Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

Greatest I am wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:34 pm -1-

I think I agree with all you put.

"moral absolutism is a good vehicle to influence people's behaviour on a mass scale."

Confirm that by giving an example of what you are calling a moral absolute. What moral tenet did you have in mind?

Regards
DL
Easy does it.

Thieving. It is evil for those who get the short end of theft, but is not evil for the thief.

Social existence is much easier with no thieving.

So an absolute rule of "all thieving is evil" has been put in place. It helps everyone to get along easier than if thieving was not in the criminal code and not viewed as a morally despicable act.

Same thing can be said of murder, uncle-abuse, penguin lust, and bullying. As well as all others, which I don't want to name for fear of sounding much too politically incorrect.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Greatest I am »

-1- wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:39 pm
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:26 pm I agree with your definition on the science God of the Gaps. My "so to speak" was intended to convey that.

That is why I spoke of the various theories of the number of dimensions.

My poor writing skills.

Regards
DL
The trick, the only useful trick for good writing is to ask yourself of your written material, "does it make the same sense to someone else as it does for me?"

A lot of English writers fall into the trap of using pronouns without a clear reference of them to their antecedents. This is so because in their thinking process, that later results on a written text, the antecedents' relationships with referring pronouns are automatic for the original thinker.

Another problem which is disappearing, because the language is chaning due to it, in English writing, is the disappearance of the separation between plural and singular. "There's apples and there's oranges", "using pronouns without a clear reference of it to its antecedent" etc.

Other than having valuable thoughts, the only thing one has to look out for when writing a paper, even on a non-professional forum, is proper referencing and proper grammar. If you do that, people will be intimidated by your English, and you will be both revered and feared, for you'll gain a reputation of being an overly erudite person. And in America people fear an educated person... he is A. better than you, B. an affront to your religion, atheists are all smart, C. a possible threat to your values (he may be a communist pinko wife-swapping danger to America; he's educitid, inni? and probably a liberal, for sure an (gasp!) atheist) D. invincible in intellectual debate, and E. possibly a lawyer, the epitome of all evil.
I hear you, but being a poorly educated Frenchman, I am more self educated,and perhaps a slow learner at my age, I may never be as eloquent as you.

Add in that I am prolific and short winded, I may never improve.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Greatest I am »

-1- wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:43 pm
Greatest I am wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:34 pm -1-

I think I agree with all you put.

"moral absolutism is a good vehicle to influence people's behaviour on a mass scale."

Confirm that by giving an example of what you are calling a moral absolute. What moral tenet did you have in mind?

Regards
DL
Easy does it.

Thieving. It is evil for those who get the short end of theft, but is not evil for the thief.

Social existence is much easier with no thieving.

So an absolute rule of "all thieving is evil" has been put in place. It helps everyone to get along easier than if thieving was not in the criminal code and not viewed as a morally despicable act.

Same thing can be said of murder, uncle-abuse, penguin lust, and bullying. As well as all others, which I don't want to name for fear of sounding much too politically incorrect.
Thanks for this.

I rescind my agreement as I can think of some, albeit rather unlikely scenarios, where thieving and murder are the moral thing to do.

I will have to maintain my view that all moral tenets are subjective. The closest I have come to an bjective/absolute moral tenet is, ---- the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. That also has a subjective judgement call involved.

Take murder. Knowing what Hitler would do, or is doing to put you in his time frame, would you murder him?

Take theft. If you had to steal a gun to kill Hitler, would you?

I would jump at the chance.

Regards
DL
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Greatest I am wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 1:33 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:40 pm


If you take concepts out of reality, then they no longer exist. Why would you want to do that?

Nothingness is a concept that says that there is nothing somewhere. Nothing being empty space.

Nothingness is merely an observation of relation, as a gradation of unity in being through multiple unit-particulate relating. Take for example the very same empty space, that space is merely empty if and only if their are boundaries to that vary same space. In simpler terms when we view emptiness what we view is merely an absence of something relative to something else.

So let's say we have an empty vessel, a cup, the cup may in itself be empty but that does not take away from the observation of emptiness merely being an observation of the cup for the "emptiness" is merely an observation of how the cup relates to its immediate environment.

Now let's apply this is to space and specifically focus on the grammar of the argument: "empty space".

