morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

I have been following this thread with interest--thank you all for your insights. Alexa, your reply with the long definition of morality was very helpful.

I hope this post is not too disjointed. I have a few points I'd like to add but no time to weave them into anything resembling eloquence!

First, I am mostly thinking about the idea of some kind of universal morality, which I have said is love and now I'm even more convinced of this. However, how many virtues can fall under the umbrella of love? Peace, unity, kindness. Codified morality, law, as pointed out by most of you, changes with time and place. And that only makes sense because people and cultures change. This morality "evolves" to suit the progress of civilization.

But there is a universal morality, I think, and it is love. It may be somehow embedded in our genes, or it may be a meme, but it doesn't matter because it is eternal and it is the nature of our soul.

But the morality of love does not automatically blossom on its own. It is there as a potential in all healthy humans, and other animals as well, I believe. What brings this potential out? The love and nurturing a baby recieves, especially in its first few years. So, perhaps a child of 5 has just entered the age of reason, but in the years before that, while it is totally dependent upon others, its parents, that the foundation for being a moral person is set down. And not by the parents telling her right from wrong, although that is of course necessary.

If a baby's needs are not regulary met in its first year, or if it experiences traumas or illness that interfere with the normal bonding between a baby and its mother (especially the mother), then the baby will not be able to trust that the world is a safe place. And a baby that does not trust is a baby that cannot fully love. This bonding in the early years is called attachment, and if attachment is not secure it can result in a spectrum of attachment disorders that range from low self-esteem and insecurity to severe sociopathy. The monsters that you read about in the newspapers, the serial killers and rapists who we just can't fathom, are created by a lack of love and trust in their very early years, most likely along with other disturbances. They learn that other people are only to be used to meet their needs, and that no one but themselves can be counted upon or is important. Really, they do not love. They learn to put on a face that is most charming, but they are like automotons when it comes to feeling love and compassion. How can they control, how can they use others, how can they take what they need, are the only concerns that motivate them. Is there any better definition of a person who has no morality?

Does this negate what I said about love being the universal morailty? I don't think so. In fact, I think it is evidence that this is Truth.

A child is not born good or bad, although one can certainly be born with better or poorer starting material. Like clay. Mud vs. porceline. However, a skilled person can make a functional and beautiful vessel out of mud, and an unskilled one can make a mess out of fine porceline. And I don't mean to put this all on the mother, or even just the parents. Whether a child has a chance to receive the nurturing it needs depends in a large part on the society and culture into which it is born. And it doens't have to be a wealthy country, although that can help. It needs to be born into a morally healthy society. And how do we achieve a morally healthy society? Well, there are all those laws, including those that deal with chastity... It needs to be born into a society that values children and mothers. It needs to be born into a society where basic healthcare is available, and support systems for its family so if mom gets sick or dad loses his job (or v.v.), the child will not fall through the cracks. The point is, a child needs to be treated with love and learn to love if he is going to be capable of being a moral person.

Now, switching gears a little but staying on the theme of children. I've read in this thread and others recently that the state of the child is somehow more in tune with spirituality and/or God. Children are closer to God. In some ways I would agree with this--I know that I am open to God as an adult because I believed in Him when I was a child. However, to make this childlike state the goal of a spiritual journey is misguided, I think.

1 Cor 13:11-12 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shal know fully, even as I am fully known.

I am probably taking this idea of the return to child state too literally. What is needed is to grow and learn and have human experiences, good and bad, so that we might shape our character into something more beautiful and useful than that of the self-centered child. Because children are self-centered, aren't they? Now, perhaps Neitchze's child-camel-lion-child ends with a child that is much diffrent than the first child. I really don' t know. I do get the feeling that the camel is the one who dogmatically follows the laws of religion or the land, not because of a higher purpose but out of fear of punishment. And I'm guessing that the lion is the one who has the courage to say they are no longer afraid and are willing to face life with themselves as the only pilot and judge of their life. And the child???

