Re: virus: Consciousness
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:35:00 +0100
Eric Boyd wrote:
>Robin Faichney wrote:
>
>> What we
>> have to do is to transcend the good/evil dichotomy, along with that
>> of self/other.
>
>As to transending the good/evil dichotomy (hmmm.. seed?) I'm not sure
>that such a thing would be desirable. Understand that the terms are
>relative and only defined within a society (will change with differing
>societies). Understand that evil only has meaning when juxtaposed with
>good. Understand that any so called "absolute" moral or ethical system
>is ultimatly resting upon an authority who, in order to make the system
>absolute, has to be absolute him/herself. (think a God). Understand
>all of this, and although you haven't transended the good/evil
dichotomy
>(in that you must still work under it, or face the consequences) you
>have put yourself in a much better position to deal with the issues
>around morality.
I think "good" and "evil" are only required where one person is
trying to control the behaviour of another. So, because they
wouldn't understand the real reason, you tell a child not to do
something "because it is bad". A useful meme.
Among intelligent adults, on the other hand, we can discuss
what makes some actions desirable and others undesirable,
in terms of the real issues, and good and bad/evil become
just synonyms for desirable and undesirable -- they have no
reality, no meaning, in themselves. Inasmuch as their use
can be confusing, implying that they do have their own
meanings, the good/bad/evil memes are undesirable. But I
don't say "bad"!
Well, not today. :-)
Robin