Intuitively, through the language itself, we can observe that space acts as a boundary in its own respect as emptiness is merely an observation of a relation, or one could even call it a gradation of, space.

The question occurs then: "how can space be empty if space cannot be reduced to anything other than space"? Considering, using the cup example again along with the aforemention grammatical example of "empty space", we can observe that space acts as a boundary of dimension. From these respects we observe the empty space is merely:

1) An observation of the inherent dimensions that form boundaries.
2) These boundaries, as space, are absent of further boundaries of space.
3) From the above we can observe, what may be implied as a paradox of "space being empty of space".
4) From this we can observe a constant that space is both limit and no-limit, or in simpler terms "limitless limit". This reflects further a quantitative understanding of "1" being both structure and absent of structure or the concept of infinity as "limit without limit".
5) Secondly from this we may observe that space is relation, or that it acts as unit-particulates that must relate to further unit-particulate, as they are not whole in itself. An empty space is merely a space that is absent of some other form of space, ie. a dimension acting as a boundary. From they with may observe that dimensions as boundaries, relate to further dimensions as boundaries

Using the empty cup example again, what we observe as emptiness is merely an absence of an implied relation conducive to that specific spatial dimension, in this case a liquid. However the cup may contain another spatial dimension, ie air/gas, in which it is not absent of. In these respects the observation of absence is an observation of relation, where one relation may not be present but another is. Now taking the cup example further and putting it is a vaccuum tube we may observe that is it absent in relation to any liquid or gas, however it may contain another spatial dimension such as particle waves (electromagnetic, gravity, etc.) which relate.

In these respects space acts as relation of dimensions as "units", particulate (parts of whole, fraction of, etc.). In these respects quantitatively space exists through "1" as both "unity" and "unit" and maintains a dual role of unity and multiplicity.


Let's observe the following example of two lines x and y:

x _____________________________

y _____________________________


Standard observation observes the above as 2 1d linear spaces relating through a 0d point-field (the same 0d point which divides the one is the same which divides the other, hence the 0d point acts simultaneously as a field).

The relation of x and y dimensions, which act as boundaries, observes a new spatial dimension as another line which we can label "z".

_______________________________

_____________z_________________



In these respects, what we observe as an "empty space" is actually a further dimension which not only gives boundaries to the relations that form it but exists as a boundary in itself. In these respects the relation of space causes further space to exists as a boundary. So in one respect what may be considered "empty" may be dually reversed. Now applying the cup example again are we observing an "empty cup" or "empty air"?...the most logical response (considering both are logical in themselves) are "both" at the same time in different respects relative to the original point of measurement.

In these respects what we observe as the actual relations of x and y result in the potential relation of "z", or vice versa, considering a premise of time as alternation. However time as alternation is an inevitable premise considering x and y form z which alternates to z forming x and y. This alternation as a form of "frequency" through a dualistic (or even number of dimensions) set of dimensions observes that "actual relations" form "potential relations" with the "potential relations" in one respect alternating to form "actual relations". In a seperate respect is forms a dimension of space for the "actual relations" to exist in. Take for example one waving their hand, they may only make the actual movement if their is another space, "potential movement" in which the actual movement may take place in.

In these respects x,y, and z take a 6 dimensional form in which two actual particulate relate to form a potential particulate, with the potential particulate in turn becoming an actual particulate which forms the previously actual particulate in potential particulate. In simpler terms, x and y as two dimensions exist in turn individual as two dimension of actual and potential, as four dimensions. Z in turn exists as actual and potential particulate as two dimensions. X, Y and Z in turn summate as 6 dimensions through time/space, with these dimensions alternating through a linear folding process conducive to a 0d point field (an infinite line in a 0d point-field must fold in upon itself considering there is nowhere to go except itself)

x ________________________
y __________z_____________

In a further respect, from a 7th dimension of viewing everything as "1" moment, x,y,z are ever present as dimensions in themselves as extensions of the "1". As individual extensions of the "1", quantitatively as "3", we can observe space time at minimum containing 10 dimensions...which reflects the string theorists approach from another angle.


