morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Nietzsche's specific resposne ...Paraphrasing however, he says that it is a jaded view of life (a "suspicion against life" as it is often translated) driven by reason and the false sense of knowledge about "good" and "evil" or that the ideal world of reason is the "true" world, that compels us to despise ourselves, our life, our Universe and to demand meaning - not where there is no "meaning" (nihilism) but where no "meaning" is actually necessary.

Very helpful. thank you for the follow-up. Seems kind of like where I was wandering to.

That's quite similar to the very problem that led me through the doorway! Love and spirit are intertwined, but the law subverts love and disconnects spirit by elevating ego. And yes, once you use language, it is the ordinary human way of being.

Interesting metaphor. I actually think of open doorways too. I'm calling love a law, actually the only law, and think of morality as flowing out of love, as your passage below says:

[color=blue]And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. - 1 Corinthians 13:2

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

My vacation was relaxing and too short.
Now, if you look at the ten commandments, half of them are really just a non-comprehensive breakdown of this law of love thy neighbor as yourself: you wouldn't murder yourself, you wouldn't steal from yourself. The other half are about loving God. How do we love God? We obey His law. What is His law? Love your neighbor, and yourself (give your slaves/employees and yourself a day off out of every seven, act with nobility and sanctity, "Be Holy because I Am Holy").

Hi lunamoth,

I think the most important law is the first one : "I am the Lord, your God. You shall not have strange gods before me." You have to love God primarly and the love for your neigbour comes after.

In fact, I believe Moise gave a very good moral code to his followers.

I'm glad you've enjoyed your vacation. Speaking about slaves/employees, I didn't think I'll be able to take mine, but I'm so exhausted that my supervisor ordered me to take at least one week off. So, beginning today I'm officially on vacation. I'm not happy at all, as at my return he'll take two weeks and I'll be his back-up.

[lunamoth]

Hi Alexa, Thank you for your heartfelt reply.

At this point in my life I do not share your suspicions about religions. I don't see any inherent evil in the diversity of religions. I conclude that this diversity is needed to meet the diverse needs of six billion unique people. Not to say that evil is not done in the name of religion, or that some societies calling themselves religions base their tenets on hate and prejudice.

I think you have already given the responses I would write to you. The abuse and denigration of women/other races/homosexuals are misinterpretations, not the law.

We can't achieve a universal moral--there either is one or there isn't. I choose to believe that there is one.

We can't find unity in our morality--that's looking for love in all the wrong places.

The first step fo an universal moral is, in my humble opinion, to know about the existance of the others, different from your religion or your belifs. Second : do the effort to learn about the others and not to tell yourself, I'm right and the other is wrong, so why should I care. Third : learn to live and let the others live, too. For the following steps, only the future can tell us which direction is the best.

Change those first few words to "The first step to achieving love (or oneness) is," and you've summarized my exact feelings as well. I have a Christian/Baha'i slant because that is what i know the best..not because I think it is the only or best way. And, why am I posting on this website? Because I learn so much of value about all those other religions. I weave them into my own worldview, but still this worldview is just for me.

Hate is not a universal law. It may be a universal response, but it is one that we must strive to overcome. Hate comes out of fear. There are genuine reasons to have fear, and they are all traced back to a lack of love in one way or another. I'm not saying it's easy to love. I'm not saying there isn't hate and racism and mysogyny. I'm saying our nobility and joy lies in overcoming these to whatever little bit we can.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Hi lunamoth,

I think the most important law is the first one : "I am the Lord, your God. You shall not have strange gods before me." You have to love God primarly and the love for your neigbour comes after.

I didn't pause to rank them, but this is a good primacy.

You type faster than I can read and respond! You must type for a living!

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3,

Thanks for the welcome. Good to be here. Hey, cool about your collection. A good deed is a good deed. A billion points of light, right? (Just because a quote was written for political reasons doesn't mean it isn't a good one ).

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Is it adequate and appropriate to call such "law?"

