Gendy: Damnit! I want to watch that movie so bad now. I really should get it on DVD. Push down the urge. Settle. Settle. Ok. Ok, I see that you've changed wordling to worldling. Worldling: One who is absorbed by worldly pursuits and pleasures. Pretty much. Not necessarily pleasures, but the world is what we have so... Are you not a worldling? Do you seek bliss in heaven with Southstar? Odd. I had you pegged for a realist. Should I reconsider? Oh, missed this edit too. If I use it in the regular way then why did you paste in the definition? I feel that I was using it differently, myself. I think I've been using it in a way that details... social dynamics. Not right, not wrong, not ethics, not good, not evil, just what works for the group. A binding principle for the group. The mechanics of this binding principle are up for grabs. In the simple non-abstract minds of the feral children it is a pleasure/pain response. It feels good to be accepted by the group, it feels bad to not be accepted. There are also other factors such as in obtaining high standing within the group, finding a mate within the group, etc... All these can be based on simple pleasure/pain responses. In this essence they would be much like the narcisissm that we were speaking of earlier. Perhaps not the literal definition of the word, but I feel that since we are speaking english, an ambiguous language, we can use the terms ambiguously, can we not? Is this not our right? In higher animals, animals that are able to deal in more abstract things, us, this pleasure/pain response becomes buried amidst all the abstractions. But, at the root of the matter is still the same thing as a simple pack of social animals. We have heaped meaning and hyperbole on top of it, but it's still a simple thing at it's base. This is what I mean by looking at the small. At the root of the matter. This certainly adds another dimension to it. A further layer of abstraction. But, I say that ethics is a fiction based on the earlier motivations. If it were covered with enough abstraction and hyperbole, I probably would. And ask for seconds while I was at it. What you mean genius saw none? Genius clearly saw. My genius. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The word describes a person who sees the world as the elders have shown him, Simplicio. One so manicured with contemporary blandness he's become sleeping lead. To answer your question: No. You were thinking of wordly. Then why say this? "I say there's little difference (between narcissistic boolean values and the abstracts right and wrong) . The means or the ends? Which is important? Remember, thinking small (which isn't always a bad thing.)" I too am not a beliver in lawlessness- from the ant to the antelope life is regulated by some code that makes order, looesely translated as jungle law. The problem is that you, a modern degenerate, lack consistency in your thinking. You're mistaking ambiguously with inconsistency. The latter a disservice to dialogue. How early is a good question for you. I mentioned you thinking small becuase you stumbled in trying to see the early tribe as an idividual. Trouble seeing the difference between loyalty and conscience. Expected. Allright. Can you see this one: The infant has no conscience until one is beaten into it, softly with dogma or brusquely with the righteous vulgarity of its parents. He in turn reflects the behaviour patterns of ferrals, autistics and schizoids.
It is quite simple: Whatever one says, one says from a POV. If I say "X is good", this is not an absolute statement -- X can only be "good" in comparison to Y. One cannot not have a POV. I really hate it when "semantics" are regarded as a reason of some misunderstanding. Different words mean different thought processes. Of course it changes: but it is always there, in some form. This is seriously screwed. What does it matter if they aren't real?! The fun, the thrill you have at watching a movie IS real, isn't it?! I was reading "Das Rolandslied", an account of the wars of the Christians against the Heathens in 778, written down in the 12th century. The text goes on saying how "men cried, ruffled their beards, weaped" upon seeing their fellow men dead. On the previous page, as well as on the next one, there are numerous descriptions of how one man decapitated, chopped an arm off of another man, how they waded in blood, the ground covered with bodies so thick one couldn't touch the earth ... I think it's amazing that inmidst of those killings, men cried and weaped, were deeply hurt over the loss of other fighters. One would really not expect to see such things in a text so full of killing. That's what I think too. Re-establishing the ancient individuality. Re-establishing the One Man. Within an advanced society, this is a compensation -- as good as it gets. Of course there are "only atoms and the void" in reality. But we don't live there. We live in our thoughts, this is where we know ourselves and others, and only here: and here, there is good and bad, sweet and sour, and everything else that is something to us.
9 in 10 people don't know themselves. 9 in 10 people don't know others. 9 in 10 people live in a world that stops at their nose. A philosopher asks why this is and finds the reasons beaming from classrooms, and synagogues, and mosques, and scared little units called families that are no longer cemented by the warmth of identity. I'm speaking of re-evaluation of these dictums that are used against the individual, nothing new really- but essential in self-respect. I also read the accounts of the third estate rejoicing at the gulloitine. A peasent woman bringing her dogs up to the base in order to lick the blood for lunch. I also read of Talamacus (sp?) jumping in between two gladiators defending his cause in the name of Christianity, and getting chopped to bits by the both of them. We are aggressive beasts- let me punch you in the nose so hard that it bleeds, Rosa. Your reaction, your impulse immediately after- that's truth.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Uh, Das Rolandslied is one big braggary of Christians beating the Heathens in the name of Christ. It is very disgusting, actually. "And the Christians were brave soldiers, wearing many jewels, gold and precious stones -- and it suited them, for they were marching in the name of the lord Jesus Christ. The Heathens were brave soldiers, wearing many jewels, gold and precious stones -- and it helped them nothing, for they were follwing the devil" 200 pages of this. Ah, but this is NOT ALL there is. Such reductions are really beasty. Humans have a wide range of emotions, and what is wrong is to focus only on one part of that wide range. We can do so many things, we can be so many things -- so many, that we became scared of ourselves. It is hard to accept that the same hand that gives you the sweetest caresses can also kill. But it is also only the hand that gives the sweetest caresses that can kill, and only the hand that kills can give the sweetest caresses. This, in time, became reserved for God. Everything else is mediocrity, necessity, commodity or cowardice -- so "humanly".
