Re: virus: Heaven's Gate Kooks
Mon, 16 Jun 1997 02:19:47 -0400 (EDT)

>> When did I say that? Are we talking about good and evil or the values of
>> martydom? Whichever you want to talk about is fine with me, but I need
to know.
>Huh. Here I'd thought that really these two were the same.

Quite possible, yes. I just thought that we were talking about dying for
a cause and it's merits. Good and evil does come into play when doing
something like that, you're right.

> Value here
>is value there, right?

Of course.

> And you "standards" for value-ableness should be

Why? Did you know that there's madness to the method. *whispering* And
no, I didn't get it backwards.

>> > A thing has value only if valued


because objects do have
>> >have essences and thus are incapable of "being" good or bad or
>> >_valuable_.

Whether or not it has an essence doesn't determine it's value. Only
someone's perception of it determines it's value. Something is valuable if
even just one person values it, essence or no. And a thing is not good or
evil, how it is used makes it good or evil in the specific use. That's like
saying that a gun is evil because someone took it out and shot someone else
in a robbery. But is that same gun evil if someone uses it shoots someone
else in self defense, or in defense of another? _Things_ aren't good or
evil, how they are used are.

>Now this almost contradicts what you said before!

Not really.

> If living things have
>essences, does that mean they have value in and of themselves?

Not unless they are valued. You are equating essence to value, they have
nothing to do with eachother. I have essence, but unless I or someone else
values myself then I have no value, just essence.

> If not,
>what do you mean by essences?

I equate essence to the energy of life.

>> > It is only /us/ (the minds) that bring value to objects.

Because we are the only ones capable of valuing something. Anything that
thinks, can value, animals and people alike.

>Like the Jesus thingy earlier: since Jesus /knew/ that he was going to
>live happily ever after in Heaven after a mere three days in Hell, his
>sacrifice on the cross was nothing too big. Just a token suffering.

It wasn't the act, it was the intent, and NO, it wasn't a token suffering
or sacrifice. I don't believe that his death aliviated all of man's sins,
but it wasn't just a token.

>Jesus may have been committed anyway, but the New Testimate does not
>give us any really good evidence of this.

He was commited.

>Anyway, in case I haven't made it clear already, I'm changing the focus

I got the drift.

>here from matyrdum to "value" which I see as a synonym for "Quality"

How do you see value and quality as synonyms, unless you mean quality as
the state of instead of quality meaning in good condition (what ever
condition suits the thing).

> and
>"the good".


> This of course makes the question very very much bigger,
>and I'm sure some philosophers have been over this territory before.

Yeah, probably. But it might be fun to rehash it with our own thoughts if
you like. I'm game if you are.

Strange Love and Philosophies,