Has anyone heard of the conscience ?

Is this a doctrine of no words ?

I personally am a Stoic, and IMO this doctrine is the only one that can direct living things thorough the maze of choice to ultimate salvation... the survival of the whole of life.

The conscience directs the arrow of intent before the arrow is fired rather than after, as is the case when there is no direct clear conscience guide to illuminate the way.

Do you obey your conscience or do you, as is the modern case, allow justification to sway you away from the clear path ?

If your doctrine has words, haven't you already created justification and fouled your nest ?

Has anyone heard of the conscience ?

Is this a doctrine of no words ?

I personally am a Stoic, and IMO this doctrine is the only one that can direct living things thorough the maze of choice to ultimate salvation... the survival of the whole of life.

The conscience directs the arrow of intent before the arrow is fired rather than after, as is the case when there is no direct clear conscience guide to illuminate the way.

Do you obey your conscience or do you, as is the modern case, allow justification to sway you away from the clear path ?

If your doctrine has words, haven't you already created justification and fouled your nest ?

this teeters on the brink of preaching your belief system.
however, it is an interesting proposition when viewed in light of mahayana buddhism.

Do you obey your conscience or do you, as is the modern case, allow justification to sway you away from the clear path ?



It is not always easy to determine whether the voice in the head is guilt, habit, or somethign more loving.

I do think that splits are not necessary, but also respect the enormous bravery it takes to let the different parts of the self come together.

If you stop listening to unloving voices (internal or external) often emotions will come up.

Most traditions tell one to disidentify with those emotions.

That is another split.

Just realized this is sort of preachy. I won't erase what I've written, but I will try to shift the focus.

Can we be concrete about what conscience is and any other voice in the head and relate this to various religions?

Conscience seems to me a very Christian notion, or Abrahamic.
'if you do that you are being bad'
'don't look at her, she is not your wife'
'imagine how you wuold feel if someone said that to you'

A kind of rule based evaluation system with a critical relationship to the rest of the self.

I think Buddhism does this also, but in a less personal and more practical way. (I use practical not in a complimentary way. I don't mean it is better. I simply mean that the voices here are goal focused - enlightenment, oneness, etc. I see the voices here also functioning to reinforce splits in the self, disidenfication is more the name of the game. But it has less of that personal, you are bad energy.

Mystical Hinduism, as I experienced it, is very similar to Buddhism here, though often their is a focus on generating certain specific emotions, love (Bhakti) rather than disidentifying from the 'bad' ones.

Has anyone heard of the conscience ?

Is this a doctrine of no words ?

I personally am a Stoic, and IMO this doctrine is the only one that can direct living things thorough the maze of choice to ultimate salvation... the survival of the whole of life.

The conscience directs the arrow of intent before the arrow is fired rather than after, as is the case when there is no direct clear conscience guide to illuminate the way.

Do you obey your conscience or do you, as is the modern case, allow justification to sway you away from the clear path ?

If your doctrine has words, haven't you already created justification and fouled your nest ?

i believe at the moment i have 3 voices in my head and the "decision maker" which decides which of the voices it would be most prudent/satisfying to listen to at any given time.

3 voices
mmmh, conscience, needs desires, and selfish justification for your eventual action??

I definitity have at least 2, one intelligent and one a moron, LOL
the intelligent feeds the moron.. strange eh ?

it think they are

logical
emotional
the third one is similar to the emotional one but more childish

and the overlord is akind of mix of all three leaning heavily towards the logical part.

words and even some logic is tricky. It can be used to deceive and obstruct. Logic is also a set maze to an end but not necessarily the only route. When you just view a situation it it's entirety without all the mumbo jumbo logic of shoulds, shouldnots and hasbeendones, you can start to see other avenues or solutions. You actually start to "see."

I think that I have four influences in my psyche; mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical. They each have something valuable to add to my life as long as I can keep them in balance. The problem is that when you get them together they act like four hungry tyrants fighting over a scrap of meat.

this teeters on the brink of preaching your belief system.
however, it is an interesting proposition when viewed in light of mahayana buddhism.

It looks to me to be identical to buddhism.

Whatever ism it is, it is the way, as atested to by all the clear thinkers of the past.

How do we get back to the garden ?

By seeing that you haven't left the garden.

Whatever ism it is, it is the way, as atested to by all the clear thinkers of the past.

How do we get back to the garden ?

according to the doctrine you set forth above, i would say that you get back to the garden by not caring if the garden exists or not.

this is nearly philosophy, though...and has no real place here in the comparative religion subforum unless it is actually being compared to something.

try: mahayana buddhism.
give me a comparison! :)

Buddha said:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire."

That looks like stoicism to me.

Buddha said: "Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire." That looks like stoicism to me.Or sheer asceticism. Taken to an extreme it could argue for the demise of civilization.

Or sheer asceticism. Taken to an extreme it could argue for the demise of civilization.

I'd say civilization is leading to the demise of civilization.

>>> try: mahayana buddhism.
give me a comparison! >>

Start me off, with some of your insights, please.