When my aunt succumbed to dementia last year it was so hard on the whole family. How was it on her? Well, we really don't know. Sometimes I would think to myself she is again like a child, or perhaps she has achived enlightenment in her own way.

What am I trying to say. Guess I'm not totally clear on that myself (sorry all for subjecting you to this!). But I don't think that the laws of religion are a burden, and I don't follow a religion because I am afraid of punishment or hoping for some kind of reward (well, I really try not to think that way!!). In short, I don't think of myself as a camel. I see freedom in the teachings of my religion, and it is right there, you can cross to it in the twinkling of an eye.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

ah.. the emptiness of words

indeed... the word "illusion" in the Buddhist context, is not the same as it is in Western parlance. when this word is used in the West, we mean is as something unreal.. a phantasam, a dream. in the Eastern usage in general and the Buddhist use in particular this term describes things that are not static and unchanging.

it is an "illusion", for instance, rock doesn't change or humans or planets or morality or anything else, really. now, we don't mean to say that rocks, humans, planets and whatnot are unreal, rather, we mean that they are constantly influx.

when we observe something we are watching a slice in time, if you will. what we observe has changed since we observed it. heck, because we are observing it, it is already different than if we were unaware of it! leaving aside the Quantum implications here, let's move along with more exoteric stuff

in the Buddhist teachings, we are extolled to view this life "as a phantom, a bubble and a dream." it's not that life is unreal or illusary, rather, what we conventionally lable as "you" or "me" only exist as designations of the mind.

in my own case, i've changed since i began typing this post.. and you've changed in the time it's taken to read this. perhaps not all that much mentally or even visually, however, were we able to zoom in on our cells, we'd discover that they are dying and regrowing all the time.. at every moment. iirc, we replace every cell in our body every 7 years.... which, on a purely physical level, means that if you live to be 70 years old, you will have 10 completely new bodies during this process. oh.. they may be a bit worse off than the previous ones, but that's not always so.

as an aside, generally when i'm speaking of the emptiness of words i'm not usually talking about how different cultures and people use the same word in different ways. usually, what i'm on about, is that words cannot convey the experience. reading about a pizza will not relieve your hunger, only eating it will.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to all!

You all never fail to impress me with the quality of your responses here!

I look forward to being able to address the new thoughts that have been brought to light. My sincere thanks!

[alexa]

Dear Juan,

I'm glad to see Ivan gone. I wish you good luck with Jeanne !

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I find it interesting that a human child takes so long to mature, at least to a point of autonomy. So many animals, including apes, are mobile and can at least grasp within hours of birth. Some animals run, quite well, within hours of birth. Human infants cannot, and require intense attention for a long time after birth. So, the scale of maturity is considerably different when considering humans contrasted with animals.

I think this is our genetical heredity. An animal doesn't have to learn to many things after birth to survive. Instead a child has to learn to speak at least one articulated language in his first years. In mixed families or when the child has a baby-sitter from another country, he/she can learn two languages in the same time. Then the child has to learn to wear clothes, to put them or take them off, to eat with spoon and fork, to go to the kindergarten, etc. We keep learning till our last day and still is not enough. An intense attention in the first years in the life of a child, prepares him for all the rest of his life. A healthy person can live till 80-100 years. How many things we have to learn in a life time ? My question is only rethorical, as we are all different and this makes us unique.

My point being, that a human child is not fully autonomically functional until around the age of 5, at least mentally. For some a little sooner, some a little later, but there are sources that consider the age of 7 the boundary, "bring them to us by age 7, and they will be ours for life." I have heard this in reference to monastic disciplines from Christianity and Buddhism, although I would be hard pressed to directly quote.

I suppose that's why we say somebody doesn't have his 7 years from home when we want to say his behaviour "laisse à desirer" or he is not educated.

An infant in the age of innocence should be taught, of course. After the age of accountability, the child is reminded of what they already know, the "external reinforcement" I mentioned. The age of accountability I would think to be the threshhold of universal morality, the point at which the child intuitively understands, the point at which the child gains communion with his/her conscience.