Conscience did not "evolve naturally". It is a relatively recent creation (and I don't mean to imply here it was a conscious creation on the part of individuals) provoking a simple reaction to the thought of going against a larger entity in which one finds comfort. Now, it is given names such as "love", "compassion" and "respect", but these simply serve as coatings for the word in order to make them more palatable - as Gendanken said, crowd control. Witness the events in Iraq, to use a commonly known event. While the "tribe" has beliefs directly in conflict with another and results in conflict, the aftermath betrays the significance of the tribe itself being lost in a "greater ideal" - as after WWII with Germany, America now seeks to pick Iraq up from the ground, dust it off and show its compassion. It cannot maintain its own existence without a bow in the direction of the very ideals it has come to espouse - Humanity. Man now "owes" everyone, regardless of their deserving of it or not. Freud: This replacement of the power of the individual by the power of the community consitutes the decisive step for a civilization" And in its taking of that step, and then another and another, becoming larger with each, conscience is becoming the rallying cry of civilisation. Man no longer sees himself as an individual, or as belonging to a "tribe" - he believes in a natural, universal conscience which, if he goes against, makes him not a man, and his community as only a smaller part of the whole. Over time, it has become a universal "truth" rather than being seen for what it is. "Dr. Strangelove" would have us see a group of puppeteers, in the background, snidely chuckling with sidelong, knowing glances at each other, yanking on strings to make the masses move in the direction they want them to go. I see something different - power is in the hands of those who believe in the the amorphous mass of humanity themselves. On the whole, I'd rather believe in the puppeteers. The beast named "humanity" feeds on itself, but rather than this feeding diminishing it, it becomes stronger in doing so. Invert: You start by denying a universal "conscience" or morality. With the second quote, you betray your own belief in the current one, and then with the third both deny and justify that belief by saying it is something which evolved in man rather than it being a creation (thereby relieving yourself of the need to justify your own part in it - the need to make a choice).
That is not true, the human child still feels pangs of guilt before "one is beaten into it". Again, In a study on crime and personality, psychologist H. J. Eysenck noted that criminal activity is restricted to a relatively small segment of society. He points out that most people lead law-abiding lives. Dr. Eysenck observes, for example, that True, it is necessary for one to reach accountability before a conscience kicks in, but not even anthropology has ever been able to evince any record of a society lacking conscience. I am not entirely disagreeing with you, but I do feel you are downplaying the issue a bit too much. For example, you do not need to teach a child how to steal or tell a lie. But rather you must correct the child in the right way. This does not however mean that the child feels totally confident telling a lie to an adult as opposed to telling the truth. This is evidence of conscience at work. The lump in the throat.. the pounding heart.. it's all evidence of conscience even at this point in one's life, and the child stands accused by it's own conscience. The conscience finally manifests itself in a sort of denouement, the releasing of this guilt when the lie has been confessed and the wrong has been "righted". No parent has to teach a child to respond in this manner, obviously. I do agree however that there are certain circumstances (as with autistics and so on) where an understanding of the deeper issues of life is not sufficient enough for the conscience to be manifest. This, however, is no evidence whatsoever that they do not have a conscience, but simply that it is not manifest. For example babies cannot logically be guilty of any crime, even though their maddening cries should be deemed criminal Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, but the eventual manifestation of their conscience (not regulated by age, but by "maturity") allows them to do by nature the things required by law and their conscience bears witness of their actions and thereby their thoughts accusing or even defending them (as I showed with the lying child scenario).