In summation of this point:

What we are observing then, as "emptiness" is merely the relation of space "folding" upon itself through a process of continual change, base upon the premise that change is reduced to 1d linear space folding upon itself through a 0d point-field. This "change" through relation is merely an absence of structure premised in the 0d point-field being the "absence of structure" that results current structure to relate to itself through a process of individuation unit-particles.

This individuation can be observed as mathematically rooted in the multiplication and division function as merely the propogation of "parts" through "time". Even intuitively we observe time to be an inherent element of the mathematical operating process itself. Considering both multiplication and division results in parts that must relate they are the foundation of change through "times" (as time) which is simultaneously a process of propogating "units" as individuation.




If there is no empty space and it was proven then it would be fine to scrap the concept and remove it from reality, but leaving the squashed concept in reality would mean that we will save other people the waste of their time on trying to prove the concept of nothingness over and over again. Saving all that waste of time is worth a lot.

How would Yoda say this.

Knowing what is or is not, tells us what is or is not.



A good assumption. I think they are.



I think so, yes, if I understand your use of "symmetry through reflection".



I do not agree with this. Perhaps there is some rotational feedback or circular reasoning in some ideas but most axioms, I think, have a starting point and an end point.

Keep in mind, from a logical standpoint, circularity does not contradict an linear form of reasoning, as both are extensions of eachother through the "point" (we see this in geometry) being the fundamental axiom (abstractly and physically) everyone cannot seem to avoid. In many respects it is the one universal axiom that provides the foundations for consciousness as measurement.

We can observe "circularity" within all arguments (which from a macro viewpoint in themselves are axioms) through the altneration of linear dialogues. We see this principle in all dialectics.




Ouch, my head. I am not as educated as you are.
In all truth from a practical perspective, it is probably the other way around...I only have a b.s. and it is not even in philosophy. If I got a degree for how many hours I spent in a library...well I would probably have multiple phds...but that is not how this life works I guess.

I do not believe it is a question of education but rather how far you are "willing" (will) to look. In other words, how many headaches, dizziness and heartache are you will to suffer...knowledge extends from free will ironically in my experience...something philosophers never seem to address.



You are saying, I think, that answers lead to more questions. I agree but do not see that as irrational.

Its not always irrational, but strictly linear reasoning alone because of its continual branching rarely reflects its original point. The problem with progressive linear thinking is that often times it forgets its roots and becomes rootless.

Yet contradictorally it depends on circular reasoning through a process of dialectic alternation. In simple terms we need both linear and circular reasoning as both are extensions of eachother in the process of definition.




For sure.



Good and evil are subjective judgement calls.
"And" objective.

The why will be different for all so what we have collectively decided to do is set the standard to seek the greatest good for the greatest number of us.

That may be instinctive as the fittest will be the most gregarious so that he might hide in and be protected by the masses. Our selfish gene at work.



I think I see what you mean and agree.



If any of what I put sounds really odd, it is because I am French, not English, and I am doing my best with this awkward language. Being self educated is a bitch.

Actually I assumed you were an English speaker, I never thought otherwise.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Greatest I am »

Eodnhoj7

Interesting post. Thanks.

I said ---
"Good and evil are subjective judgement calls.

You put
"And" objective."

I have been told that a few times but no one seems to be able to come up with an objective moral tenet to discuss.

Do unto others, for one example, one of the most prominent moral tenets, relies on subjectivity so as to know what to do.

What moral tenet do you see as objective and always applicable without thought or exception?

I already showed that even murder and theft are sometimes moral.

Regards
DL
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Greatest I am wrote: Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:11 pm Eodnhoj7

Interesting post. Thanks.

I said ---
"Good and evil are subjective judgement calls.

You put
"And" objective."

I have been told that a few times but no one seems to be able to come up with an objective moral tenet to discuss.

One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm, by default we observe a constant. In other words if I follow a moral system that is in a state of change, relative to internal and external factors, and I do not adapt to that change than by default I am acting "immoral" in the respect I "do not change".



Do unto others, for one example, one of the most prominent moral tenets, relies on subjectivity so as to know what to do.

But it is a constant in the respect that it is a moral law of recipriocity

What moral tenet do you see as objective and always applicable without thought or exception?

I already showed that even murder and theft are sometimes moral.

I will use what I call the "cave and the city" example. The cave may have one set of moral standards that exist strictly for the cave. Those standards are constants for the cave. Now I may leave and go to the city and the moral requirements may change due to the environment, however they always exist for that environment.