I agree.

I think this is an important distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Judaism seems to me to say "you are human, you will fail, but you should try," whereas Christianity seems to me to say "you should be perfect because you have a perfect example, and if you are not perfect, just ask and all will be forgiven, and you can be perfect in your continued imperfection." This is a problem I have with my own faith, how can someone go to church and be the pious altruistic outstanding citizen on Sunday, and turn around Monday and be a ruthless, heartless, unforgiving braggart given to excess, only to repeat the same cycle over and over?

In this case, I'm not a very good Cristian, as I believe Jesus was human and we are all sons and daughters of the same God. Jesus gave us a very good example of morality and he knew everybody who followed him could do the same.

Both the Jew and the Christian intuitively know right from wrong, they just deal with it differently. The question has been from the beginning as to whether or not that intuitive knowledge has been simply taught as tradition, or whether it has been given, instinctively, from outside or beyond our collective experience? At least in these two faiths, the teaching is that the initial knowledge came from outside of our collective selves, the tree of knowledge (of Good and Evil!) in the garden of Eden.

I've got a question from some time now in my head and I still look for an answer : how come there are so many religions on Earth ? Why humans cultures are so diverse ?

I guess the question is whether or not conscience is an invention or illusion? Or whether it is the product of evolutionary development?

Hmm. Do you believe you are an invention or an illusion, Juan ? If your answer is no to this question, you have also the answer for your question about conscience.

See you soon,

Alexa

[alexa]

Hi lunamoth,

Sorry for not replying earlier. I'm really exhausted and I didn't have enough strength during the week to touch my keyboard at home too. I'm still looking for a good vacation somewhere. My supervisor returns this Monday, so I can breathe a little. I do understand now why he keeps his calm when I'm on edge. As he left me to replace him, I had to keep myself calm too, in order to take care of the others in my charge.

Let's go now to the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

First, I am mostly thinking about the idea of some kind of universal morality, which I have said is love and now I'm even more convinced of this. However, how many virtues can fall under the umbrella of love? Peace, unity, kindness. Codified morality, law, as pointed out by most of you, changes with time and place. And that only makes sense because people and cultures change. This morality "evolves" to suit the progress of civilization.
But there is a universal morality, I think, and it is love. It may be somehow embedded in our genes, or it may be a meme, but it doesn't matter because it is eternal and it is the nature of our soul.

I still don't follow you on this. Love is a feeling, not a philosophical belief to determine what's right or wrong.

Do you think you can feel love for somebody who killed a child ? That's why we cannot conduct ourselves following only our feelings. We have to use our head. You know what happens when your heart tells you one thing and your brain says the contrary.

Alexa

[lunamoth]

Hi Alexa, Saw you were logged on so thought I'd put up a quick reply.

I'm not thinking about love as a feeling or an emotion. I wrote a post on this in another thread somewhere else but I can't find it now. I'm thinking of Love as something much more substantial than the warm feeling you get when you are near your loved ones. Love is a policy, Love is an action, Love is an attitude about the world and your place in it. I'm NOT thinking about releasing all prisoners from jail, or not holding anyone responsible for their actions, or some kind of fuzzy warm anything goes kind of mentality. Love is tough, love is powerful. Love is the basis for morality, which is why I am calling it the universal morality.

Hope you get that vacation soon!

cheers!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

I still don't follow you on this. Love is a feeling, not a philosophical belief to determine what's right or wrong.

Do you think you can feel love for somebody who killed a child ? That's why we cannot conduct ourselves following only our feelings. We have to use our head. You know what happens when your heart tells you one thing and your brain says the contrary.

Alexa

Me again, after re-reading your post. I am saying that Love is a belief that can guide your actions to determine right from wrong.