Southstar: Particular feelings of guilt is not conscience. We need to clear things up, it seems. The immediate whiff of guilt that a poodle gets after its bitten you is the same instinctual phenomena felt and expressed by the infant. Particular pangs of guilt differ from the omnipresent despondecy that is conscience. Think of conscience as a general anxiety that we have in response to our universe and other people- it lingers always in the background like a bad smell and it can stink up the curtains. But you do neet to teach it to feel ashamed of itself, of its body and instincts, its impulses, needs and desires. You do have to teach it reverence and courtesty and all those cute little tools that make people like him. Those very things that are supposed to keep bad people off his property and out of his business yet it does not. Now watch his suprise in school one day to find that his fellow men are not the respectful angels he's expecting but vindictive, agreessive beasts picking on his weaknesses. I must say you are alot more pleasent to converse with once when you are not pushing Christian agendas. Wonderful. I too do not entirely disagree with you. Wolf: Slash. But you should have left the quotes only on the naturally. Conscience evolved externally and was perfected by elders. It required a degree of awareness in its host in order to invade its pshye and enslave it. Freud would have it that its distlled from only the fear of authority and fear of the super-ego; in laymens terms super-ego is guilt frozen on the inside as something like Siberia holding its host in chains. The infant's and the poodle's guilt has not frozen. I take it further- a Supra-Ego of sorts that has made modern man a debtor and humanity a fat tax collector sitting in his living room. Why? Authority is now everyone in a world wher the Nephalim prole is now possible. We are expected to bow to him and feed him and those detracting from this tribute he alieantes from the commune. Its those that can laugh at this alienation that I've found only in the murderer and the spiritually homeless. Respect paid in pennies of courtesy. FUCK YOU ALL. Therefore this power now is in everyone's hands- which is what I meant with this statement: Again, respect is a luxury based on modern presumptions- the Negro was once a mule kept in the stable but now he is feared. So is the maid. This is what I mean by the omnipotence of murder, homicide is suicide now that Nephalim walk the earth again. Men used to fear men in armor, on thrones and on horses. In a globalized world where humanity is One, one man, any man, is presumed to wear, sit and ride all three simultaneoulsly. Vert: I read somewhere that much of the confusion concerning collectivism versus the individual has much to do with the clarity we use on what we feel makes a unit and what does not. Camus writes this in The Rebel, wondering what a wordling re-evaluating his worlds system acutally means when he says 'no' to it: "He means, for example, that 'This has been going on for too long..' or 'Up to this point I say yes, beyond it no' . In other words his No affirms the existence of a borederline....' This borderline would be the margin's of one's tribe or one's Self that is left after the catharsis. Conscience is what obligates you to the whole since humanity subjugates its components by incarcerating your pride with your guilt- it can magically hold yourself against you privately where even the intent of doing something invokes guilt: you fear losing humanity's comfort and so you respond to its whims with respect. It makes you think in superficial terms like reputation, and watch all the torture it can put you through in your trying to keep it intact. Loyalty is what draws you to both freely give and receive in one's pride. Diffucult in a world so adamant in smearing our energies globally. See or no see? Repuation dies and means nothing in the warmth and truth of loyalty.
Gendanken, (This was written before your latest post and doesn't take it into account. I will reply on it later.) Ok, first. Fuck you and your "inconsistency" bullshit. I'm not being inconsistent. You're just misinterpreting me. Expected. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll go over it quote by quote, but first I want to explain myself a bit. Again. Both for your benefit and for those who observe, waiting for weakness. My use of conscience in this thread is a concept in development. This is isn't something I've thought up and held in reserve all shiny and pretty ready for presentation as soon as the opportunity presented itself. No. This is something that came to me as I wrote. That is still coming to me. If you only want completely finished concepts in your threads, I'll get back to you in 30 years or whatever. After I've gone off and became a famous philosopher. How's that? When I'm on my deathbed, I'll wrap up all my finished little pretties and have them delivered to your door. But, even though this is a concept in development, I have not been inconsistent in my statements. At least not in the statements you (and Fenris) have decided to pull out and dissect. You see, you and Fenris both have misinterpreted me. In fact, Fenris seems to contradict himself. But, it's a small contradiction. And I'll get to it in the post directed at him. **Second, thank you for bringing up the concept of loyalty. Accusing me of being a moron and misunderstanding loyalty for conscience. I assure you there is a difference. Loyalty is something that fits within conscience. It is not conscience itself. But, I thank you because by forcing me to think about it, you have allowed me to clear the concept in my head (somewhat) and now I can try to clear it with you. But, I wonder if you'll misinterpret me again? Is it expected? I do begin to expect it. ***Third. I wonder if you realize that you missed another genius connection in your haste to insult me? And that this connection was in regard to an earlier insult by yourself? Did you think I was merely being facetious and witty? Look again. Do you see a connection with the topic at hand? I wonder if you'll see it? I hope so. But my expectations are waning, I'm afraid. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok, the quotes: Not according to any definition I've found. Now, I'm not one to complain. I'd accept your definition if you hadn't made such a big deal over this ambiguous vs. inconsistent thing. Words, Gendanken, they're only words. Tools and nothing more. If you wish to apply a new meaning to a pre-existing word then by all means do so, just make it plain to all involved what it is that you are doing and why. And, as to the original statement of you calling me a 'worldling.' I.e. one of these non-thinkers. Likely one of your 9 of 10. Blah. I dare you to show me where conscience is defined as I have been defining it. And even if you do find some philospher or whatever who espouses a similar concept, it would be mere unconscious plagiarism, as you've put it. Although I don't like that term. To me it says that you've seen the work and are plagiarizing it even if you don't know that you were. I'd prefer convergent thinking. Meaning that two thinkers may think the same thoughts without having any knowledge of the others work. No, I was thinking wordling until I saw that you had mispelled earlier and changed it to worldling. After that I was thinking worldling. I.e. one who is absorbed by worldly pursuits and pleasures. Or perhaps you, another modern degenerate, lack insight into your comprehension. The words in bold are added by you to aid comprehension. Unfortunately, they aid