• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  TeChNoWC
  January 2, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  It is most often that those who profess the relativity of ethics do so as an excuse to enact so called evil. However, I think Molzahn is trying to actually profess relativity for purely philosophical means. However, he did not present this in his explanation.
• 
  grant
  January 6, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Still waiting for you to reveal your revelation.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  January 14, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  God blesses those who seek Him earnestly, grant. Keep up with the inquisitive nature, and I am sure you will get there brotha
• 
  Jackymania
  January 22, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  Absoluteness?

  Hi I am new in here..... and found the "nothing is absolute" comment to be interesting. I have come to believe in that three word meaning in total. Einstein did assert that mathematical concepts cannot be absolute, and therefore can only be relative. Relativity is a necessity for humans. For how do we see, acknowledge and judge what is good and evil. Absolute conceptions or ideas are a psychological response to an intellectual curiosity of knowing the unknown or may be its pretension.
  Here we can come to the other side, the flip side of the argument.
  The functional value of absoluteness is evident if we see in the following light. If the unknown is the absolute, (meaning that 'that which is unknown' is absolute).... So absolute may be used in the absolute sense in theory. But in our every day life we have degraded or trivilised the absoluteness of the word absolute by saying and using funny phrases like 'Absolute Truth", 'Yes, absolutely!'...
  It appears it is often used practically as an exaggeration or an emphasis. or may be 'an extra' emphasis. If, that makes sense..ha ha
  
  So yes! Philosophically 'nothing is absolute' stands true for me, while practically ..... it is a American emphasis to say YES! YES!! YES!!!
  
  
• 
  grant
  January 26, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Which part of my comment do you attribute to "crack"?
• • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 26, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    I have never seen a person's aura before. But maybe if I was on crack, I could do it then.
• 
  grant
  January 26, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  You may need crack.

  I was on the chemicals nitrogen/oxygen at the time. I was shown by someone how to see the aura of my own hand a few years ago and so this phenomenom eventually became second nature. It is only phenomena. It is the same way of looking that makes it possible to see sparkles of energy around flowers etc. It just takes someone else to show someone who is open minded. Its about looking past the object by focusing on the negative space around it. Hold your hand to the blue sky away from the sun and look BETWEEN the fingers. When you notice a layer of lighter blue then move your hand slowly and this light layer will follow your hand as if elastic meaning there is a slight delay while the aura catches up to the hand again). For me the sight of large auras around other persons bodies appeared in certain lighting conditions and very accidently (due to not trying to, or not being in the pursuit of them).
• • 
    Xelgaroth
    October 12, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Oh, gag me. Look that light in the negative space between your fingers? That is your eyes going out of focus. When you look at something and do not focus on it, a filmy "light" forms over your eyes. When you focus solely on one object, the area around it is going to appear darker, making the point of focus appear to "glow". It's not mystical, it's not "energy"
    
    it's why when you're in a mostly dark room and you look at a small point of light, your vision will go black around everything except the object. It's your eyes going out of focus. it's a completely natural phenomenon involving looking at something while not focusing on it (i.e., you look at your fingers without focusing on them). I have an open mind. I once nearly bought into that idea. But science and reason give a perfectly logical explanation for this mysterious "light" between our fingers.
• 
  TeChNoWC
  January 26, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  Whatever

  you say grant, whatever you say.
• • 
    grant
    January 26, 2007
    Edit | Reply

    It is.
• 
  grant
  January 26, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  Basically

