Greetings girls, boys, spiritual hobos, island princesses, holy nomads, cowgirls in need of cows, hair collectors, mad dreamers, furious sceamers, mystics of reality, magic bean buyers, perpeutal liars, heart worshipppers, work-a-holic poets, elusive musicians, holy ambassadors, sugarless souls, and of course, the Amazon women... wel-o-come new friends, old friends, uncertain friends, cautious friends, anonymous friends, wel-o-come to this little world of madness, laughter, nothingness, everythingness and of course communication. (Suppose my love for Shel Silverstein is now obvious?)
Recently, someone asked me why I don't write about philosophy, literature etc. on this blog open the forum to the cerbellum, medullum and cranium, expose my blog planet to the scandolous joy of discourse, dialogue and thought... I'll tell you why, wonderful and involved my mind is in all those glorious things (and I am desperately in love with them all) passions for knowledge are wonderful, fundamental, crucial to coming into Being and comprehending the state of Being- but the Being itself- the penetration of existence- that's where the passion is, that's where the life is, that's where life is, that's where the FUN is... :) If i could give out free souvenirs to my blog i would be handing out a spoonfulls of vanilla ice cream (as it's dreadfully, stifling hot out today- like my yoga studio turned inside out) and today i am cavorting (dreadfully un lady-like i suppose) with the realms of vanilla.
Blog abortion seems to be growing more popular, in fact it is a daily epidemic that is ever spreading. I have contemplated with the notion myself, I must confess I don't think I am truly heading in that direction... much as I love the drama of ceasing to exist i am fond of the colors and fonts-and Chana'le's image of a roller skating rink... hmmm... goes with my life philosophy (which changes daily as life does): Live Circularly- got to be open to all options... you never know when opportunity runs you over with a U-Haul truck- or i guess love for that matter... So no, this is not about discussing things we know nothing about- (i disagree with other blogs) its about life itself- which is everything tangled in one big clump of color (existence, drives, and tweedlydee all part and parcel to that great exploration)- if we wrote only about what we were certain of where would we be...why i'd only be able to share my tales of coffee brewing, hitch hiking, toast burning, insomnia and work. Ugh. How dreadfully boring. We all need escapee worlds and planets (i am the Little Princess of my world) and besides if we can't see thing through wild Elton-John like glasses- how dull and boring and routine life would be. If we couldn't imagine and argue about that imagination, if we couldn't think about things that are totally irrelavant (Shawna I refer to our deep conversation about the laughter of menapausing cows), unique and different, why we'd make the Matrix life look brilliant... So no, I don't write strictly what I am sure about, or on what I am positive I know about, or even anything Relevant to this great Predictable Reality- hell, who would??
So much energy brewing in me write now, I type this in a fury of fingers, and I am going to go running because today the tranquility of yoga is not going to exhaust me. And right now I need to be exhausted. I need to be exhausted and appeased for hurting friends, pretentious people, and fallen princesses.
Peace, love, happiness to you all- go to the light and stop thinking about the suburn.
:) bien jour!
Recently, someone asked me why I don't write about philosophy, literature etc. on this blog open the forum to the cerbellum, medullum and cranium, expose my blog planet to the scandolous joy of discourse, dialogue and thought... I'll tell you why, wonderful and involved my mind is in all those glorious things (and I am desperately in love with them all) passions for knowledge are wonderful, fundamental, crucial to coming into Being and comprehending the state of Being- but the Being itself- the penetration of existence- that's where the passion is, that's where the life is, that's where life is, that's where the FUN is... :) If i could give out free souvenirs to my blog i would be handing out a spoonfulls of vanilla ice cream (as it's dreadfully, stifling hot out today- like my yoga studio turned inside out) and today i am cavorting (dreadfully un lady-like i suppose) with the realms of vanilla.
Blog abortion seems to be growing more popular, in fact it is a daily epidemic that is ever spreading. I have contemplated with the notion myself, I must confess I don't think I am truly heading in that direction... much as I love the drama of ceasing to exist i am fond of the colors and fonts-and Chana'le's image of a roller skating rink... hmmm... goes with my life philosophy (which changes daily as life does): Live Circularly- got to be open to all options... you never know when opportunity runs you over with a U-Haul truck- or i guess love for that matter... So no, this is not about discussing things we know nothing about- (i disagree with other blogs) its about life itself- which is everything tangled in one big clump of color (existence, drives, and tweedlydee all part and parcel to that great exploration)- if we wrote only about what we were certain of where would we be...why i'd only be able to share my tales of coffee brewing, hitch hiking, toast burning, insomnia and work. Ugh. How dreadfully boring. We all need escapee worlds and planets (i am the Little Princess of my world) and besides if we can't see thing through wild Elton-John like glasses- how dull and boring and routine life would be. If we couldn't imagine and argue about that imagination, if we couldn't think about things that are totally irrelavant (Shawna I refer to our deep conversation about the laughter of menapausing cows), unique and different, why we'd make the Matrix life look brilliant... So no, I don't write strictly what I am sure about, or on what I am positive I know about, or even anything Relevant to this great Predictable Reality- hell, who would??