poorly. I didn't say that there is little difference between narcissistic boolean values and the abstracts right and wrong. What I was talking about was this: To an outsider, like yourself, this resembles right and wrong. It makes little difference if it merely resembles right and wrong. It's the ends that matter. Understanding (or rather thinking you understand) right and wrong is mechanics. Interesting but besides the point. This is why I said, "The means or the ends? Which is important?" Both of the above phrases speak of the ends, not the means. They both speak of what works for the group. For the individual. I await your apology, Simplicia. (I wonder, should I take offense at your Simplicio statement? It seems to have negative connotations, but I've always thought of myself as a simple man. Complex and exceedingly strong creations can be built from the simplest of concepts. I'll have to think on this one.) My. I wonder if you realize that I was defending you with that statement? Do you? A bit of ambiguousness involved in your initial post ring any bells? A bit of ambiguousness over the use of the word narcissism ring any bells? Hmm? I, of course, was also referring to my use of the word, conscience. A usage that I had gone to great pains to explain. Inconsistency? You first. Ok, loyalty and conscience. I have been thinking about this. You almost had me at first, because they do seem remarkabley similiar. Loyalty to the group. Binding the group together. But, They are different. Extremely different. What I have been envisioning as 'conscience' is more of a process than a thing. It is not a group of values. Not a group of morals. Not consistent. And not universal. Now, I may need to refine this concept further, because right now, I have two shades of meaning for conscience (three if you count the ordinary meaning). First, as I said, it's a process. It's the means which we use to interpret environmental and social cues and interpret them. We don't create morals from nothing. They are interpreted from our environment. Conscience is the method we use to do so. Second, it is a container for these interpreted 'morals' (I quote morals, because that's not really what they are. It's just what they seem to be. Especially after layers and layers of abstraction.) So, as the box that 'morals' fit into, it is often mistaken for the morals themselves. And in this manner, it is even mistaken to be universal. So, the question is how early is early. Well, I'd say that the very first semi-social animal would be as early as we could go with it. The first time that one animal went up to another animal without the intent of eating that other animal. This would be the first use of a primitive conscience. But, perhaps not entirely. For these animals would likely be instinctual and wouldn't have the means of changing the contents of their box. Of choosing. So, perhaps up the scale a bit. More complex animals. Social animals. Dealing with it's own kind. It's own small group. I imagine that it would be another of those sliding scales. Wouldn't you? I imagine that what you're really getting at is where it went wrong? With that, I'd agree that it's when the groups began to grow unnaturally large. We have changed so fast that our social strategies have not had the opportunity to keep up. Clearer? A bit? That's not necessarily true. It is mostly true but not entirely. The infant has no conscience. On this you are undoubtably correct. But, you can beat that infant all day and night and you're not going to instill a conscience into it. It's not ready for that. You have to wait until it's older. After the limbic system has matured. But, I'm sure that's what you meant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, let's consider a child then. Does a child have a conscience? According to my definition, yes. As the limbic system matures, it naturally starts to incorporate social cues into a logical and consistent schema. But, the question is what will this schema be? Isn't it? And this is a difficult question to answer. It's not all cut and dry, is it? It's easy to say that a child growing up in a poor environment with poor parenting will have a 'trashy' conscience. That his/her value systems will be 'less' than a child who has grown up in a more caring, structured environment. But, this isn't the case, is it? Sometimes kids are 'good.' Sometimes kids are 'bad.' Sometimes there is a clear reason for why a particular child turns out the way he does. Sometimes not. Perhaps it's all in the interpreter? I will agree that a child who is raised in the absence of the 'proper' behaviors for his culture will very likely not incorporate these behaviors spontaneously into his conscience. I imagine that it might happen from time to time, but such a thing would be rare. These questions will not be answered until the forbidden experiment is performed. And on a large number of children. Are you prepared for that eventuality? As to an infant without conscience being like a feral child, autistic, and schizoid. No. An infant is immature. His brain is not capable of the behavior patterns of these more advanced individuals. Even the autistic is more advanced than an infant. How about a child who is raised without the proper stimulation of the conscience? Well, that child would be feral. Schizophrenia is completely different and really has no place in this conversation. And the autistic is in a class by himself as well. A feral child might be any or all of these conditions though. Who knows? Although schizophrenia generally doesn't hit until later in life. I'm no expert on it, but I don't think I've ever heard of a child schizophrenic. I'd say that far less than that know themselves. In fact, I'd venture a guess that no one truly knows themselves. Some may know more of themselves than others, but true knowing is impossible. There can only be interpretations. And to interpret ourselves is the hardest task of all. Much of the interpreters job is to 'explain' the actions of it's invisible partners in such a way that they remain invisible. It is a denier. Very difficult to get past this. This also goes towards 'choosing' how to re-evaluate our 'morals.' We are still a simple species who don't understand our workings very well. To go in and muck about with such ingrained and essential systems is fraught with peril. Great peril. I'm talking extinction here. This is as dangerous as mucking about with eugenics and the like. More dangerous, in fact. However, I do believe that it needs to be done. This conscience has become a recursive loop just like a certain theory on language. We allow ourselves to develop without fully examining the tools which compose us. We choose poorly. We select for the same reasons that our monkey ancestors selected. And we live in a far different world than those ancestors. The loop must be exited. But how? That's the question. It's like a merry-go-round spinning so fast that there is no safe way of exiting. We can close our eyes and jump, hoping for the best. But, in closing our eyes, we simply place ourselves in another loop, correct? Another mad dervish. But, in the words of George Jetson, "Jane, get me off this crazy thing!" Do you know the story that I have tried to relate of the last public beheading? Of the woman that begged and pleaded for her life? The woman that reminded the mob that they did have a heart after all? That's a truth. Not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But, it is truer than the acting that likely preceded the act. Heh. Looks like I agree with Rosa on this one. I just looked down to see her response to this and it's basically the same. It's not so simple as 1, 2, 3. My god. It didn't look this long in wordpad. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