Yes, I think it is the best term. Maybe it should be capitatlized as Law, or LAW. But, reading all these threads and probably missing quite a bit, I see that I am not using this the same way others are. I don't think of morality as a set of written laws that vary from culture to culture, religion to religion. I think of morality as the reason we have those laws, or mores. It is immoral to murder and steal, but why? So "love thy neighbor" is a super-law that is above all the others. The others can change because people in different times and places are different. I admit that I am borrowing heavily from Baha'i writings at this point. Even really loving someone is very hard to do--it is not lust and it is not the desire to possess. A reflection of it is attainable in loving-kindness. And, I think, that when you practice something enough you get better at it. And you want to get better at it not so you can get into heaven or even feel satisfaction in this life. You practice it so you can start to approach true love. Here is where I think eastern religions have it all over modern day Christianity. I see mediatation and mysticism as sort of short-cuts, excellent paths we can take in this life. If you are able to detach from a lot of things many of us choose to have in our lives. So it might be a kind of short-cut, but it's like a shortcut over Rainier instead of going around.
Keep in mind that I am very unknowledgable in these things--perhaps that is why they seem unattainable for me.

I agree, it is an ideal to strive for. But is it innate, or is it learned (invented) behavior?

I think of it as a seed that we need to water and nurture, a small spark that needs oxygen to turn into a flame.

Again, it might be something worth striving for, ideally, from our perspective towards "peace and harmony among all humanity," but is it something from outside of us that guides us, or is it something from within. Ah, words fail here. Is it "natural" to love our enemies, or is this simply a moral construct for modern society?

Is there a difference between without and within? What is natural? Or as you say, which way is up? We are starting to go round and round (not that it isn't interesting!).

What roles do morality, love and spirit have in our journeys?

Is this a change in topic, or is it really the question, "Do you think that there would be morality without a God/Gods/Ground of Being/Something Else?"

I say no. You can choose to say yes, God is not necessary, or you can choose to say no. Or you can not choose. I think choosing not to choose is a sad loss (others will say that choosing to choose is a waste of time!). You can choose atheism, but you have no better grounds for that belief than someone who thinks there is God. Or you can choose to believe in God. It's a whole other discussion .

But here we are to mine the quarries for answers to the Is there a God question by examining the limits of our knowledge about evolution, no?

It's late, I'm rambling. Good night.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, my mistake. Again, I see formal moral constructs as fulfilling these, and even being used to manipulate the masses by fear and utility. But religion is not morality. Religion pretends to some form of morality, but it is not the morality itself. Religion teaches the "oughts and ought nots," but the individual is the one who "feels" and interprets the meanings.

But the question remains: "what are the oughts and ought nots"? Where do they come from and what is their basis? I see both you and lunamoth holding out that morality allows for a smoother functioning society. That may be. But is that an ideal morality or is it utilitarian? Is that driven by fear or is it driven by love?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I do like this description, law as the door, not the doorway. I would be very interested in hearing of your experience.

I've recounted some of this elsewhere. That would be very lengthy and I'm not sure I could get it right putting it down in words.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I will add one little caveat though, I do not see law as morality. Law is formalized morality, or was at one time. Yes, law can be an obstacle. If universal morality exists, it is not law. It transcends law, and is universal to all (whether or not all apply it). I guess the nearest I can describe in this sense would be "a conscience." The little Jiminy Cricket that sits on your shoulder. Or the little angel that whispers in your ear (while the little devil does the same on the other side). Figurative, but the best I can do right now.

This is where I really suspect we aren't in much disagreement but that there's a difference in terminology. For me the word "morality" is already loaded with meaning. Thus, so too is "universal morality." The word conjures up a "law" - a list of dos and dont's, oughts and ought nots, thou shalts and thou shalt nots - a concept I long ago rejected as a basis for a meaningful spiritual truth for me. What I've since discovered is an aesthetic experience of the Oneness we all share with each other. While morality suggests an obligation to do or not do certain acts, I find by freeing myself of the trappings of logic and "moral" reasoning, I can experience my common exisistence with others and the universe - not just some shared attributes and ideas - but that I am other people and other people are me. This experience, for me, is love. We can experience this love on a smaller scale with our family and friends - moments of transendence in a relationship where you not only love a person for what there relationship is to you but for the burning feeling of a complete identity and total empathy. It can be experienced in glimpses for every one and every thing as well.

It's an aesthetic experience, not a moral logic. Once you experience it, morality - a list of oughts and ought nots - feels meaningless. Instead, once you know this experience of love, it really becomes a matter of simply not wanting to do anything but love others and experience this common connection - not out of obligation but out of desire. All identity but this is false identity to me - including Self.

From a meditative standpoint, I find that the less I judge the actions of myself and others, the more I am open to experience this aesthetic of love. That has a snowball effect because the more I experience love for others, the less the "morality" matters to me.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is intriguing to me, I do not understand.

It's a reference to "Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" from Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra", which I've posted elsewhere on this discussion forum. His parable best describes my own personal spiritual journey over the last twenty years. That journey is ongoing.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can grant you this. My point was that an overwhelming number of people ascribe to the concept, which made me wonder if there was something I missed.