The law of stealing may not be applicable to life in a cave, but suicide as a form of murder applies as a standard do not. The city may require the same standard of "though shalt not kill" in respects to something like suicide however it changes in degree. It may not be moral for me to murder someone strictly to appease an appetite for blood, however it is moral to kill someone if I am trying to save myself or someone else from harm. Now can I enjoy defending myself? If the reason is strictly one of protection against an "irrational" force (where I cannot reason with or avoid conflict with the individual) then reason alone dictates it as a necessity.

My emotional state, as long as it reflects a rational response intellectually and physically would be irrelevant as long as proportional force is use.

Now on the other hands if I provoke a situation, due to bloodlust, in order to put myself in a defensive situation I am altering necessity for desire and in these respects the act becomes immoral. If the opportunity to avoid a conflict, as a form of irrationality, is present I am morally obligated to avoid it. If my ability to avoid it, is not an alternative, then by default I am morally required to engage in it as long as the cause is one of justice...with justice being an act of reason which mediates the benefits of both parties.

In these respects we can observe "do unto others as they do unto you" in a simultaneous objective light as certain individual necessities do not change regardless of the individual. Protection and the promulgation of life are constants considering those who disagree with these laws cease to exist and have no rational input relative to this dimension of existence.

Reason, as measurement, extends from life with life being the greatest moral value. What we understand of the passions (lust, greed, etc.) are merely disordered appetites that are not in balance with reason and necessity. However, the passions in themselves, when kept in balance are good in themselves. The act of reason, in regards reflecting upon the actions of oneself, those around them, and the environment becomes an objective moral requirement.

Reason, as the act of measurement through the promulgation of balance, is an objective moral code in the respect it forms the measurements which form us and vice versa. To leave this habit of conduct, as the practice of reason is a disciplined art like any other art, is to cast a judgement upon oneself through the scales of proportion inherent within both man, nature, and the creator (considering you are an gnostic you may disagree with the last part). We can see these scales within principles such as "frequency" and "polarity" (alternations) that happen both in physics, the animal kingdom in reproductive/herd-movement/feeding cycles, celestial events, a person's mood, etc where one imbalance cause an extreme in the other. This moral code shows that extremes, results in the very extremes we will be....one could say "judged" by.

We can observe the reason without any regards for balance, such as we see in the progressive movement in both liberal and conservative moral factions, causes an tyranny as any extreme cause a cessation of freedom for one party or the other. In a separate respect it causes an imbalance in the environment that can harm the futures of further generations.

The problem with subjective morality is that it becomes an objective code, as one's who goes against this code becomes immoral to themselves. We can observe this in certain Christian laws such as the Doctrine of Conscious, where the final moral authority is one of consciousness (which from a Judaic perspective is similar or equal to "loyalty")

In a separate respect certain objective codes, such as thou shall not kill, become subjective in nature do to circumstance. These circumstances in themselves will always be objective however due to a dependence on "reason as proportionality". Going to the cave and city example we can observe that "relativity" by default leads to "constants".

In these respects it is faulty to argue either subjective or objective only, considering both are dependent on the other and in these respects objective and subjective must reflect, through their relations, the very same laws with form them: "reason as justice through proportion".

In these respects knowledge becomes a binding factor as one's ability to reason is dependent upon both what they know and what they do not know. A man who act's in ignorance may transgress the same law a knowledgeable man may know, but his offense is less grievious than the man who knows and breaks the same law.


Regards
DL
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

JohnDoe7 wrote: (1) One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. (2) If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm, (3) by default we observe a constant. In other words (4) if I follow a moral system that is in a state of change, (5) relative to internal and external factors, (6) and I do not adapt to that change than by default (7) (then) I am acting "immoral" in the respect (8) I "do not change".
With all due respect, the above sounds solid, but it is replete with logical failures.

(4) the moral system is not in state of change. The system employs changing parameters, such as direction of hurtful action, and perspective. But the system does not change.
(6) it is not a case of adapting to change, because the system does not change. You may find yourself in different situations with different directions of hurt of actions, and you may find your self in different perspectives therefore, but you can't avoid changing with the system' requirements of outcome. It's not a case of adapting; it is a case of calling your mother's rape "sinful" or "immoral";' while to an invading army, violating any stray women is morally acceptable. Once you are in a situation like that, you can't escape your value judgment between "evil" and "good", and it could be either, depending on your perspective.