I am sure the doctrine of no words was spoken in all great religious philosophies, and that was when the prophets justified the breaking of the unspoken creed because the way of the unspoken creed had been already lost.

To get back to the garden is to become one with and absolutely knowing they are one with you and all is one in LIFE. Sanity is envoked.

Preaching deleted by moderator.
You are free to do that in the Religion or Philosophy forums.

Thanks for your judgement..... do you know what this thread is about ?
I do not take kindly to censorship or censureship.

Did you have a complaint ?

Or sheer asceticism. Taken to an extreme it could argue for the demise of civilization.
Agreed. Siddhartha agreed as well, which is why he left the ascetic path fairly early on.
Has anyone heard of the conscience ?

Is this a doctrine of no words ?
To be honest, the opening post makes very little sense to me. What I am missing that links these two questions into a single idea?

I think it you means you don't have to be told right from wrong. You know it without words.

to know without thinking, your thought process not needed, like light shining that you see instantly without hesitation,

you know what must be done before you think about it.


peace,

yes,

But it seems big brother is on my back so soon, so cy'all.

I do not like the smell here.

If we know without having to think about it, then why do cultures differ in thier practices?

Why is it normal and accepted to marry a cousin in one culture, when it is morrally abhorent in another? Why is it ok to kill a man in one culture, when it is morally abhorent in another? Why do people with disassociative disorders lack empathy for other beings, and tend to have no remorse, and therefor no regulation other than threat of detention, for violent action against others - something considered morally abhorent to our culture?

The statement that we all know what's right and wrong without being taught those rules does not seem to play out in the world.

Sounds like you're actually saying there is no right and wrong.

To paraphrase Buddha: it's bad to feel guilty about what one shouldn't feel guitly about. It's bad not to feel guilty about what one should feel guilty about.

Some cultures say what isn't inherently wrong is wrong. Some cultures say what is inherently wrong isn't. Some people lack conscience. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as conscience which is independent of culture.

But it also doesn't mean that there is a universal conscience independent of culture.

There does seem to be a number of general basic actions which cause people to be unhappy. I might be willing to agree to this small set of items as a 'universal' morality. However, the root and result of that set - the meaning of it, especially in light of people who are born without that built in system - seems to be up in the air.

So are you saying somethings are right and somethings are wrong or not? Or is it all relative?

I'd say it's all relative. Even the most horrible acts can be positive in the right (extreme) situation.


Much of what people in my culture would classify under conscience/bad is only there because they were taught that it was bad. How many children hit, tease, steal, etc? How many do not show remorse for those actions prior to being taught otherwise?

Well, if their being taught "remorse" it seems like they are being taught to empathise and recognize that they shouldn't make someone feel a way they wouldn't want to feel. In other words the child automatically recognizes the "golden rule" otherwise they wouldn't actually be feeling remorse, they'd just be avoiding pain.

We're basically discussing nature vs nurture here; being taught to empathize suggests that they don't feel remorse innately. They feel pain and sadness and 'bad' innately; most have to be taught to apply those feelings to other people in order to understand why they don't want to create 'bad' in someone else.

Disassociative disorders are a perfect killer of any "universal morality" for me - it seems that people with these conditions cannot even be taught empathy. Morality is not universal as long as there is a genetic (read: innate, and largely inescapable) component to their inability to feel empathy. Looking at the disorder in adoption cases with prior biological family history (in other words, genetics is much more likely a cause than the parenting of the adoptive family) suggests that genetics plays a significant role. And if a person cannot feel empathy for hereditary reasons, then 'universal' is a dead adjective of morality.

What I was saying is that for a child to act morally 2 things have to happen.
1) They must be able to empathise with the other person (recognise how the other person is feeling)
2) Not wish to make that person feel bad by recognising that they would not want to be treated bad (the golden rule).
So it is the recognition of the golden rule as a universal which is at the basis of morality. People with disassociative disorders lack an ability to empathise with others or to care about anyone but themselves. This means they don't have morality not that there isn't a universal morality. In toher words just because some people can't recognise right from wrong doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. Or am I wrong?

Buddha said:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire."

That looks like stoicism to me.

Stoicism is more a grit your teeth and bear it in the face of problems type of thing. One can desire as long as one is still good at gritting one's teeth when problems arise. Buddhism seeks to go toward what it thinks is the problem by eliminating desire itself.

Disassociative disorders are a perfect killer of any "universal morality" for me - it seems that people with these conditions cannot even be taught empathy. .

I don't think you are using dissociative disorders correctly here. Many people with DDs can empathize. I think you are talking about sociopaths.

Buddha said:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire."

That looks like stoicism to me.

So Grantywanty, you don't think this quote by Buddha also applies to stoicism?