RosaMagika, I still don't understand what this has to do with a universal standard. I defy you to stand in a place where you will have only one concept to compare. If you find that place, then that place would be a place that might very well require a constant to have meaning. But, since there are no constants. That place would be inherently meaningless. Even the child first constructing his conscience has a multitude of concepts to work with. In fact, he has far more concepts than he can work with. He must pick and choose (subconsciously or by teaching) which concepts to concentrate on. So, you say that semantics don't cause misunderstandings? How odd. I begin to feel as though next you'll be espousing a universal language as well. Surely not. So, it's not universal. This is what I have been getting at. For instance, it might be considered good manners and moral sacrifice your first born child in some cultures. Would you relate this to your custom of favoring the first born child in inheritence (not that that's really a custom anymore. In most places.) Just because everyone has a set of 'morals' doesn't make it universal. Universal morals would mean good is good. Bad is bad. It's Gendanken's painting on the wall. Ecco Homo. This is man. Is this what you believe in? It's what Southstar believes. God bestowed morals upon man according to Southstar. Therefore any who have ever had values other than the values he espouses are inherently evil. Is this your assumption as well? Maybe so. But that doesn't change it. This is a law that may not be revoked. It is a law that man thinks himself above. It is a mistake caused by our removal from the food chain. But it's a fallacy. What?! Are you going to tell me that there is no difference in fantasy and reality? You'll be telling me there's unicorns next. I've already given the statement about the right brain not being able to determine that fantasy is not real. That by watching such things we feed the lust for violence in our right brain, but satisfy our interpreted conscience in the left. That's the difference. And a HUGE difference it is. Christians this. Christians that. Christians are capable of great brutality when they demonize the enemy sufficiently, but always they are yearning for peace and companionship. Christians are a recent trend. The christian god is a god of meekness. Ask the jews about who should be cried for. Ask the Romans (before Constantine.) Ask the Greeks. No, man's interpretive mechanism tells him there is a 'right' and 'wrong'. The conscience at this level is abstraction run amuck. WHAT?! You feel this is the christian message? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One Man? Jesus? So, the one man is now an external phenomenon? Someone to look at but not to be? The ancient individuality in an external savior? Egads. That is an odd concept you've just come up with, Rosa. That is very odd. Yes, but that's just it. In our minds is everything of value. And no two minds are alike.
Fenris Wolf, Everything evolves naturally. There is nothing unnatural on the face of this earth. Ahh. Relatively recent. Yes, it is, isn't it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course, life is relatively recent. And, I think that love, compassion, and respect are merely things placed within the box. They are different Crowd control. Absolutely. Group harmony is where it evolved from. America seeks to enforce it's average standard of conscience (the contents of our conscience box and the process by which the box is filled according to our muckety mucks) upon the people of a different value system. This is not compassion. This is aggression. Pure and simple. It's like the Christians telling you that you're going to burn in Hell because Jesus loves you. We want to instill a sense of owing us into Iraq. We want them to be in our debt. That's just it. That's what I've been saying. This system of conscience evolved for a small group. To maintain loyalty within a small group. As the size of the group grew progressively larger and larger, the concept of conscience had to stretch further and further to encompass the new size of the group. And it is an attempt that fails. There is a limit to the size of a manageable group. A group manageable by this primitive concept of conscience anyway. It fails and the result is what we have today. Hypocrisy and disaffection. There is no truth. There is no standard. The group is frayed and torn. The blind mob. There is no head. A recursive loop. How do we get out of it? It moves faster and faster with each generation. It is built up by each successive generation of "thinker" and "philosopher". The abstraction and hyberboles built up on this little pile of shit have become so large and dangerous over the years that it is only with great peril that we can sidestep this thing. Escape the path of this hurtling train. Yet, it must be done. Somehow. Either that or the group must return to a simpler state. And, that will only happen through catastrophe. Dire and foul. Or so it appears to us in our Godliness. In our omnipotence. But, it's all just the chatter of the chatterbox. It's abstraction. Things fall apart because the center does not hold. Rot at the center spreads outward. I don't know if this process that I have defined as conscience might be considered rot. But it is certainly possible that the abstractions that have been made of it, love, compassion, respect, all these things might be symptoms of rot. And, before you decide to accuse me of being inconsistent for calling respect rot while holding respect in high regard, remember that I have said that I am a product of my times. No one escapes their conditioning. No one. Some may think they do, but that's just more chatter. Some may move to the fringes and keep the impact low, but there is no way to completely escape. Unless you escape society. Unless you go to the desert and build your house on the edge of nothingness. Recluse. Hermit. They escape society's conditioning. No others. None. And besides, I'm not so sure on the definitions of rot being involved with these concepts. This concept of conscience is still growing within me. They certainly have their place. But, where is that place? To what extent are they useful? How much must the system be revamped in order to make it fit our society? These are the questions this thread is dealing with, I feel. Half right. I deny a universal standard. I deny a universal moral constant. I don't use the word conscience. Although I could. Why don't I? Because I have been using conscience in a different manner. As a process rather than a constant set of values. Both a process and a container for the morals. So, in the sense of there being a process called conscience, I guess there is a universal conscience. Meaning that we all seek out clues from our environment and our thoughts as to how to act. What is "good" and what is "bad". But, the way in which this is done and the end results of the process differ. So, yes and no. How is my way of offering respect have anything to do with "the current one"? Is there a universal standard? A current universal standard? Seems that you believe so. Interesting. No, because I'm not talking about a constant value system. I'm talking about the force behind it. I'm talking about the box that contains whatever moral system an individual may have. We as individuals still have a choice in what goes in that box. Sorry, try again.
