morality within evolution

[Lady_Selune]

Originally Posted by alexa

[/font]
[font=Arial]
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.

Bundy and Rollins did have morality. Perhaps not what we would view as morality but remember, just because we do not approve or it or even perhaps understand it, does not mean that it is not there.

Having morality does not mean that the morals are "good" it just means that you have a code by which you live. Personally, I do not beleive that there is such a thing as an amoral person. I beleive that they have a morality just one that I do not understand.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lady Selune!


Nice to see you stop by, finally!

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

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.

Ah! Indeed! Perhaps some miracles are better left undone?

In fairness, Lady Selune and I go back a few years, and we are good friends. We have had a number of discussions in the past, long before I found this forum.

Thank you extending a warm welcome to my friend.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, granni!

Welcome to CR!

It's always nice to have a little "down home" country folk type common sense added to a conversation. That is my roots, and ultimately where I like to come from as well. I might have grown up in the big city, but my folks were always reminding me of where they came from.

I think an important distinction lies between knowledge and common sense. I have known people in my life with lots of book knowledge and little to no common sense, likewise I have known people with little to no book knowledge with a lot of common sense. Knowledge is wonderful, but without wisdom it is useless.

Originally Posted by granni

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 guess what I am hearing is that regarding the "nature vs nurture" discussion, you side with nature?

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.

Thanks for the confirmation. My recollections are similar.

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.

I absolutely agree. I have long pondered the quandary, how humans (myself included) take life for granted when it is not human life being considered. I make this statement as a generality, there are people who do make efforts to take breathing, cognizant (sentient) life into consideration. But on the whole, it is so easy for us to gulp down a big mac without realizing how many animals and plants gave their lives for that indulgence.

Yes, we require food to survive. Food is a necessity. I think we are more aware of that reality when we have to take that life for our food personally, that is, we do the killing and butchering ourselves, or at least witness the act. It makes the act of saying a grace, of giving thanks to and for that creature giving its life for us, and to God as provider, have a real and genuine meaning.

When others perform that service for us, out of our sight, the whole solemnity, including grace, is removed from our consciousness. The butcher shop or meat department is only stocked with flesh, not former life. Likewise, in my estimation, the produce department, canned goods isle and frozen food section. All formerly alive, and worthy of thanks.

I very much appreciate your presentation of the slaughter. It is a solemn occasion that we deserve to be in constant memory of. So few of us even consider, and in many cases, are not even aware.

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."

It is unfortunate nobody saw fit to explain better to you. It is entirely possible no one knew the words to say. Some people are quite content with simple explanations, in my experience, that would be most people. Some of us have questioning minds that are never fully satisfied with simple answers.

When I realized that life requires life, that "chi feeds chi", that we cannot eat that that has never lived and receive sustenance, only then was I content with "that is the way life is." If there is no life, there is no nourishment. Without nourishment, we die. It is unfortunate in our personal sensitive estimations that we must kill to survive, but that is how the whole of nature operates, whether one ascribes that to a Creator, or to chance.

You are very right, both in telling the story to remind us, and in grieving for the soul given for sustenance. It reminds us that while "it is the way it is," it is also great cause to give thanks in a very solemn manner.

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?

Indeed. That is the crux of my dilemma.

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......

Good question. Is it fair to say the answer lies on the road to discovery, a driver (or cause) behind the majority of religions?

I would even question, if it is necessary at times to take a life (for sustenance), is it not also sometimes necessary to take human life (self-defense)? Wanton disregard for life is immoral, a life should not be taken lightly, to that much I can absolutely agree. But there are times when it seems to me a solemn necessity to take even a human life. I think it was Solomon in Ecclesiastes who said "To everything there is a time and a season...a time to kill, a time to heal..."

in this thread also has come up the concept of love. ...it's that love thy neighbor stuff. a thing most difficult for most. yet, we try.

Indeed. Just curious, why do you personally think this is so?

I loved the poems, thanks!

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

Yes.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Thank you for your post!

I step away for a little while, and now I have a whole lot of catching up to do!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

hopefully, you don't have to worry about Ivan this time around...