Then in the argument you presented, having divorced your train of thought from the essence of moral relativity, you declare that being above morality (not changing with it) is immoral. That is not the case at all. You can be an observer, or a legal judge, or a person living thousands of miles away and not be affected by an atrocity, and you say actually that that makes you immoral because you do not change.

You do not change when there is no change warranted, and that is not immoral.

So I don't know if your understanding of moral relativity is compromised, or your corollaries derived from it. But your conclusion, as you wrote it, and your argument, muddles up a number of concepts, and introduces incongruent (relatively immaterial) concepts, and you declare a false conclusion therefore.

I suspect that you have a number of "generalized" laws in store, such as declaring that not changing with a changing system is a sign that shows the breakdown of the system. This is true, that you have that pattern, and you apply it where you ought not to. You also have a pattern stored somewhere in your "philosophical arguments' pantry", so to speak, that you can show that something is changing and not changing, and therefore that is impossible; but you equate concepts that are not equivalent, one changing, the other not, and you decide that the two concepts are equivalent, while they are not.

This was a classic case of that. You showed that the moral system is both changing and not changing, and you built your argument around that. But you only had to see, which I hope to have shown, that the system is not changing; it is the direction of the hurtful action that is the parameter that creates the change, the system itself is unchanging.

(***) Then you cited an example in which you do not change with the system. I wish you to show an actual, real life, albeit possibly imaginary situation, in which your moral judgment is OPPOSITE or UNAFFECTED when you are being materially hurt by another's action which you deem unjust.

You see, anyone can say "the speed of light is C, but take the example when the speed of light is five miles per hour." This is what you did: "The morality is relative, but if I defy that morality, then I am immoral." No. You can't defy that morality, and if you can, then please show the imaginary or real example where you defied morality as per the paragraph immediately before this one, marked (***)

Go wild, JohnDoe7. Spare no expletives.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

""""JohnDoe7 worte: The law of stealing may not be applicable to life in a cave, but suicide as a form of murder applies as a standard do not.""""

What does this mean? You use two verbs again in one sentence, which destroys the entire meaning: "Suicide... applies... do ...". This is a garbled utterance which I quoted. I parsed it this way: The law of stealing (noun or subject of sentence 1) may (verb of sentence 1) not be applicable (predicate of sentence 1) to life in a cave (adverbial phrase of sentence 1), but suicide (subject of sentence 2) as a form of murder (qualifier of subject of sentence 2) applies (verb of sentence 2) as a standard (qualifier of unnamed predicate of sentence 2) do (second verb of sentence 2; nonsensical) not (qualifier of predicate of verb 2 of sentence 2 which is unnamed).

Go, JohnDoe7, shower me with expletives.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

JohnDoe7 wrote: The problem with subjective morality is that it becomes an objective code, as one's who goes against this code becomes immoral to themselves. We can observe this in certain Christian laws such as the Doctrine of Conscious, where the final moral authority is one of consciousness (which from a Judaic perspective is similar or equal to "loyalty")
Please provide an example of an actual, real life occurrence of this. It may be factual or fictional, but please make it representative of the concept you described in the quote.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

"""JohnDoe7 wrote: In a separate respect certain objective codes, such as thou shall not kill, become subjective in nature do to circumstance. These circumstances in themselves will always be objective however due to a dependence on "reason as proportionality". Going to the cave and city example we can observe that "relativity" by default leads to "constants". """

What is this "reason as proportionality"? I can't conceptualize the meaning of the expression. Please explain. This may be a valid concept, except it needs to be described by you for ordinary mortals like me, who can't read your mind.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

JohnDoe7 wrote: In these respects it is faulty to argue either subjective or objective only, considering both are dependent on the other and in these respects objective and subjective must reflect, through their relations, the very same laws with form them: "reason as justice through proportion".
This is not true. It is saying that green can't exist without red, and that chair can't exist without table. Sure an objective something and a subjective something else can exist. You declare this again as a bang-bang ammunition from your store of philosophical wisdom (I called it "pantry" earlier).