I defy you to stand in a place where you will have only one concept to compare. If you find that place, then that place would be a place that might very well require a constant to have meaning. But, since there are no constants. That place would be inherently meaningless. Even the child first constructing his conscience has a multitude of concepts to work with. In fact, he has far more concepts than he can work with. He must pick and choose (subconsciously or by teaching) which concepts to concentrate on.[/QUOTE] Then go to Wes Morris for a crash course on *POV* and *context*. I said: DIFFERENT WORDS MEAN DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES. Consider conscience as a cup. That cup is always there. What you pour into it, however, may be very different from one person to another, from one time to another. Oh. Oooh. When you laugh at a movie -- is this not a real laugh? When you get goose skin at watching a movie -- is this excitement real or are you just pretending to have goose skin since the stimulus of your excitement is a movie -- something not real? Jesus died for *each* *single* individual* *one* of us. God loves *each* *single* individual* *one* of us. This is what the Bible is saying, at least that's how I read it.
Rosa, Or perhaps he could be persuaded to come here for the crash course? Or perhaps you would care to explain it yourself as you seem to have something in mind. Yes, and right before that you said: "I really hate it when "semantics" are regarded as a reason of some misunderstanding." I suppose you mean it's not the words but the thoughts that are the problem? Maybe? That's my theory. Conscience as a container. Also as the method of filling that container. But, I wouldn't use the term universal for it. Sorry. But universal conscience brings to mind such things as God bestowing our values upon us. That there is a 'right' and a 'wrong'. Unchanging. See what the problem here is? Semantics. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's called suspension of disbelief. The left brain (you) is fully aware that this whole thing is make-believe. The right brain, however, doesn't understand lies. It knows only truth. So, these things enter the right brains consciousness as truth. As I said, we feed our right brains with the cruelty that it needs while we feed our left with the rationality of the 'suspension of disbelief.' There are no unicorns. Ok. I don't see how that figures in to the conversation. Watch it, we got Southstar weaned from his bible talk. You're gonna get him going again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Gendanken, Yeah, I can understand that. Such as your using the primitive tribe as a single unit. But, there are levels. It's a unit made of units. And it itself likely fits into a greater unit. It's like the powers of 10 thing. Even we individuals are composed of seperate units. We are not indivisible. "Something must be done." One of the most dangerous phrases in the english language. It empowers the mob. It's strange that you use the terms pride, guilt, and reputation in such a way. I can understand the use of pride and guilt. But reputation is about pride. A man's pride is what causes him to seek a reputation. Would you say that this is a form of corrupted pride? I don't entirely understand how you jumped from the group conscience above to loyalty here. Your statement makes sense, but I don't understand the ergo. Care to elaborate? Yes. I see that it is difficult to have loyalty when one is expected to give global loyalty. It's as I've said, to be a part of a group there must be something outside the group. There must be contrasting values. Evil to your good. Reputation is useful in large groups. Also in small, but a true loyalty becomes more prevalent in such situations. In large groups, where we can not really know everyone we can still acquire reputations of most individuals. It's like a summary report of an individual compared to some arbitrary value system. And, the reputation would vary depending upon who was comparing the individual to his personal conscience. It is through this means that reputation becomes a method of power. He who controls information controls the world. History is written by the victors. And reputations are promoted by the powerful. Interesting.