All around here breathed a sigh of relief. That doesn't make me feel any better for those in Pensacola and Mobile, that was one nasty storm. Did you see it took out a section of interstate bridge over by P'cola? That's not an easy thing to do!

there is a subtle difference here that you may be overlooking due to being unfamiliar with the topic.

the the Jewish tradition, remember, there is the teaching of reincarnation. so, though you may fail, ultimately, you will have another opportunity to get it right. Whereas with Christianity, you don't have another chance at the apple, so to speak.

this is a vast difference between the two traditions, in my view. and whilst it's true enough that the general adheren't isn't taught about Gilgul Neshamot, that does not mean that the teaching isn't present.

I thank you tremendously for this insight. I had heard it alluded to, and by the abbreviated name, but I had not had much luck pursuing it. With the full name, I was able to find a great deal more. I printed some material out, but I haven't been able to go through it yet (still finishing the "natural morality" material I printed a couple of weeks ago!).

Thank you as always. Of course, my personal jury is still out. Like Pandora, I have a curiosity. I want to learn from that morality story, I need to temper my curiosity with the satisfaction that some things are better left alone, some knowledge may be best left unknown. I am probably more like doubting Thomas, come to think of it.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thank you for your posts!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

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!

Don't underestimate yourself, I have always found your insights eloquent.

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.

I am not certain I agree. I am thinking love is distinct from morality. I rather like your earlier discription, in that morality lies in the "tension" between love and spirit. I may be incorrect in this, but so far it seems to me the best explanation yet that I have seen.

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.

If love and spirit both are eternal, and universal morality lies between, it would seem to me eternal as well. Yet, even though these may be eternal, not every individual expresses these in the same way. A paradox that, if they are universal, why are they not expressed in the same (or at least very similar) manners? No two moralities are the same, as no two loves or spirits.

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.

I can go along with this.

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 I am reading you correctly, the elements of morality, love and spirit are present, but must be developed? Nature and nurture?

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?

Ah yes, abnormal psych! Since I am not a psych student (in the formal sense), I really didn't get into that stuff too deeply, but if I recall you are correct. Of course, this fuels the position that internal morality is taught; if it is not taught, that person has no morality. If internal morality is only taught, it cannot seem to be universal. Does a child's conscience at the age of accountability happen of its own, or must it be placed there by parents or whoever?

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.

Perhaps I missed something, I am willing to cede. But I still do not see love as morality (conscience). Love may drive conscience, that I can see.

A child is not born good or bad(*indeed yes, but they are born innocent* -jt3), 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.

I like the analogy of mud vs porcelain. And I agree about a morally healthy society. I would add though, that "morally healthy" has significantly different connotations across cultures.

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.

OK, but this returns us to religion and politics, which are the source(s) of those laws. I accept you are alluding to present day western politics and culture here, because children have been raised successfully for millenia without social services. I might be willing to concede that "it takes a village to raise a child" (Hillary got that much correct), that is, neighbors should pitch in to help each other, including child rearing. And historically, they have. That is called "society."

This also implies teaching (nurture), not universal potential (nature).

Of course, this brings another semantic confusion to light, at least for me. Which is universal, nature or nurture? If we are naturally inclined toward morality, it is justifiable to consider that as evolution. If we must be taught morality, that too can be seen as evolution. Equally, if we are naturally inclined to morality, we may have been created in that manner. And if we must be taught, then who taught us, and how and when were we first taught? I want to believe love and spirit are innate, but they too may be "taught." (I see I need to qualify this, spirit by definition would seem to be universal, however this may just as well be mass delusion (illusion), or social conditioning, or Jungian archetype.) IF these three, love/spirit/conscience coexist and feed each other, then I would think they must of necessity have the same source, but that is a very pregnant assumption on my part.

I know that I am open to God as an adult because I believed in Him when I was a child.

I can't resist the momentary digression into the battle of the bumperstickers!

"God is dead" -Nietschze
"Nietschze is dead" -God

Now that I've got that out of my system...

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???

I am not well versed in Nietschze. Only that that Abogado posted (where is Abogado, anyway?). I am thinking the implication is that we come to a realization that so much we fuss over in life is fruitless in the end. The rat race is over, the rats won. Or, as Solomon put it, "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." The child of the end doesn't worry over things that cannot be changed, or at least recognizes that worry doesn't change things, at least that is my interpretation. Of course, this reasoning challenges the position that thoughts alone create reality, which is alright by me. (As in: "are we created in God's image, or do we create gods in our image?")