If they ascribe to it out of fear or for utility that still does not help us get to a morality beyond human interpretations.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Absolutely! LAW subverts love, but law is not morality. Paul also, speaking of love, talked of "faith, hope and charity, these three," and "the greatest of these is charity." Charity, in this sense, is love. At the same time it is "ethical action", or in a word, morality.

I think we are very close to expressing the same ideas.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here's Nietzsche's parable of the Three Metamorphoses that I referred to above:


OF THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong reverent spirit that would bear much: for the heavy and the heaviest longs its strength.

What is heavy? so asks the spirit that would bear much, and then kneels down like the camel, and wants to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, you heroes? asks the spirit that would bear much, that I may take it upon me and exult in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it triumphs? To climb high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger in one's soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and send away the comforters, and to make friends of the deaf, who never hear your requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not avoid cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and to give one's hand to the phantom who tries to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the spirit that would bear much takes upon itself: like the camel, that, when laden, hastens into the desert, so speeds the spirit into its desert.

But in the loneliest desert happens the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becomes a lion; he will seize his freedom and be master in his own wilderness.

Here he seeks his last master: he wants to fight him and his last God; for victory he will struggle with the great dragon.

Who is the great dragon which the spirit no longer wants to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lies in his path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on each scale glitters a golden "Thou-shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons: "All values of all things- glitter on me.

All value has long been created, and I am all created value. Verily, there shall be no more 'I will' ." Thus speaks the dragon.

My brothers, why does the spirit need the lion? Why is the beast of burden, which renounces and is reverent, not enough?

To create new values- that, even the lion cannot accomplish: but to create for oneself freedom for new creating- that freedom the might of the lion can seize.

To create freedom for oneself, and give a sacred No even to duty: for that, my brothers, the lion is needed.

To assume the right to new values- that is the most terrifying assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. To such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

He once loved "Thou-shalt" as the most sacred: now is he forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the most sacred things, that freedom from his love may be his prey: the lion is needed for such prey.

But tell me, my brothers, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why must the preying lion still become a child?

The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a sacred Yes.

For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred Yes is needed: the spirit now wills his own will; the world's outcast now conquers his own world.

Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I have told you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.-

Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You type faster than I can read and respond! You must type for a living!

I have to type a lot, but no, this is not my force and occupation.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to post this message. It seems, my default e-mail program is out of order again.

So I have to wait for Brian's reply to see if I can re-write my replies.

Alexa

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

At this point in my life I do not share your suspicions about religions.

Hi lunamoth,

I do not have suspicions about any religion. Instead, I do have about their interpretation.

I don't see any inherent evil in the diversity of religioI conclude that this diversity is needed to meet the diverse needs of six billion unique people.

Neither do I. I'm a Cannadiane, remember? Diversity is normal for me.

Not to say that evil is not done in the name of religion, or that some societies calling themselves religions base their tenets on hate and prejudice.

Are you sure you really want to say "that evil is not done in the name of religion" ? I hope not.

Hate is not a universal law. It may be a universal response.

I accept your notification for hate as an universal response.

Still, love is not the only feeling which animates the human being.

Alexa

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

Hello Juan,

You brought to our attention another aspect about the evolution of the morality of a human being, this time. I think you'll agree to the fact the human being is rather complex. The person I was yesterday won't be the same tomorrow. We change every day, till the end of our days.

Consciousness is much more than the thorn, it is the dagger in the flesh - Emile Cioran

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Are you sure you really want to say "that evil is not done in the name of religion" ? I hope not.

Sorry, poor syntax. I agree with you: evil, perhaps the worst, is done in the name of religion. I need to avoid double negatives, especially after midnight.

Still, love is not the only feeling which animates the human being.

I'm not talking about emotions. I'm using the word love as Abogado del Diablo uses Oneness (I think). Perhaps I will capitalize it from now on. Love.

[alexa]

Oneness (Osho Rajneesh) :



I am one with all things

- in beauty, in ugliness, for whatsoever is

- there I am.

Not only in virtue but in sin too I am a partner,

and not only heaven but hell too is mine.

Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu - it is easy to be their heir,

but Ghengis, Taimur, and Hitler?

They are also within me!

No, not half - I am the whole of mankind!

Whatsoever is man's is mine

- flowers and thorns, darkness as well as light,

and if nectar is mine, whose is poison?

Nectar and poison - both are mine.