  once a new concept is allowed to enter one's consciousness it then becomes stored in one's memory as a possibility. And as possibilities are infinite then phenomenal visionary possibilities are expanded. If an unknown concept becomes feared (therefore labelled by the brain as evil) simply for being currently unknown, possibilities are very limited and the brain will only consider probabilities. Probabilities are things that have already been experienced and, therefore, are predictable. The brain, as apposed to the open mind, loves the safe orbit of predictable outcomes.
• • 
    Applehead
    January 27, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Im confused grant, (i know doesn't take much) What seperates the mind from the brain? I like to think i have a pretty open mind, does this mean I dont have many fears? Or is it more because i like to give new experiences or new found knowledge some room to prove itself or not.
• 
  grant
  January 27, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Its important to get our terminology in sinc. There is no seperate mind from brain. The phenomenal human mind IS the brain. When i talk of an "open mind" I mean that the mind is open to the body, and beyond that, all other phenomenal minds and phenomenal bodies. Fears are usefull. They keep us from entering areas that we aren't ready for. There is no point in denying fear. That would be like denying ego. The beauty of the body (if the mind could just step aside from time to time) is that it will absorb fear. The mind, however, tends to try to avoid fear through denial. An open mind will accept fear which allows (now that it is open to and operating with the body) the body to absorb it. The phenomenal body absorbs emotional states (such as fear) in the same way it absorbs food. Food is an energy source, fear is an energy source, all is energy. It will digest the fear, take out the good stuff (nutrients) and excrete whats unnecessary (nutrients being further inroads to understanding). The "good stuff" will be whats needed for growth and the excreted stuff would be discarded as a hinderence for growth at this time. Another time in the future there may be less stuff to excrete as the mind/body might be ready to absorb more. It seems that only DENIAL of one's insecurity (fear, ego etc) blocks any flow between mind and body (but only in the meantime as, inevitably, change will come. It just might arrive in a more painfull manner through disease). Reistance is futile (because change is inevitable). No brain can hold back the flow of life. The brain (as a seperate entity) must surrender eventually. It doesn't matter how many lifetimes this may take.
• 
  Applehead
  January 29, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Thank you for the explanation, i think my phenomenal brain has been looking at this too simply I hear what your sayin and totally relate to the body absorbing fear. This is not the only fear there is though the mind itself fears also. Without these fears we are left defenseless, they are necessary (at present) for survival. I have read about a boy in india who had been meditating under a tree for such a long time with no food or water that he should have been dead. It is questionable as to whether they were feeding him when no one was looking, but if not then that is incredible. Resting the body so much would of course mean he would not need as much fuel so maybe this is how he manages by slowing down his body. And it is also possible to conquer pain with your mind. I have met someone who claimed to see auras although have never seen one myself. Once read a great supposedly factual book about a guy who with help from monks learns to see auras. I think he starts with trees. Anyway all kinds of things maybe possible in this amazing world God gave us.
  
  Your point all support my opinion that controlling this urge to comply with obviously evil doings is possible. Relative my arse if its murder its murder, rape is rape they are wrong. No amount of "well i believe murder to be ok because of my upbringing" is going to change the fact that essentially it is wrong to murder another. Thanks for the support
  
• 
  Molzahn
  February 2, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  THANK YOU

  revelation is as applicable as a knowledge claim as to sight = KNOWLEDGE IS NEVER ABSOLUTE = EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE = REVELATION CANNOT REVEAL ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE
• 
  Molzahn
  February 2, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  aura sceptisim

  objects will refract light, much like a prism. so as the light curves around the object it tends to break it into its spectrum slightly.
  
  Despite this, I still take the aura angle.
• sir oipoo
  February 20, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  Plato

  I would encourage any of you to read the allegory of the cave in Plato's "the Republic"
• • 
    Molzahn
    May 28, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    if you would be so kind, give a brief summary for us

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Molzahn
  October 15, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  exactly, god is the idea of making the unknown comforting by superimposing a constant familiar (positive) element to steady our contentment. Much like a sailor on the nights tide, marking the stars' flickering glow as a guiding (human-like) spirit. -truth or personal truth? from the sailors perspective their is no different, no other truth

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  Paradoxx
  May 8, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  hate to say K.F.,but half the crap on this site isnt philosophy.
• 
  Molzahn
  May 8, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  good and evil usually are references to environmental elements constructive and deconstructive to the preceiver. but construction/deconstruction in its self depends on your standpoint.
  
  
  "god slave to morality" - if good and evil are relative, how can the epitome of good (an absolute good) exist. something absolutely 'good' cannot exist. again, its relative.
• • 
    Alexander Hine
    May 26, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Again, this argment only works on assumptions. "good and evil usually are references to evironmental elements..." Well, no, good and evil have many different meanings, my point is that...Oh, never mind I am too tired. I concede all points...the morons will prevail.
    K. F.
  • • 
      Molzahn
      May 26, 2007
      Edit | Reply

      half wit much?

