RE: virus: Re: morality

Kelley, Ian (IKelley@littler.com)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:24:38 -0700

you're right, that is a clumsy way of putting it. I should probably
have just said "in an observable place". The notion that I was striving
for was that morals could be derived from reason and observation, rather
than from a faith-based place, be it Judeo-Christianity or Buddhism, as
the case may be. I suppose "outside of memetic transfer" was a tip of
the hat to Heisenberg, my way of suggesting that this was a place where
one could observe memes without having to react to them, neither
accepting or rejecting, merely observing, and through such a process
morality could be discerned by the attentive. But it was a bulky way of
putting it.

- ik

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sodom [SMTP:Sodom@ma.ultranet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 7:19 AM
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: Re: virus: Re: morality
>
>
>
> Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> > sodom wrote:
> > "I don't think anyone would suggest that morals are objective, but
> they
> > are not
> > intended to be objective."
> >
> > I suggest that morality is objective! Furthermore it looks like you
> do
> > to:
> >
> > 'Morality is not necessarily based in a view of "what God wants"; it
> > doesn't have to derive from religion or from anything not
> verifiable, it
> > can exist in an observable place outside of memetic transfer.'
> >
>
> but I didnt write that part!! I agree with the first part about where
> morals
> dont need to come from, but the last part I dont really understand.
> What is
> "an observable place outside of memetic transfer"???
>
> Morals seem to me to be a lot like faith. Somewhere there is a leap to
> a
> hovering foundation, upon which the rest is built.
>
>
>
> > That not only makes it objective but objective and knowable!
> >
> > Nate H.
> >
> > I have seen the light and it's Sodom shining this time!
>
> Sodom
> Bill Roh
>
> Wiggiling like mad, making pretty lights on the walls and ceilings