The other thing is... you build this argument on a statement "reason as justice through proportion". What do you mean by this? It does not make sense to me. Maybe there exists an explanation, but maybe you just wrote it down embedded in highly conceptualized ideals, that not even God can understand (so to speak), but you. I am not saying this is false; I am saying it does not make sense, at least to me.

I have pointed it out to you many, many, many times, to speak to members of your own species please in a way which they understand. You replied, invariably, "ask if you don't understand". This is one of those times, when I ask. So what does "reason as justice through proportion" mean to you? In a language I understand, please.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

JohnDoe7 worte: Reason, as measurement, extends from life with life being the greatest moral value. What we understand of the passions (lust, greed, etc.) are merely disordered appetites that are not in balance with reason and necessity. However, the passions in themselves, when kept in balance are good in themselves. The act of reason, in regards reflecting upon the actions of oneself, those around them, and the environment becomes an objective moral requirement.
Well, yes, okay, but what's your point with this? Is it in support that morality is absolute, or relative? Or is this a step to a further step down the road of your train of thought?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by -1- »

JohnDoe7 wrote: Reason, as the act of measurement through the promulgation of balance, is an objective moral code in the respect it forms the measurements which form us and vice versa. To leave this habit of conduct, as the practice of reason is a disciplined art like any other art, is to cast a judgement upon oneself through the scales of proportion inherent within both man, nature, and the creator (considering you are an gnostic you may disagree with the last part). We can see these scales within principles such as "frequency" and "polarity" (alternations) that happen both in physics, the animal kingdom in reproductive/herd-movement/feeding cycles, celestial events, a person's mood, etc where one imbalance cause an extreme in the other. This moral code shows that extremes, results in the very extremes we will be....one could say "judged" by.
"Reason, as the act of measurement through the promulgation of balance, " sorry, but I assert that this phrase makes no senses in any possible universe.

"is an objective moral code in the respect it forms the measurements which form us and vice versa. " Measurements form us, you say. I say no, measurements don't form us.

"To leave this habit of conduct, as the practice of reason is a disciplined art like any other art, is to cast a judgement upon oneself through the scales of proportion inherent within both man, nature, " Number of things wrong with this quote, one being that other than humans and to a degree some mammals, no part of nature practices a reason of disciplined art like any other art. ETC.

The other major wrong part of this quote is that again you use two verbs in one sentence.

Yes, I know you blasted me, with examples even, to show me that it is proper to use more than one verb in a sentence. I did not reply, because I am not your grade seven grammar teacher. Research the subject, you will find that there are such things as clauses, sentences. You will find that sentences can share a verb, or a sentence can share many subjects, or a subject can have many verbs; but 1 sentence, 1 verb,and you constantly break that rule, making your utterances nonsensical, since you break the laws of syntax, which immediately robs your utterances of any meaning, of any semantic sense.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:19 pm
JohnDoe7 wrote: (1) One foundation we can look at is strictly one of standard logic. (2) If we observe "relativity" as a moral norm, (3) by default we observe a constant. In other words (4) if I follow a moral system that is in a state of change, (5) relative to internal and external factors, (6) and I do not adapt to that change than by default (7) (then) I am acting "immoral" in the respect (8) I "do not change".
With all due respect, the above sounds solid, but it is replete with logical failures.

(4) the moral system is not in state of change. The system employs changing parameters, such as direction of hurtful action, and perspective. But the system does not change.
The system of a strict relative morality requires one of adaption to a scenario, if they do not adapt to the scenario they are detemined as "immoral".


(6) it is not a case of adapting to change, because the system does not change. You may find yourself in different situations with different directions of hurt of actions, and you may find your self in different perspectives therefore, but you can't avoid changing with the system' requirements of outcome. It's not a case of adapting; it is a case of calling your mother's rape "sinful" or "immoral";' while to an invading army, violating any stray women is morally acceptable. Once you are in a situation like that, you can't escape your value judgment between "evil" and "good", and it could be either, depending on your perspective.
If morality is strictly dependent on an individual's perception alone by not following that perception one is deemed immoral. Perception becomes the moral constant, with that perception in turn forming the standard by which they are judged.