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.

My heartfelt condolences for your family and your aunt. You do bring up a good point though, maybe she did find a form of 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.

Indeed! Vaj puts it nicely I think, in that religion is a vehicle, a means or way to discover truth(s). Those of us here I think are questioning souls. If God exists (and I believe He/She/It does), then He can handle being questioned. How else can we learn, unless we are free to question authority, if nowhere else than our minds?

[juantoo3]

Regards again, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

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.

Thank you very much for the clarification. That has long been a source of misunderstanding, at least now I better understand the intended meaning.

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.

I think I understand this, and can see that I applied the concept in a more liberal manner than is traditional. Semantic misunderstandings are too often a source of discord among people. Surely the goal of the teaching is to minimize discord as much as convey the essence of intent?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, my dear Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

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

So far, so good. But the season is far from over!

I think this is our genetical heredity. An animal doesn't have to learn to many things after birth to survive.

Hmmm, I need to think about this a little.

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.

OK, animals "speak" too. We may not (fully) understand their language, but they communicate among themselves quite well. And while a "normal" child may learn human language, many instances of survival without language (let alone eating utensils, clothing or kindergarten) among humans exist, at least in a childlike state. What I was getting at is that (higher order) animals typically are better able to fend for themselves soon after they are born. If not, they become supper for another animal. Even among apes who keep their babies close for a couple of years, the ape infant can clutch well enough to hang on while mom swings through the trees (or whatever). Even though they still require parental supervision, in greater and lesser degree, until they mature. Maturity is also much sooner for animals than humans (I think I read somewhere that elephants, one of the longest maturities, is something like 12 years, and I don't know how long for whales). Humans, legally, are not "mature" until 18 or 21 (depending on jurisdiction), but are sexually mature much sooner. Somewhere between 12 and 14 for human females, I believe. Males around 16. Even using this, all animals (including humans) are autonomically functional, including mentally, much sooner than maturity. Which is why boys of 12 can be issued guns to fight war in certain societies (whether or not one agrees is irrelevent at this stage in this discussion). For sentient animals, sentience arrives at a very early moment in childhood. A human child is sentient before the age of accountability, indeed it is prerequisite; without autonomic sentience, a child cannot cross that boundary, and remain in the state of innocence.

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.

I love to think life is for learning, death is graduation. When my time comes, be happy for me, I graduated!

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.

I had never heard this before.

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.

I realized after I made the remark that not all Christians do think of Jesus as God incarnate, but it is the orthodox stance in every tradition/sect/denomination I am familiar with.

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 ?

The Christian teaching has to do with the tower of Babel. I haven't really heard a good scientific answer, other than possibly multiple sources (Africa and Eurasia).

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.

Well, yes. I was created (invented), and by Vaj's definition I am in flux (illusion). So I am still not certain about conscience and morality. If anything, I have more questions now than before I began. Is this line of questioning unanswerable?

[juantoo3]

Regards again, Lunamoth!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I am saying that Love is a belief that can guide your actions to determine right from wrong.

Hmmm, I wonder if this is where I am having difficulty following your intent? If I am reading you better here, the guide for your actions, determining right from wrong, is what I have been calling conscience and universal morality. I definitely see love as distinct from but enmeshed with this.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lady Selune!

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

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.

I hope I don't get myself in trouble here!

Can a person feel "warmth" in both places? If I may clarify, even in "proper" Christian teaching, that warmth is not supposed to come from the building, rather it is supposed to come from "communion" (probably better termed "assembly" or "association") with likeminded souls. I guess what I am trying to say is that I can get that warmth associating with others, or alone in the woods. It depends on what my state of mind is at the time.

... 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 agree, and I think it is worth bringing forward from our recent conversation that blaming our actions on our parents is a cop-out. Even if we had a childhood deprived of anything good. At some point in our maturity, we reach a point of decision, choice, and we choose to proceed in the manner we think best (our morality).