Can I feel love for somebody who killed a child? Can I forgive such an act? Honestly, no, probably not. And I would want to see that person put where they can do no more harm. And it would be very hard, perhaps impossible to not just want vengence, especially if the child was mine. Yes, I would probably fail at all these things. However, I am thankful that I live in a society that pursues justice for such acts, as imperfect as our justice system may be, and I am thankful that my beliefs do not exhort me to be vengeful. I am thankful that as much as I might fail at love and forgiveness much of the time, and for much smaller things than murdered children, at least I can aim for something higher.

I hope this doesn't sound too self-righteous, I'm writing quickly, but imagining dealing with a child killer of course brings the strongest feelings up.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Love is a policy, Love is an action, Love is an attitude about the world and your place in it.

Hmm. I don't know why, but this reminds me Bush Jn. and I'm not sure I like it. Maybe because of the word policy ?

Love is tough, love is powerful. Love is the basis for morality, which is why I am calling it the universal morality.

I agree with this.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

Hmm. I don't know why, but this reminds me Bush Jn. and I'm not sure I like it. Maybe because of the word policy ?


I agree with this.

G.W.B.? LOL. I'm not a political person.

You personal policy is your morality. That is how I mean this.

How about another term, not so associated with emotion. Trust. Could you consider trust as a motivator for morality?

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You personal policy is your morality. That is how I mean this.

I'll replace the word "policy" with beliefs.

How about another term, not so associated with emotion. Trust. Could you consider trust as a motivator for morality?

Yes.

[Lady_Selune]

Greetings to you all,

I have been following this forum for awhile now having been invited to it by Juan. Yes, I am finally able to post and much of what we have discussed recently will be in this post if for no other reason then to give you something to think about, which I have so enjoyed doing in our conversations. I would also like to say that I have enjoyed reading everyone’s post. They seem to reflect deep thought and awareness. Which from where I sit seems to be a rare quality in humans, most people do not give subjects like morality any serious thought.

I read the comment here that if a religion gets their hands on a child before the age of 7 that child will be theirs forever. In most cases I agree with that, but only because that person chooses not to think for themselves. When I was young my parents, both of my grandmothers and one of my grandfathers desperately tried to force feed Christianity to me. As most parents do with their child they sought to raise me in the same belief system that they themselves subscribe to. However, my father’s father stood apart from this, he was a shaman, and like him, I am now shaman. Why? Because I never felt the warmth in my heart that I have heard most Christians feel in theirs when I walked into a church yet I could got into the forest, desert, ocean, anyway you get the point there and feel that warmth enter into my very being and hold me in perfect peace. To be honest even to this day it’s the only time I feel at peace. Ah, but I stray from my point here.

Morality has not been a choice for most humans for thousands of years. We are taught our morality by our parents in one for or another, as was previous pointed out here a child that is love and cared for will most likely be a well adjusted adult. A child that is ill treated will grow up to be a killer. (By the way, I don’t agree with that statement either. But that is another topic ) The common belief is that the child was given the correct tools by his loving parents and the incorrect tools by the abusive parents. But were they really??? To be honest I still think it is a choice as to how you will lead your adult life and what morals you will care into it and keep dear to your heart.

I was given the task though my job to interview Bundy and Rollins in their cells at FloridaState (for those of you that don’t live in the US these men are (were) serial killers). Believe it or not I was there not to ask them questions about their crimes or to write an article but to establish their education levels and whether the State could provide them with education before we killed them, strange I know, but it’s the law in the State.

Bundy for all intents and purposes was a normal adult male. He did not have an abusive childhood; he was well educated, and very intelligent. Oh and he made my skin crawl, which is not easy feat in and of itself. When speaking with him it was easy to forget about the women and one young girl that he had brutally murdered. He did nothing wrong in my presence or said anything that would raise any warning signs in my mind. However, I felt the lack of morality as we know it in him. No compassion. He lived his life by his own rules and in the end died begging for another chance for his own. His mother will never understand how her baby grew up to become such a monster.