That is possible. The term is a bit of a blanket name for any case in which a normal part of the system is cut off from the rest of the psyche. The cases in which I'm referring are specifically dealing with Emotional Detachment and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Namely, those cases in which grover's step #2 simply doesn't work, and it causes great functional problems in life. Much higher risk of criminal behavior (in particular in violent ways), increased chance of addiction, self-involvment to the detriment of personal relationships, etc, etc.
This means they don't have morality not that there isn't a universal morality.
But if they don't have it, then it isn't Universal, is it? I'd accept "very common", though.
In toher words just because some people can't recognise right from wrong doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. Or am I wrong?
What about the common morality quizes? "You see a train full of 25 elderly people heading toward a baby sitting on the tracks. There is a switch in front of you that will divert the train away from the baby, but right into a brick wall. Not switching the tracks will certainly cause the baby to be killed, but switching them will certainly kill everyone on-board the train."

Then what about the two common alternates to that question: "Swap the baby for an overwieght, middle-aged man" and "The train is heading towards the baby, but you are on a bridge overlooking the scene; standing next to the large middle-aged man. In order to save the baby, you have to push the man off the bridge into the path of the train - his wieght will stop it, but the impact will kill him and possibly some people on the trian."

Studies show that people tend to apt for saving the baby in version 1, letting the middle-aged guy die in version 2, and letting the baby die in version 3.

What does that say about a universal morality?

Saying that there is a universal morality is not the same as saying that morality is universal.

If there was a universal moratlity, but no people around to follow it, would it still exist, then?

I was considering this over the weekend, and could only come to one conclusion. If a morality existed outside of the people that followed it, (as a sort of field, let's say) but a single person existed that could not tap into that field and access this morality, then could the field still be considered universal?

Even though the field exists in and around him, he is not able to use it, no matter how much he might want to. Effectively, it is just as useful to him as if it didn't exist at all.

If a person was born that didn't have the ability to be effected by gravity, then could gravity still be considered a universal force?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it does it make a noise?

Wrong "analogy". A tree is a material object and by falling creates physical sound waves that affect the surroundings.

Morality is a concept of psyche, i.e., it's a biochemical and electrical process.
If there are no brains, there is no morality.

If a person was born that didn't have the ability to be effected by gravity, then could gravity still be considered a universal force?
Such philosophycal questions are quite useless, because you can not go around natural laws.

So Grantywanty, you don't think this quote by Buddha also applies to stoicism?

No. Stoicism to me is a system of not reacting emotionally, or getting caught up in emotions that comes with those reactions. That part shares something with Buddhism. But desire, which is forward looking/seeking is not a problem for a stoic. If what you desire does not come to you, then the Stoic and the Buddhist are fairly aligned, but the Buddhist goes further as in that quote, but trying to root out desires. I could imagine some Stoics seeing this as cowardly. A true Stoic can keep his or her desires AND STILL keep cool when disappointed or thwarted.

(I find both philosophies demand one be split against yourself, so they are not appealing to me personally, but for slightly different reasons.)

Such philosophycal questions are quite useless, because you can not go around natural laws.

So then it's a perfect example! If you cannot go around natural laws, but people with the disorders I'm talking about are "going around" this suggested universal morality, then clearly it is not a "natural law".

So then it's a perfect example! If you cannot go around natural laws, but people with the disorders I'm talking about are "going around" this suggested universal morality, then clearly it is not a "natural law".

These people may only appear to be "going around" these natural laws.

No. Stoicism to me is a system of not reacting emotionally, or getting caught up in emotions that comes with those reactions. That part shares something with Buddhism. But desire, which is forward looking/seeking is not a problem for a stoic. If what you desire does not come to you, then the Stoic and the Buddhist are fairly aligned, but the Buddhist goes further as in that quote, but trying to root out desires. I could imagine some Stoics seeing this as cowardly. A true Stoic can keep his or her desires AND STILL keep cool when disappointed or thwarted.

(I find both philosophies demand one be split against yourself, so they are not appealing to me personally, but for slightly different reasons.)

Granty, for the record that quote I attributed to Buddha was actually by Epictetus, a stoic. So...you might want to rethink your stance a little bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism (see quotes at bottom of page).

These people may only appear to be "going around" these natural laws.

Please explain further, I don't follow.

thanks!

What you are saying boils down to this: Because some people do not act morally that is proof that there are no moral laws.

Whereas, what I am arguing, is not that all people are moral, but that when people act morally they are following the same absolute moral law (which essentially boils down to the golden rule).

What I'm saying is that there are no Absolute or Universal moral rules as soon as one person alive cannot access them. I'm not saying 'as soon as one person chooses not to act morally', but when a person is not able, by the design of thier being, to know those rules, then my claim follows.

They may still exist for every other living person, but they can not longer be truthfully given either of those titles.

Are there absolute truths?

I don't think we know that.
But anything, which is going to be described as truth, won't, because human perception and expression is limited by the subjectivity of that person.

Well, what I was getting at is just because someone is too stupid to realize a truth it doens't prove the truth doesn't exist. The same way if someone is too morally retarded.

Must the person be stupid?

It could be said that a defining characteristic of humanity is our lanaguage. Do we call a person unable to speak "stupid"? Can we call language universal when there are people who physically cannot speak?