If we choose wrongly, and blame our parents, we are denying responsibility for ourselves. A person cannot have it both ways, choice and reliance. Either one is self-reliant and fully mature, or they are dependent and immature. They may be legally emanicipated physically, but if they are emotionally and/or mentally dependent they are immature. I might add, concerning legal defenses, that if one is emotionally or mentally dependent, then they should require state custody, even if they are of a mature age. In other words, "deprived childhood" is not in my mind a valid legal defense. I'll get off of this soapbox now...

My morality is safeguarded by my compassion (not love that is different).

Would you be willing to explain how compassion and love are different? I would think that what I have intended by using the term "love" throughout this discussion sounds a lot like compassion, or at least includes it. If I missed something, I would be glad to be set straight.

It is their choice and choice is something that is very important to me.

I can understand the importance of choice.

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.

. Is our "modern" conscience the continued mental evolution of the "innate desire to survive?" And then, what role for love/compassion? Why would these things exist, let alone be necessary, at the animal/survival level of primitive humanity? What role does love/compassion play in survival, as in "eat or be eaten?"

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.

No morality without compassion? Hmmm, I am still thinking compassion is the same thing as "brotherly love" like I mentioned much earlier, before you joined the thread. It is brotherly love (phileo -from the Greek of the New Testament) that I had taken for granted for so long that Lunamoth meant. Is not compassion the same thing as what we have been talking of as one pole (the other being spirit) influencing conscience?

I can see the semantic differences (disabilities?) beginning to mount, making it ever more difficult to convey the same meanings between all of us here. Perhaps this is inevitable, it does show a weakness in using language to convey thoughts across cultures, but what other practical way do we have available to us? How can we solve the problem of semantic differences in order to continue the quest?

I am wide open to suggestions for solution. This journey to me still seems worth the trouble, even if it must, of necessity, be travelled alone. I must say though, the journey has been much more enjoyable with company along, I have gained a great deal of insight from everyone!

[Lady_Selune]

Hiya Juan,

Glad to see you made it home alright the other night. I tried to phone you to see if you had made it home ok, however, either my phone was not working correctly or your phone was not. Either way I could not get thought.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Lady Selune!
I hope I don't get myself in trouble here!
Can a person feel "warmth" in both places? If I may clarify, even in "proper" Christian teaching, that warmth is not supposed to come from the building, rather it is supposed to come from "communion" (probably better termed "assembly" or "association") with likeminded souls. I guess what I am trying to say is that I can get that warmth associating with others, or alone in the woods. It depends on what my state of mind is at the time.

OK, heheh, I should have know better then to use so vague a phase when I knew you were going to be reading it. What I mean by church is not the building itself but more the place, the "holy gathering place" of the flock where they gather to receive the word of their god. Does that work better?

I think we can all agree that taking a break from the city and having a nice walk in the country can give us a sense of peace. For me it is much more then just a relaxing walk in the woods. To me the forest, desert, ocean, and everything in between is my "church" if you will. It is the place where I go to commune with my "god" (and yes, I know Juan, I am using that term for the benefit of the others reading this). I go there to listen to the stories that the wind though the trees can tell me or to hear of the great adventures that the sea has known in the sound of its waves kissing the sand. It is not uncommon for animals to tell me their stories either, which I love listening to. Do they "talk" to me they way you and I communicate, of course not, but I know how to listen to what they tell me. (Remeber the deer in the middle of Philly?) Much as a Christian will building a place and call it their holy place (that is not meant as an insult, just hte way I see it) my holy place is nature and all that can be found there.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I agree, and I think it is worth bringing forward from our recent conversation that blaming our actions on our parents is a cop-out. Even if we had a childhood deprived of anything good. At some point in our maturity, we reach a point of decision, choice, and we choose to proceed in the manner we think best (our morality).

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If we choose wrongly, and blame our parents, we are denying responsibility for ourselves. A person cannot have it both ways, choice and reliance. Either one is self-reliant and fully mature, or they are dependent and immature. They may be legally emanicipated physically, but if they are emotionally and/or mentally dependent they are immature. I might add, concerning legal defenses, that if one is emotionally or mentally dependent, then they should require state custody, even if they are of a mature age. In other words, "deprived childhood" is not in my mind a valid legal defense. I'll get off of this soapbox now...