After this experience I was not looking forward to going to see Rollins. Bundy’s laugher and eyes haunted me for a long time. It was the first time I had met anyone that truly lived outside of the main stream set of morals. It did teach me a lesson, which I believe all experience does rather good or bad, about morality. Then there was Danny Rollins.

Danny is one that we should all pity. In fact even with full knowledge of what he had done (and I do mean full in color pictures of what he had left behind) I could do nothing but feel sorrow and pity for him. Danny falls in that area we call functional retarded. He is not so bad that he needs someone to take care of him all the time but he is not able to understand things the way you and I would. Danny has a kind soul believe it or not; however his morality is stolen from those he is around. In this I mean that he has none of his own, he possible does even understand the concept, what he does is that whatever is right and wrong to the people around him is what is right and wrong to him. An incident happened while I was visiting with Danny. I had a lot of problems with the security staff at the prison I worked at, it is a very Christian community and unlike true Christians these people are not tolerant of other belief systems. For that matter they are not very tolerant of other skin colors or Jews either, so you get the picture. (Yes, the KKK is still alive and burning in the South) Anyways, one of the guards made a very nasty comment to me as I was coming into see Danny on my second visit. Danny heard the comment and during our conversation Danny said to me that he could tell that what was said had bothered me, he could feel that I was not happy. He then very calmly told me that he could make me happy again. In that instants I think I understood what the Judge and Jury never seen, Danny is not an evil man, Danny does not understand the concepts of morality. He understands that someone upset his friend, therefore that someone should be punished for making his friend unhappy and therefore making him unhappy. At several of the murder scenes there was a second set of DNA found. I believe that that is the person that easily leaded Danny to do the things he did. For this I truly do grief for Danny because no one else will, the murders he commented were brutal and horrible. Danny will die in the next year or so and to be honest that in and of itself it a crime again morality.

As a shaman I do not look to my fellow humans for my morality, as a member of the People (Native Americas to those of you that must be politically correct, although we did not chose this title for ourselves it was given to us) I pay little or not attention to the laws laid down by man. Now, fortunately for me my chosen morality happens to stand me in got stead with most of the laws man has created. My morality is safeguarded by my compassion (not love that is different). If my compassion tells me that it is good, then that is what it is. For instants, in most States in the US it is actually illegal to have sex of any sort outside of marriage. These laws were old hold overs from a young time in our history but have been revived in an effort to stem child molestation. In my book I don’t see how they help to stop anything really; people having normal sex are not molesting children. But these laws are also in place because this is a Christian dominated society; it’s a sin to have sex without the benefit of marriage. My morality sees nothing wrong with two single adults willingly partaking with each other. It is their choice and choice is something that is very important to me.

Now finally I bring you all to my point, morality comes from mans need to control his environment. It comes from those things that we understand on an instinctually level and from the innate desire to survive. When the great kings, queens, and emperors of old made the first laws they did it because those laws would benefit their people. The laws come from the morality of the times. It is wrong to kill your fellow man because the king does not want mayhem in his streets, not because of any innate love. While I would argue that we all have compassion to one degree or another that compassion often times is well hidden away. Perhaps the best way to say this is that there is compassion from compassion comes respect for all the things around you and from respect comes true love. Only when we feel compassion can we start to truly say that we understand morality because it is thought this that we begin to become aware of all the wonderful things around us and begin to wish to preserve those things. Morality is truly all about preserving that which is around us. Morality has existed in one form or another for as long as the world has been alive. I fear my friends, that morality is not something that we can say came from this or that, it is very much like faith, it simply is. We all have it, rather our moralities agree or not, we still have it. It’s sort of like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.

[alexa]

Welcome Lady_Selune to CR and this thread !

I'm curious to see if you succeed to convince Juan about the importance of nature in our morality.

A shaman's opinion is more than welcome.

Alexa

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

Perhaps the best way to say this is that there is compassion from compassion comes respect for all the things around you and from respect comes true love. Only when we feel compassion can we start to truly say that we understand morality because it is thought this that we begin to become aware of all the wonderful things around us and begin to wish to preserve those things.