Vert: More like fuck you and your cutesy wootsy 'expected'. Common currency to find prey parroting their predators. Kidding. *Gasp* there it goes again. We're going to have us some spring cleaning here before this gets tangled. We both acquiesce that morality has no universal standards, that its only universally present. There is further allience on the distortions this suffers with mass. What we don't see eye to eye with is on the very nature of what consceince is and how this ties in with reputation. You don't see it as an entity corced from without, injected into a man as soon as ideals are born and held against him by those praising them. And those praising and birthing those very ideals thrive only with mass, its how they keep mankind misearable with a conscience that knows it can never attain the ideal. A general anxiety, said I, that we have in response to our universe and other people. This is conscience, and don't let me be the first to tell you we fear more the ridicule than the sin. Enter reputation. The child never learns to feel that onanism is a dirty thing until a spark is lit and he becomes aware of others looking down on it in tandem with a guilt he feels over what they may think of him now that their mind is in his. His very intent is now stigmatized and sexual thoughts make him blush. Its only then with his head swimming in this formula of Others that he becomes conscient. Intent is blended in with the action. And after much thinking you still come up with a container. As if we are all born with an empty conscience that needs filling with mores. We could meet halfway and point out the plasticity of the human mind, in that in each cortical fold is an outline encoded to receive external stimuli to fit its funtion. As the visual cortex is outlined to receive external stimuli to make mental pictures, so is the conscience module outliend to receive external stimula to make moral placeholders. Yet we are born conscious, not conscient. Pip had great expectations as well. Mutilated this in my sleep. I'm being narcissitic in you not kissing ass for once? I'm doing to you what elders do to the ostracized for not bowing? You make me wonder. Something to do with ambiguous? Here's that little word you like so much- "hmmmmm?" OOHhhh.. How's this for insight. I'm sure you've read Mr. Orwell. Remember the proletariat, how free they were in comparison to the Party members? Winston was constantly plaugee by a vexing concience that would not quit with its guilt and suspicions. We find him here in prison after being incarcerated for breaking the Party's laws: "He sat silent against the wall...too preocuppied by fear to take much interest in his surroundings, but still noticing the astonishing difference in demanor between the Party prisoners and the proles. The Party prisoners were always silent and terrified, but the ordinary prisoner (prole) seemed to care nothing for anybody. They yelled insults at the guards, fought back fiercely when their belongings were impounded, wrote obscene words on the floor, ate smuggled foods which they produced from mysterious hiding places in their clothes, and even shouted down the telescreen when it tried to restore order...." If you can make a tiny leap and forget your container, Verty, parallel the proletariat with the infant and the 'savage', parallel this proletariat to a state of mind unaware of Big Brother's eye that has not scourged a conscience into his mind yet. There he is free and biting back, faulting his captors for his transgressions and not himself in the terrified manner of the party members in the same cell with him that can't even move. It is becuase they fault themselves that they are silent with fear, all full and trembling with Conscience. Winston is aware of Big Brother. The prole is not. Thus, the basis of conscience. Conscience is something like a shibboleth. The prole will fight tooth and nail for his brother prole. Loyalty. The party member will fight tooth and nail to secure a membership in genearalized entity that has ritualized his behavior and used him against him. And he holds it in fear. Conscience. You see the difference in their natures. Allright. But with you flipping back and forth on what a ferral child or an autistic sees in their world came off as inconsistent. Both are like Orwell's proles. Apologies....? Uhhm. No hablo ingles. Galielo used it on an idiot Pope. We have ironed things out and again, see eye to eye in suspecting the man painted on that wall- but nothing keeps me from calling you Simplicio. Pardon? So you feel re-evaluation is tanatamount to mob mentality? NEVER let it be said a man has no right to change his condition. Alone or with others. The goal is lost with mass, surely, but one of the prime elements in figuring out momentum is mass. No mass, no movement.
Quitter. It has to do with abstraction and hyperbole. You said to me "Eat shit, Vert." And I replied, "If it were covered with enough abstraction and hyperbole, I probably would. And ask for seconds while I was at it." See the connection? I'm saying that conscience is a primal thing. At it's base it is merely a control mechanism (as you have put it). It promotes 'proper' behavior in a group. At it's base it has nothing to do with 'good' or 'evil' or any of that other crap. It's about the ends rather than the means. But, we in our greatness, in our likeness-to-god, have taken this base thing and built upon it. Great castles in the sky from this base function. Good, evil, love, hate, all the morals, the conscience, is now an abstraction that obscures the little thing that it is at it's base. So, if shit were to be covered in such grand sky castles, I'd likely wolf it down like London broil. See? I'll admit that the analogy is not perfect. It's possible that it turned to shit with the abstraction rather than being covered. But, there is a coverup. An attempt to make it palatable. Genius, because it came from such an 'innocent' comment you made. Just like the Oompah Loompah comment. Genius from unexpected places. I'll comment on the rest of your post in a moment. I just wanted to share this since you're dying to know.
AH! Yes, I see it. Totally see it. And its terribly nice to find the kernel is a turd, as I find consciecne repugnant. I am tied to it just like everyone here, fear frozen inside keeping one from expanding their wings. Just as I am tied to defecation- too to consider is the infant is not repulsed by his own feces until he learns to be. You must admit there is genius yet in seeing the usefullness of it being shit that you hyeperbolized. Touche. Happy little accidents! All hail happenstance!