Whoever experiences this I call religious,

for only the anguish of such experience

can revolutionize life on earth.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But religion is not morality. Religion pretends to some form of morality, but it is not the morality itself. Religion teaches the "oughts and ought nots," but the individual is the one who "feels" and interprets the meanings.

Every religion preaches that the essence of all morality is to do good to others. And why? Be unselfish. And why should I? Some God has said it? He is not for me. Some texts have declared it? Let them; that is nothing to me; let them all tell it. And if they do, what is it to me? Each one for himself, and somebody take the hinder-most-- that is all the morality in the world at least with many. What is the reason that I should be moral? You cannot explain it except when you come to know the truth given in the Gita: "He who sees everyone in himself, and himself in everyone, thus seeing the same God living in all, he, the sage, no more kills the Self by the self." Know through Advaita that whosoever you hurt, you hurt yourself; they are all you. Whether you know it or not, through all hands you work, through all feet you move, you are the king enjoying in the palace, you are the beggar leading that miserable existence in the street; you are in the ignorant as well as in the learned, you are in the man who is weak, and you are in the strong; know this and be sympathetic. And that is why we must not hurt others. That is why I do not even care whether I have to starve, because there will be millions of mouths eating at the same time, and they are all mine. Therefore I should not care what becomes of me and mine, for the whole universe is mine, I am enjoying all the bliss at the same time; and who can kill me or the universe? Herein is morality.

The above passage is from the book Living At The Source Yoga Teachings of Swami Vivekananda

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alexa,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by alexa

Hello Juan,

You brought to our attention another aspect about the evolution of the morality of a human being, this time. I think you'll agree to the fact the human being is rather complex. The person I was yesterday won't be the same tomorrow. We change every day, till the end of our days.


Alexa

this, rather concisely, is the Buddhist teaching of Atman.... no permanently-existing, static self or soul

what we choose to lable "me" and "you" is nothing more than a mental imputation... in essence, seeking to "freeze" the constantly changing being into a recognizable and discrete object that we can then relate to as recognizable, discrete objects

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But doesn't it just become relativism rather than a "universal" morality? Is it a morality at all? Biology could explain the desire to further the interests of immediate family, children and spouse without reference to any morality.

This is a valid point, at an individual level. I think Lunamoth summed it nicely, when she said something to the effect of "because it is universal does not mean all comply." Else, why the concept of an "evil" person?

I suspected a few posts back that you and I would discover that we were talking about the same thing but using two different words. I am pretty sure that's the case now.

This is comforting, reaching similar conclusions from differing perspectives.

It's also the essence of Machiavelli. But again, is this "morality." It certainly doesn't seem to have the feel of a "universal" morality like the golden rule or Kant's categorical imperative.

Good point. This would seem to be more appropriately applied to "law." Like Luna, I have not studied Nietzche, nor Machiavelli. Kant, if I understand, says (my crude words) it must be alright for you before it is alright for me. I can see your association with the "golden rule" in this regard.

This (utilitarianism) as a source or philosophy for moral guidance has always troubled me. Hence, the reason I asked the question much earlier, "is a little white lie as bad as a deliberate deceit?" Motive would play a factor, certainly, but is not an untruth an untruth? Of course, there are moments when an untruth is socially desirable: (those jeans look great on you honey, honest!) or, to a dying person (hang in there, you're going to be alright!). Technically, this is not moral to the letter, but it would seem to be the preferable course of action.

Only if you discount the power of aesthetics.

I am not familiar with this term is this context. Aesthetics to me is akin to art appreciation, being able to discern the more beautiful things in life. Before this conversation, I had never heard this term applied to morality.

Is survival the "good"?

I would think by definition it would have to be, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. My concern is that survival is not the "be all and end all."

This does provide a segway into another question that crossed my mind recently; is it "universally moral" to further human survival at the expense of other life? Particularly those Vaj calls "sentient beings?" I mean, death is a requisite part of life, chi feeds chi, but at what point is taking of life no longer essential to survival?

No. Just the opposite. Logic drives morality. But it depends on langauge, which is ultimately empty of truth. So too is a logic of morality.

Thank you for the clarification. And I guess I can see the comment about "logic of morality" being empty of truth, in that every philosophy I have looked at seems to fall short at some point. Human logic is great at generalities, but it struggles with the details. (LOL, "the devil is in the details!" )

My apologies for not being quite as active lately, there is so much more I want to address, but time is precious right now, so I will have to participate as I can. Many thanks to all who are taking part in this discussion!