I think I finally understand what lunamoth tries to explain about love as universal morality.

Morality is truly all about preserving that which is around us. Morality has existed in one form or another for as long as the world has been alive. I fear my friends, that morality is not something that we can say came from this or that, it is very much like faith, it simply is. We all have it, rather our moralities agree or not, we still have it. It’s sort of like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Bundy and Rollins do not have it, as you said earlier. And there are others like them outside of a prison, unfortunately.

I agree morality is like faith : you have it or you don't. But even this can change in time. An amoral person may transform into a moral one after a violently experience of life. Take for example the life of saints. Not all of them were saints since the beginning. They had to touch the low ground of human condition to raise after in a superior level of their existance.

[granni]

What an interesting thread! And, certainly oddles of responses to peruse!

So, I'll not try to quote anyone.... but rather, to address a few thoughts (noting that i certainly don't own the for-sure-answer)

re the innocence of childhood lost: i personally believe that we are exactly the child that we were. we've simply gathered experiences, hence knowledge. And along the way we've learned that we've had choices in our perceptions of that gaining of knowledge. We could choose to be better or bitter. yeah, yeah.... i know that's a cliche. but it's also a truth.
i am the same me that i've always been. my vocabulary is larger. my interests more diverse. but that too is because of my own innate personal curiosity.
as a wee tiny child, approximately age 3, i knew full well what was right or wrong in my lil world. things simply felt right or wrong. i knew that if i said, "sonsabeach" that granpa would chuckle, granma would roll her eyes, and, mom would be horrified. i knew that word was a wrong thing, but only a lil bit wrong. i knew that the chickens behind that fence had to die, even as i tried to argue granpa out of it. i Knew that killing was a Very wrong thing. and, i didn't know why grown-ups did it anyway. i knew that they should know, but seemed not to.
by age 4, i knew that my lil friend with the black hair and darker skin than mine, and i....loved playing together. i knew that the woman who got so angry because we were playing together was Very wrong in her anger. but, of course i didn't know why i knew.
somehow in that family where none were 'religious'.... i must have been exposed to the concept of God. For, surely i could not know these things all by myself.
finally came a day at about age 5, when i first went to church. the place God lived. I didn't see him. as i listened to the man in the white dress talking, i looked around.... but he wasn't there. i thought it was nice that he'd let us all use his house. i'd asked, and was told that he didn't have indoor plumbing, either. all the people there were nice .... quiet, too. and i liked the way his house smelled.
then it was time for us all to leave. apparently, he was busy elsewhere. so, we left. by 1's and 2's and whole families too. that's where i first realized that what they heard and what they said inside, wasn't what they did outside.
there on the steps to his house, right after listening to that man talk.... they talked bad things about other people. and it felt wrong. Very wrong.

my father had referred to me on numerous ocassions as 'the littlest old lady i've ever known'. i thought that meant i was almost a grown-up. and i used that to manipulate him to allow me to accompany him to this thing at the next farm, called 'a butchering'. i knew the beef on the table came from cows. he didn't want me to go. i insisted. he relented.

****
As a child, living a rural life, I saw much that many take for granted. As an adult, I see the same, in principle, in all aspects/conditions/environments of this human existence. Mankind gives little thought or cognizance of the gift of life, the privilege, the luxury, and the respect.

When I was seven years old, I'd accompanied my dad to a neighbor's farm. I'd heard about "butchering" and wanted to see for myself. Dad was reluctant, but I persevered. I went.

I knew about cows, calves, pigs, etc. I knew they were raised for food. Heck, everyone knew that!

They took the calf from the corral behind the barn. The cow kept mooing, and mooing. I "heard" her crying...no, no, my baby...mooing. She tried to get her head over the wooden fence...trying to get out. She kept mooing.

They brought the playful little calf, all black and white, and frisky.... Bright eyes gleaming... Kicking his hind feet playfully...brought him over to the tree where the rope hung down from the pulley attached to the big branch high overhead. They put the rope around the calf's hind legs ... as another hand draped a rope over his head, snugging it around his neck.

