01:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
" I'd personally suggest that such a term "evil" does not represent any aspect of reality itself, and is simply just a reference to a vauge, subjective definition of what actions one does not prefer.
For example, your cornfield example is not evil. It is simply what it is. From other perspectives, it could be classified as "good". To a Native American who recognizes that land as being a holy site of power, destroying the cornfield would be an act of reclaiming the land and allowing it to grow naturally. From that perspective, it would surely be a good act.
Evil is not inherent within reality itself, and to claim that it is would require a demonstration that it actually is. Interpreting actions through such a limited sense of categorization certainly is not productive, and will not reveal the nature of reality for what it is - it is simply that which it is.
Defining evil as the "misuse of energy" means that one must define what is proper usage of energy and what is improper use of energy. How can one know which is proper usage of energy and which is not? We've brought this into an even deeper realm of subjective meaning!
As no objective textbook that proclaims what is proper usage of energy and what is not exists, we cannot state that there is an objective sense of evil.
There is energy, and there is action. That is enough. "
no, because intention plays a roll. i never claimed the action of destroying a cornfield was itself evil. suppose the corn was infected with a disease that could spread to other corn and the only way to stop it was to destroy the cornfield? you see what i mean. i only used that as an example of the manifestation of an "evil" intention.
Edited by Deviate (04/09/06 01:38 PM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496626 - 04/09/06 01:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: However it is obvious that there has to be some common ground on what is considered 'evil' in order for a society to function, thus in most societies the leaders determine what is evil (generally based on their own desires and opinions). In a true democracy, the majority of a society would determine what is considered good and evil.
It is obvious to me that such categorization is useless. There doesn't need to be any common ground on an abstract concept that doesn't reflect reality!
If you want a mechanism by which to gauge whether or not one should endeavor in a certain action, simply see to it that such an action does not harm others. No meaningless terms thrown around!
Quote:
One issue I think this raises, especially in a society with so many varying and even opposing interests, is the question of what basic set of rules should be in place in order to ensure security for all?
Don't harm others? 
That isn't going to work much better, but at least its a start.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496630 - 04/09/06 01:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: this is evil because if everyone did what he did, society would not be able to function and would eventually self-destruct.
Ah! Kant's Categorical Imperative "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."
suppose someone went into the corn field and just killed all the corn out of love for destruction, is that different from the scenario?
I'd say that indeed, intention plays a role in the interpretation of an action as evil or not.
Here though, check out some of the criticisms of Kant's theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative#Normative_criticism
wikipedia isn't working for me right now
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496638 - 04/09/06 01:46 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
" It is obvious to me that such categorization is useless. There doesn't need to be any common ground on an abstract concept that doesn't reflect reality!
If you want a mechanism by which to gauge whether or not one should endeavor in a certain action, simply see to it that such an action does not harm others. No meaningless terms thrown around! "
that suffers from the same problems as my position. for example what if your country is at war? do you refuse to fight as to not harm others and allow your country to taken over or do you go out and kill as many people as you can in order to defend it? i could further argue that harm is a subjective term. remember, " There is energy, and there is action. That is enough. " according to you it would seem there is no objective bases for determining what is harmful.
Edited by Deviate (04/09/06 01:47 PM)
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Don't harm others?
While I agree that would be the ideal, the question becomes how would one determine whether an action harms another? For instance, what X interprets as harming another, Y may interpret as being very beneficial. Hitler, for example, thought that the Jews were harming the entire world because of their very nature, so he tried to eradicate them.
Also the question of inflicting some level of harm as a means to a 'good' end must be raised.
Lastly, say, hypothetically, Person A were in a situation where a terrorist was about to kill A's mother. However, A had the ability to kill the terrorist before his mother was killed. Going from the rule "don't harm others", what should he do, since killing the terrorist would certainly harm him and probably his loved ones, yet not killing him would harm A's mother and A himself.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: Deviate]
#5496671 - 04/09/06 01:58 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Deviate said: that suffers from the same problems as my position. for example what if your country is at war? do you refuse to fight as to not harm others and allow your country to taken over or do you go out and kill as many people as you can in order to defend it? i could further argue that harm is a subjective term.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: That isn't going to work much better, but at least its a start.
Do not harm others. Those taking over one's country would thus be harming others, eh?
Quote:
remember, " There is energy, and there is action. That is enough. " according to you it would seem there is no objective bases for determining what is harmful.
That would be the truth of the matter, most certainly.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
|
but good and evil are useful from concepts from the standpoint of the relative. you can't negate them by using an absolute perspective.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496684 - 04/09/06 02:05 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: While I agree that would be the ideal, the question becomes how would one determine whether an action harms another? For instance, what X interprets as harming another, Y may interpret as being very beneficial. Hitler, for example, thought that the Jews were harming the entire world because of their very nature, so he tried to eradicate them.
I think we could rely upon our scientific method to determine which harms the life of another and what does not. For example, high levels of toxic ammonia harms fish. This can be determined and demonstrated.
Did Hitler scientificially determine that Jews were naturally harming the entire world as a result of their nature?
Quote:
Also the question of inflicting some level of harm as a means to a 'good' end must be raised.
"Do not harm others". If one were to harm another, then effective action to cease the harm would be in order. It would be accepted that it is the person who harms another who would be at fault.
Quote:
Lastly, say, hypothetically, Person A were in a situation where a terrorist was about to kill A's mother. However, A had the ability to kill the terrorist before his mother was killed. Going from the rule "don't harm others", what should he do, since killing the terrorist would certainly harm him and probably his loved ones, yet not killing him would harm A's mother and A himself.
"If one harms another, then one accepts that one will be subjected to harm". I think that helps it out a bit. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Do not harm others. Those taking over one's country would thus be harming others, eh?
Indeed. Do you think it is then justified to respond to harm with harm, or should one remain always not harming others? If you are beating me to death, should I fight back and harm you, or just let you kill me?
Ideally if EVERYONE practiced that maxim, then the world would surely be safer. However I find it unlikely that this will happen anytime soon, possibly ever.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Christ consciousness. [Re: dblaney]
#5496742 - 04/09/06 02:24 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: Indeed. Do you think it is then justified to respond to harm with harm, or should one remain always not harming others? If you are beating me to death, should I fight back and harm you, or just let you kill me?
I think it is justified. As I stated in the last post, if the rule is to not harm others, and someone makes the choice to harm others, actions have to be taken to stop/prevent that act of harm. In your specific situation, it would require physical harm to prevent more harm upon oneself. If someone killed another, I would not promote physical harm upon that person, but it would be necessary to go to lengths to educate that person and impose restrictions to ensure that more harm is not produced.
Quote:
Ideally if EVERYONE practiced that maxim, then the world would surely be safer. However I find it unlikely that this will happen anytime soon, possibly ever.
It is unlikely because people don't practice it.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
|