      "good and evil have many DIFFERENT meanings" = good and evil are relative
• 
  Alexander Hine
  May 26, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  The point I was trying to make was that many people define good and evil in many different ways. That, however, does not "= good and evil are relative". That is like saying (in the past) that many people have different views on whether the earth is round, flat, rectangular etc and concluding that therefore, the shape of the earth is relative. If I murder a family, the evil of my act would not be eliminated just by someone saying - "I don't think that was evil, I think it was good."
  Look, I think morality is absolute (for humans anyway, there could be very different standards for intelligent animals or an advanced alien race) and you don't, that is fine. But just don't pretend that it is an inalienable fact. And please don't call me a half wit, I am at least a two-thirds wit.
  K. F.
• 
  Molzahn
  May 27, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  a quantum physist might say the earth is in the shape of a folded hypersphere. The point is, interepretations of a common perception may differ, but that does not mean there are not varying frequencies of perception.
  
  consider those who think killing life is wrong. If that ideal is absolute, what about pesticides or swating a fly? We look at the situation and measure that because we do not sense sentience in the victim, that it is not wrongful. we cannot feel remorse for something we can not empathise with. the entire microscope universe is removed from any form of guilt or responsibility.
  
  (if you consider a storm a form of life) I'm sure that a storm has no reaction to what it is unconscious to, it would hold no values alike our own.
  
  Yes, there are codes/guidelines to what is right and wrong, set by the averages of our empathic responsiveness. but even these laws are questioned, reformed, and changed. hinting towards a moral code relative to the time.
  
  You would not call a 'mentally instable' person evil for any ill behaviour, infact, we recognize that they are on a different plane of perception.
  
  ----
  there, thats two thirds of my arguement =P
• • 
    Alexander Hine
    May 28, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Oh...I didn't realise that quantum physicists contested that the earth was round. I don't know what a folded hypersphere amounts to I'm afraid. Quantum physics is fascinating though.
    If a moral ideal requires different degrees of absolutism in practice (due to the simple constraints of living, eg. even vegetarians, like myself, must 'kill' vegetables to live) that does not actually prove that morals themselves are relative. And, no, you would not call a mentally unstable person evil for poor behaviour, however you would lock them away, or medicate them for the sake of society. Also, I would not include people whose brains are functioning in an abnormal manner (sorry, is that prejudice?) under those bound by human morality - as they are not wholly human in a normative sense. Anyways, that last bit is a bit irrelevant and very controversial...I even find it a bit offensive.
    Basically I don't think the fact that we kill bacteria each day proves morality wrong, in fact it is very in line with traditional Biblical morality, in which man's life is seen as being worth more than other creatures. I don't strictly believe in Biblical morality (as understood by Christianity) but I think it takes a fair shot.
    I am enjoying this discussion, please do reply.
    K. F.
  • 
    Alexander Hine
    May 28, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Oh, and by the way. Thankyou for addressing my first post so well. You may remember that my qualm with the topic was that it presented no real arguments and took moral relativism for granted (without qualification). You, on the other hand, present very interesting arguments and try to back up your moral relativism with them. Oh, and I don't think moral absolutism is necessarily true...I believe it is, in some sense, but - as with my Theism - I admit the possibility that i am wrong.
    K. F.
• 
  Molzahn
  May 28, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  "I would not include people whose brains are functioning in an abnormal manner"
  so who defines the norms? biblical standards? so whos interpreting these standards? The problem comes when we dehumanize cultures or groups. Stereotypes such as "evil" have never brought this world any good. the knights templar, the japanese (WW2), iraqis of today etc. What do we define as human? or of human quality?
  
  "in which man's life is seen as being worth more than other creatures"
  empathy, empathy, empathy
  
  "...I even find it a bit offensive."
  by saying they are on a different plane of perception?
  
  
  hah, i like your style. you start off with a harsh tongue, but I admire how you follow through and consider other thoughts. subborn maybe, but open minded surely.
• • 
    Alexander Hine
    June 1, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    Yes, well I've learnt that my thoughts never stay the same for more than a month max., so it is best not to be too hard on others (though sometimes I am) as I may one day agree with them. Well, defining norms is a tricky thing. I think it has (or should have) to do with what behaviours most benefit a harmonious society - though even that can become dangerous (look at the Nazis). Morality, morality. It is something I cling to and genuinely believe in, though I am often struck by how delicately the threads of my mind grasp and lose its foundations. Anyways, thanks for the kind words,
    K. F.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