Just so we are all on an even placying field in this discussion. The reason this subject came up is that Juan, as he has pointed out, and I have a history together. Both as Teacher/Student and as Students together. He already knows this but I will share this fact so that there is an understanding as to why I know these things. I was a very abused child. I used to fall down stairs all the time and end up in the ER. The problem with that was well, we didin't have stairs. At this point in my life I can say that I have broken every bone in my body at least once, most twice. The abuse was not limited to the pure physical, my mother use to love to tell me that I was ugly, stupid and fat. Now that being said, please do not feel any sorrow for me. That was a long time ago it seems now and a demon that I laid to rest when I came of age. The point here is that I KNOW that there is no excuse for not finding the neceassy tools to be a happy productive adult.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Would you be willing to explain how compassion and love are different? I would think that what I have intended by using the term "love" throughout this discussion sounds a lot like compassion, or at least includes it. If I missed something, I would be glad to be set straight.

heheh, I would be more then happy to explain. But let me say this first. Compassion, love, kindness, these things are not a defination from a dictionary for me they are parts to a human beings if you will.

Compassion is that "feeling" that sparks all other softer feelings. Compassion alows us to look at someone like Rollins, knowing that he murder many people, and feel sorry for him. No, I hold no love for him. However, I find compassion in my heart for one that simply does not understand the world around him. As I have mentioned earlier we all have compassion. Even Bundy had compassion, I seen it, but it can and often is well hidden and or reserved for a select few that met a certain standard in the eyes of the beholder.

Compassion is the root feeling (emotion), it is what love and kindess is born from. I can not begin to feel love for something until I have come to respect it. I can not respect it till I have come to accept it as something that is not of me, not separte not apart, but not of me. Once I have recoginzed that there is something different about something (anything that is not of me) then I can begin to resepct it as I watch it grow and struggle, suffer, learn to love, and do all those things that we all do as we grow. I might even come to love it at that point because compassion gave me the insight to see it as something special and unquie. The depth of my compassion is what sets me apart from people like Bundy. I could not kill in cold kill as he did, why? Because compassion in me runs very deep, I could not stand to bring that type of suffering and injury to another.

I believe compassion is soemthing that everyone is born with. I also beleive that it is something that can be burned out of you if you let it. You can become jaded, unwilling to feel compassion or even have deaded you ear to its call. Once you have done that you lose the ability to truly respect or love anything else. Why? Because again, compassion is what gives you the ability to truly see what the other is. The difference between love and compassion? Since I can feel one without the other, they are not the same, when I look to see the root of my feelings I find that love always leads back to compassion. Compassion for the other was always there first. Love to me is not the same, it is a produce of the compassion that I feel for another. Just as compassion is the root of sympathy for me as well. I can not feel sympathy for something until I feel compassion for it? Why? Because I can not truely understand it till I have subject to my compassions. In short, till I have looked at it and have tried to understand it and how it views the world around it. By the way, I do not look at something apart from me and try to place my belief systems on it. I know better, I try to see it in its our "natural habitat" if you will, without the taint of my intellect.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Is our "modern" conscience the continued mental evolution of the "innate desire to survive?" And then, what role for love/compassion? Why would these things exist, let alone be necessary, at the animal/survival level of primitive humanity? What role does love/compassion play in survival, as in "eat or be eaten?"

heheh your not going to like my answer now any more then you did when we spoke of this before. Yes mordern conscience is the continued mental evolution of the innate desire to survive. Compassion plays the role of bringing balance to what would normally be all but murderous intent. Compassion was necessary even in the most innocent of times to keep us from flat out putting our selves on the endanger speices list. When our instinct told us that to share our food could be a death sentence to us, compassion told us that we did not want to see others feel the pangs of hungry as we knew what that felt like and didn't want others to feel that. What role did it play? Simple, it gave us the ability to pick and choose that which we would and would not do to survive. As little as a couple of hundred years ago my ancestors were leaving the very old to die (or live perhaps) alone. The tribe would move on and leave those that were to infirm to go with it. Was this viewed as a cruel thing? No, it was veiw as a way to give the old one a way to chose how they would die with honor and dignity. It was very also natures way of making sure that tne tribe remained strong. What precious few resources there were to be had were not wasted on those that could not help in some way to obtian those resources.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

No morality without compassion? Hmmm, I am still thinking compassion is the same thing as "brotherly love" like I mentioned much earlier, before you joined the thread. It is brotherly love (phileo -from the Greek of the New Testament) that I had taken for granted for so long that Lunamoth meant. Is not compassion the same thing as what we have been talking of as one pole (the other being spirit) influencing conscience?