Ok. I see what you're saying. And yes, that is a prime method of training. Ridicule and shame. "Bad baby. Doody in the potty not in your pants. Bad. Dirty. Icky." And then we end up with anal retentives who take this odd fascination that they were unwittingly instilled with and transform it into a neatness in all things and beyond. You say that "Intent is blended in with the action." But, it's more than that, isn't it? It's not just intent it's also associations. And the way our brains seem to work, this opens up a whole can of worms. Where this guilt over one thing spreads and multiplies. Running around the associative cortex 'touching' everything. As to being wholely imposed from the outside. Certainly. I don't deny that. Not really. I'm just digging deeper into it. It's only possible to impose it on someone because that is how we are set up. The conscience (my def) is already there. Trying to sort the order. Trying to place itself within the group. Trying to place the group within itself. And, conscience is not wholely imposed forcibly. Perhaps the more... distasteful (read: unselfish) morals need to be forced in, but there are other morals that we construe ourselves. Snot-nosed brats have morals that they developed themselves. Feral children also must do most of the work in their moral acquisition (and before you say it, there morals are not our morals.) It's a give and take. Some forced, some not. Some work, some don't. Always a gentle wash. Yes. That's basically what I was saying. And remember it's not just the container, it's also the methods of filling the container. This is also a function of how the brain works. How it has evolved. How we have evolved. Social animals. We can't escape our fate. Well, not easily. That's for sure. Almost forgot this. Fuck that, bitch. I kiss no one's ass. I give credit where credit is due and that's all she wrote. And, by the way, this guess shows your narcisissm. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Freud might have something to say about it. Interesting. And I do see what you're saying. But, this doesn't invalidate my theory of 'conscience'. The proles in the scenario above have different contents within their 'conscience'. They still have one. They have a clear code of conduct. It is a selfish code from the above description. The proles were not educated specifically by the government. The proles for the most part were allowed to go their own way. They filled their conscience how they wished. Both Winston and the proles were alike in that they did have a conscience. Just not the same conscience. Winston's conscience was filled with guilt as that was really the purpose of Ingsoc, wasn't it? Too fill them up with so much guilt and shame that they would never speak out of line. Seriously, very nice analogy though. I love it. I'm making a copy of this baby. Yes. But, I'm not so sure that was Orwell's intent. But, as always, we interpret. I think that the proles also had a form of reputation. Just based on different values than the party members. Perhaps truer to common human values. Rather than the parties conscience being utterly artificial and controlling. It is the difference between a controlled conscience (verb: the act of filling the conscience) and a random or natural conscience (mob rule). Orwell of course takes great liberties with his psychology. He oversimplifies the proles and takes the conditioning done to the party members for granted. I forgive you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ahh. I knew it sounded familiar. That's the work that got him tortured. And nothing keeps me from calling you bitch. No. Far from it. Re-evaluation is fraught with danger. But the mob is not one of them. What I said was "Something must be done." One of the most dangerous phrases in the english language. It empowers the mob. It empowers the mob because it is a vague statement. It decries a wrong and then says something must be done. It offers no solutions. No possible course of action. It is a blank check. It is something that is said in mobs. But, when you hear the mob the words are lost and all you hear is "rabble rabble". It sets the hooded executioners loose. It lights the torches and hunts the nobles down. It is a searching for scapegoats. For martyrs. Very dangerous words.
Remember the story of Icarus. He expanded his wings as well. Of course, this is just a tale meant to instill a certain pattern within your conscience, isn't it? But, we all interpret it according to our own fashion. And the pattern even changes throughout life. Depending on what state of mind you are in on reading it. As to the kernel being a turd. I've been thinking. I think the primitive mechanism was not a piece of shit. It was useful and mostly harmless. It was with abstraction that it began to decompose. By making it more than what it was. Pretension. And then came even more abstraction making it pretty once more. "All great things must first wear terrifying masks" Jim Morrison. And is a common form of psychosis. Fascination with shit. Shit sculptures. Shit paintings. Masturbating with shit covered hands. Throwing your shit/semen mix at the nurses. Shit is the first thing that is truly ours. Created by us in it's entirety. Quite. Even my statement was hyperbole and abstraction covering shit. Shit being your oh so rude insult to me. The abstraction never ends. Does it? I love it. Patterns and abstraction. The flying fickle finger of fate.
And you would know and make this distinction, how?? I fail to see the "general anxiety" in wanting to pick the little boy from the path of the moving truck instead of leaving him there, and how that stinks up the curtains.. I fail to see your point considering there are countless who have had horrendous parents and upbringins and are yet very well mannered/behaved. Surely you can't be insinuating that they are taught? Well, then let me say that we must jointly blame vert for mentioning Christianity in the first place.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And this so-called "interpretive mechanism" differs, and has been distinguished, from the conscience how? Well that's not exactly true. The infant does have a conscience, but it is not manifest because of a lack of maturity, whether mental, spiritual or a combination (this accounts for autistics and the like). Now obviously this maturity is not regulated by age or any other factor we can pin-point. As I pointed out with my example about good kids from bad homes, you would therefore simply have to concede that an infant who has no "training" has no chance of becoming moral, although I know many who have turned out just fine on their own. We must never blame our shortcomings on parents or anyone for that matter. Not necessarily a God of meekness, but rathjer a God for meekness. This is exactly what I meant by mentioning Christian doctrine and using me as a 'scapegoat'. As for you knowing what I believe in.. For me to condemn anyone who disagrees with my values would be to say that my conscience has not been dulled by immoral influence.