• right now

  Adding your comment:
• 
  grant
  January 1, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  "God is the supreme measure". A very relativist comment. A measure of what? A measure of good or bad as YOU see it. YOU are this god. The one that measures (judges). It is very convenient and self fulfillingly prophetic to subscribe to a god of your own moral code. A code RELATIVE to how YOU think. It is relative BECAUSE you measure it up against, say, ones that have sex outside wedlock. Who cares? The only observer is you, but as long as you judge that which you observe then you are not truely observing. Judging is not being objective and objectivity is true observation. Judging/measuring is a subjective exercise BECAUSE it is RELATIVE to what one thing is (eg, unmarried sex vs married sex) when placed beside another thing. Your comments are the example and epitome of RELATIVISM.
• 
  keyman7
  January 2, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Within life, I find that there is some moral code I am constantly holding others in comparison to, even as you indicate. I make judgements on the morality of actions in terms of my perception of how they match up to the moral code. But there is something that puzzles me. If indeed I am the creator and master judge of this moral code as you seem to indicate, then why do I hold myself accountable to it? When I disobey it, I feel a sense of guilt and when I adhere to it, I feel a sense of justification. As I believe Hume or Berkeley would ask, why would I hold myself accountable to my own creation? In point of fact, it makes no sense that I would. For this reason, I believe my judgement and measurement in terms of the moral code is not of my own person, but of another and this is God. I do not claim to be completely right. I merely make an objective claim with how things match up according to my perspective.
• 
  grant
  January 3, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  As you said, it is how things match up to YOUR perspective. And as it is YOUR perspective then it is your SUBJECTIVE view. Not an objective one. It is YOU that chooses to feel guilt. It is YOU that chooses to feel justified. YOU feel these things "according to" your "perspective" of a god. Everyones perspective of a god is a subjective one even if it is a shared one as in a particular religion. It is an evangelical motive that requires confirmation by as many shared subjective views as possible which is just playing a numbers game. It is the human condition. The human condition of feeling guilty or justification due to one's conditioned (cultural, family) thought processes. None of it is real. It is ALL a game. I am an advocate of observing the game rather than becoming the game. It is to become aware of my own games by simply objectively observing myself. And that means to not judge myself (good or bad) because my self is a conditioned construct. My true "self" observes this conditioning without judgement. It is "to be in the world, but not of it". THIS (non-judgemental observation) is the only REAL game in town. The rest are just normal.
• 
  keyman7
  January 6, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  I maintain my disagreement with you. If indeed I am in control of how I view my own justification or guilt in a given circumstance, then why would I allow myself to go through the hell that often follows? Why would I not avoid the feelings of guilt or even the worries of justification and merely live as a god? I believe the reason is that I am not a god, that I can't in good faith live that way, and that it is not me who holds myself accountable, but a higher order.
• 
  grant
  January 6, 2007
  Edit | Reply

  To me

  you are just avoiding the responsibility that it is up to you to decide to be happy and not for something outside of you to make you happy. The guilt/justification syndrome is just a chemical addiction to drama. The brain is addicted to it's own splitmindedness (it's duality). Its not real. The duality drama keeps the mind "excited" and not bored. The brain avoids boredom at one's peril. Boredom, if allowed (not filled with a myriad of other distractions like other people's dramas or, say, computer games), can become a space for real reflection and contemplation. The thing to remember is that the pain of boredom (of which addictions, such as drama, acts as an aneasthetic) is only withdrawal symptoms. If one lives through these symptoms the real contemplative states manifest.
• • 
    TeChNoWC
    January 25, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    These contemplative states are then used to relieve boredom. Just another stimulus.
  • • 
      grant
      January 25, 2007
      Edit | Reply

      Whatever

      you say techno, whatever you say.
    • • 
        TeChNoWC
        January 25, 2007
        Edit | Reply
        And what is that suppose to mean? Any explanation as to why not?
        
        I am serious, one could easily think that these contemplative states have done nothing in the way of relieving one's boredom (a simple mental construct that can be overcome), how does one make sure that boredom has been overcome? If you were to stop these contemplative states, what would happen? Do you also get withdrawal, etc?
      • • 
          grant
          January 25, 2007
          Edit | Reply
          The only way to find out is to observe your self without judgement. It is not for me to answer because I cannot be in your head. You seem to be judging yourself and using my words for this purpose. Just stop (and allow the boredom to set in).
• 
  keyman7
  January 7, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  Although I do not agree with you fully, I do like your last comment. Indeed, it makes sense to me and is something that I've considered before and read in other philosophies. However, I've never heard it placed upon guilt and justification as such. An interesting argument, to be sure.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free