I don't see it as being the same, compassion is not love. It is the ability to see the differences in yourself and other things. The ability to understand that if something hurts me, that chances are it will hurt you as well. And finally is grants you the ability to have that moment of perfection when you realize that you can hurt others and chose not too.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can see the semantic differences (disabilities?) beginning to mount, making it ever more difficult to convey the same meanings between all of us here. Perhaps this is inevitable, it does show a weakness in using language to convey thoughts across cultures, but what other practical way do we have available to us? How can we solve the problem of semantic differences in order to continue the quest?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am wide open to suggestions for solution. This journey to me still seems worth the trouble, even if it must, of necessity, be travelled alone. I must say though, the journey has been much more enjoyable with company along, I have gained a great deal of insight from everyone!

The problem is not the language Juan, the problem is the difference of opinion. To many what I describe as compassion is indeed love. However, it is my belief that those that see it as love simply have yet a bit further to travel on thier path for they have not truly come to understand themselves yet. And of course, till you understand yourself you can not possible begin to understand that which is around you.

It is also a difference in belief systems. My path does not teach love, it teaches compassion and from that choice. My belief tells me that I may do as I will, rather it be good or bad, I am the one in the end that will answer for what I have done, no one else. It is my choice. (as a side note it is that belief system that all but lead to the exstintance of my people, to date there are only 67,000 of us left (ok that the government knows of )

[lunamoth]

Dear Lady Selune,

Great post! And welcome to CR and this thread. Hope you are able to stay around for more of this and other conversations.

Compassion--how could I have left that word out of my own post! Yes, exactly, acting with compassion.

Originally Posted by Lady_Selune

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.

Just to add to this. I don't think that it is as simple as good parenting = moral person, poor/abusive parenting = amoral/immoral person. What I was saying about children and attachment is that the child must perceive the love, and that this sometimes doesn't happen due to physiological conditions (genetics? illness??), sometimes due to nurturing conditions (abandonment, mother/parent is ill/otherwise unavailable??), and combinations of the two. I think some children are very resilient and could survive abuse and still be well-adjusted, moral, and some children could be raised from birth in a loving home and still not be. I am far from putting this all on parents (being a parent of adopted children myself). Each child is born with its own way of experiencing the world, and yes, personal responsibility and choice are part of that experience.

cheers!

[lunamoth]

Dear granni,

Welcome to CR! Thanks for your wonderful post, and the poem.

Originally Posted by granni

it's that love thy neighbor stuff. a thing most difficult for most. yet, we try.

.

Personal policy--beliefs in action.

cheers!

[lunamoth]

Dear Jt3,

Thank you for your well-thought reply. (blushing from your kind words)

I am not certain I agree. I am thinking love is distinct from morality. I rather like your earlier discription, in that morality lies in the "tension" between love and spirit. I may be incorrect in this, but so far it seems to me the best explanation yet that I have seen.

You and LS have now developed the concepts of compassion and morality quite well. I concede that I have oversimplified things. For me, Love, compassion, conscience, morality are all facets of the same thing. However, the distinctions you have made are interesting and helpful to the conversation.

I believe I said ealier that human morality lies in the tension between our animal/material/ nature (not intending any insult to animals!), which chooses to do what feels best for ourself at the moment and our divine nature, which I envision as a state of such perfect Love/Unity and denial of Ego Self that we can not hope to achieve it in this life, except perhaps fleetingly. The tension comes from the constant choosing to try.

If love and spirit both are eternal, and universal morality lies between, it would seem to me eternal as well. Yet, even though these may be eternal, not every individual expresses these in the same way. A paradox that, if they are universal, why are they not expressed in the same (or at least very similar) manners? No two moralities are the same, as no two loves or spiri