The rape of a mother, must be avoided according to the principle of self-reflection as a constant form of moral measurement, while those who choose to percieve it as necessary have no moral constant to defend if the reciprocating army decides to follow the same course of action. Reaping what you sow, is part of a moral measurement of justification.




Then in the argument you presented, having divorced your train of thought from the essence of moral relativity, you declare that being above morality (not changing with it) is immoral.
Contradicting the moral code by not following its standards is immoral. A strict form of moral relativity binds the users to a strict code of moral relativity which does not allow one to observe an constant moral codes without contradicting it. The problem occurs in the respect that moral relativity leads to constants, so either one observe moral relativity as a contradiction or observe that it must move past itself towards certain constants.

That is not the case at all. You can be an observer, or a legal judge, or a person living thousands of miles away and not be affected by an atrocity, and you say actually that that makes you immoral because you do not change.
Is that a realistic scenario? If grain prices go up in china, does that not effect the economy of the U.S. in some degree?



You do not change when there is no change warranted, and that is not immoral.

So I don't know if your understanding of moral relativity is compromised, or your corollaries derived from it. But your conclusion, as you wrote it, and your argument, muddles up a number of concepts, and introduces incongruent (relatively immaterial) concepts, and you declare a false conclusion therefore.

I suspect that you have a number of "generalized" laws in store, such as declaring that not changing with a changing system is a sign that shows the breakdown of the system. This is true, that you have that pattern, and you apply it where you ought not to. You also have a pattern stored somewhere in your "philosophical arguments' pantry", so to speak, that you can show that something is changing and not changing, and therefore that is impossible; but you equate concepts that are not equivalent, one changing, the other not, and you decide that the two concepts are equivalent, while they are not.

This was a classic case of that. You showed that the moral system is both changing and not changing, and you built your argument around that. But you only had to see, which I hope to have shown, that the system is not changing; it is the direction of the hurtful action that is the parameter that creates the change, the system itself is unchanging.
The cave and city argument observes the duality of change and no-change, and observe that relativistic morality is dependend fundamentally on time/space localities, while constant morality includes both those localities while simultaneously transcending above them but not itself. Consistent morality, maintains itself in a law of reflection such as the golden rule. The golden rule, through the problem of relativistic time/space localities observes branches from it such as do not murder, steal, etc. that may be required in certain environments are are inapplicable in others.



(***) Then you cited an example in which you do not change with the system. I wish you to show an actual, real life, albeit possibly imaginary situation, in which your moral judgment is OPPOSITE or UNAFFECTED when you are being materially hurt by another's action which you deem unjust.
Social Isolation and Social integration, as examples through the cave/city example, happens practically in real life as both conditions are observed by the individual at one time or another.


You see, anyone can say "the speed of light is C, but take the example when the speed of light is five miles per hour." This is what you did: "The morality is relative, but if I defy that morality, then I am immoral." No. You can't defy that morality, and if you can, then please show the imaginary or real example where you defied morality as per the paragraph immediately before this one, marked (***)

Go wild, JohnDoe7. Spare no expletives.
Why?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Gnostic Christianity’s hidden in plain sight secret. We must do evil.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

-1- wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:37 pm """"JohnDoe7 worte: The law of stealing may not be applicable to life in a cave, but suicide as a form of murder applies as a standard do not.""""

What does this mean? You use two verbs again in one sentence, which destroys the entire meaning: "Suicide... applies... do ...". This is a garbled utterance which I quoted.
Why should I take grammar lesson's from someone who claims to be a failed writer?

The following sources claim it is not only possible but legitimate under certain circumstances:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=can+there+ ... =QBRE&sp=1
https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-sentence



I parsed it this way: The law of stealing (noun or subject of sentence 1) may (verb of sentence 1) not be applicable (predicate of sentence 1) to life in a cave (adverbial phrase of sentence 1), but suicide (subject of sentence 2) as a form of murder (qualifier of subject of sentence 2) applies (verb of sentence 2) as a standard (qualifier of unnamed predicate of sentence 2) do (second verb of sentence 2; nonsensical) not (qualifier of predicate of verb 2 of sentence 2 which is unnamed).

Go, JohnDoe7, shower me with expletives.
In all truth I think you want me to start swearing. But what good would it do? In all truth I think you are cracking up, that is not much a surprise considering late middle age and career failures make poor bedfellows.
Post Reply