The cow mooed....bellowed....I "heard" the cry...no, no, no. They pulled the leg rope tight to the above branch. The calf's eyes flashed wide... suddenly terrified. The cow bellowed again, her heavy body slamming the boards of the corral. I "heard"...NOOOO, NOOOO.

Dad told me not to look. I watched the man raise the large heavy mallot...watched the arch of the downward swing...saw the calf's legs buckle…beginning to fall to his knees…..immediately the rope flew upward ...with the calf instantly suspended, head hanging down...saw the hidden knife slice through the neck.....the steamy blood splashing bright red on the dirt beneath.

The cow bellowed...bellowed...ramming against that fence..bellowing....I heard"...NOOOOOOOOOOOO....then heavy head hung down ....sides heaving…heaving….a deep low groaning...groaning…..

I ran from that place. Blinding tears of full Knowing....as if the running would remove what I'd seen, heard, learned...as if I could ever, ever forget......


i knew that the cow Knew what was happening. i knew it's horror. it's terror. and i didn't know why the grown-ups couldn't know this. they were supposed to be smarter than me. know more than me. how could they not know?!

they'd explained that that's how life is. that is how we get our food. that is how we live. that is how life is. i heard excuses. i heard silent pleas begging to be understood. and i replied, "that is the way life is, because all of you say that is how life is."
****

is morality part of evolution? i don't really know. but, i do know that some are born with more compassion than they are taught. more understanding than they are taught. is that eveolution?
or, are we simply born that way. oops, that'd be evolution. or........
already hardwired from an other where?

in the concept of morality, and it's implications.... when does man extend the same to all life? when he has yet to extend it to each other......


in this thread also has come up the concept of love. what is it... beyond the physical lust in the dust stuff ... beyond the caring of, and for, those we 'love'.
and, believing that we're cared about the same. or at least similar.
it's that love thy neighbor stuff. a thing most difficult for most. yet, we try.


Human Family

written by: Maya Angelou

I note the obvious differences
in the human family.
Some of us are serious,
some thrive on comedy.
Some declare their lives are lived
as true profundity,
and others claim they really live
the real reality.
The variety of our skin tones
can confuse, bemuse, delight,
brown and pink
and beige and purple,
tan and blue and white.
I've sailed upon the seven seas
and stopped in every land,
I've seen the wonders of the world
not yet one common man.
I know ten thousand women
called Jane and Mary Jane,
but I've not seen any two
who really were the same.
Mirror twins are different
although their features jibe,
and lovers think quite different thoughts
while lying side by side.
We love and lose in China,
we weep on England's moors,
and laugh and moan in Guinea,
and thrive on Spanish shores.
We seek success in Finland,
are born and die in Maine.
In minor ways we differ,
in major we're the same.
I note the obvious differences
between each sort and type,
but we are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.
We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.
We are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.


to feel what it feels like to love others unconditionally, i'd like you to try this lil experiment:

close your eyes (after you read this, otherwise it's a tad difficult to follow the instructions)
anyway....
close your eyes.
think of someone you really really love.
feel those feelings. feel them. concentrate on the feelings.
let those feelings fill you.
feel them.
feel them fill you.
to over flowing.
now feel the filling keep on filling.....
the overflowing spreading further and further from you.
radiating outward..... outward.... to friends .... to family.......
and........ beyond.......
feelings of love that love touching everything........ everything................everything........
everywhere.

that is what it feels like to love, fully...... unconditionally............everything.


granni

yes, it is possible to love the person, and hate the deed. it's all in the mind-set. and, it's a choice.

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by alexa

Welcome Lady_Selune to CR and this thread !

I'm curious to see if you succeed to convince Juan about the importance of nature in our morality.

A shaman's opinion is more than welcome.

Alexa

Thanks for the warm welcome!

As for Juan, well I am a shamn not a miracle worker!! and Juan you know I am just teasing you.