So much energy brewing in me write now, I type this in a fury of fingers, and I am going to go running because today the tranquility of yoga is not going to exhaust me. And right now I need to be exhausted. I need to be exhausted and appeased for hurting friends, pretentious people, and fallen princesses.
Peace, love, happiness to you all- go to the light and stop thinking about the suburn.
:) bien jour!
posted by HindiK at 3:42 PM
45 Comments:
I don't think it's a bad thing to get plunged into the darkness every once in a while. Night is a time of reflection, meditation, and wonder. Use the time. It is a gift- rebuild. refuel. rethink. And with dawn you will see how healing the process has been.
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/political-history.shtml
i was about to suggest a vote on which king kamehameha resembles sari the most, but i do value my life (aaah put down the stapler!)... so here's a fun fact instead!
June is King Kamehameha month! (they have a whole lei laying ceremony by his statue- i dunno which number he is though)
and- no need for blog insecurity- your blog is just delightful!
much love- n(d)
Brilliant!
kaye- great blog. the style is really cool. (and to think you wasted time on mine when you had one like this??) my apologies for deleting my blog right after you spent time writing those 3 posts; i actually read and reread them, and replied. did u see the reply? i have my blog+comments copied and pasted somewhere, so if you want any of the stuff that you posted for reference or whatever, lemme know.
Well hello S. :)
on this blog there's no need to be anonymous unless you choose to be :) I am honored by the visit. I would love to see what you replied (I don't need to see my great long stream of conscious again) and I must tell you I very very much enjoyed the mental workout- your blog got me thinking and re-thinking various paradigms of my life. 'Tis a shame- you know not all good things must come to an end (although leaving while high is a good thing too). As I am sure you realize this blog is a different sort of spirit...still do keep bloggishly in-touch as I enjoy your thought process and the intellectual dialogue (hmm- second blog coming along?).
much thanks for the compliments, blogging is definitely cheaper than therapy. I apologize for my somewhat obsessive rambling (I hope it didn't drive you out of Blogville) do come by and visit.
:) hin
Let the dawn clear you head love-
Sunlight can do wonderful things to an exhausted spirit-
Serioiusly GET OUTSIDE TODAY!!! Breathe a bit of fresh air and vow not to turn on the computer for the next 3 hours (in case you haven't realized i have officially apointed myself as you life coach)
i cannot help but worry, miss you, concerned about you all, terribly.
(emotion by me is one big gulp).
namastaei dear. truly namastaei.
loathe as i am to hijack your blog with long posts and topics, i will paste what i replied to u for the sake of continuity; i hope my "esteemed host" doesnt mind. (my turn to pay homage in this corner of blogdom?)
---------
kaye- lol, i had to study your posts, notebooks, calculator and pencil in hand. phew. ok.(disclaimer to anonymous- i dont care if i really understand, or just think i do; i find it fun to speculate and discuss this. in truth, im not sure if i know anything, if u really want to know.)
i got the thing that his (all blanket pronouns assumed descartes, ok? by now i have a candle lit on top of my computer [at least it LOOKS lit] in his memory ['cuz that for sure existed] ...) mind is the only sure thing, so anything abstract enough to be contained in his mind is just as certain. enter math. and physics ends up being less real than math, becasue u must come onto the big bad sensational world (in the real sense). u explained it very well.
about the fly thing, i gotcha. i'm suprised they didnt have it b4 then, though when u start with parabolas and stuff, again, im ducking for cover. five years of zal wiped alot out. about euclid paving the way for descartes, makes sense. i think freuds theory was as base as possible, because he uses examples which you cant suggest stem from a higher aspect. (not sure this is the right place to analyze his theory).
about ur question about absolute morals and legal morals, u use the word derivative; i think thats the word of contention. if it is a legal moral endorsed by torah, then its included in the torahs morals, if not, then it has no value and its no problem breaking it, just dont get caught, cuz that would blunder self-promotion.
i still think that the basic human will to live is the same thing really as his desire to enshrine himself forever in one way or another.
i think that covers everytihng, thanx for the long post.
-------
there arent many question marks in this one, so maybe this topic will fade away at this point. in any event, it was indeed fun; i actually enjoyed your 'obsessive rambling' alot, u're a smart one.
(no second blog coming, and no Second Coming at all for that matter.)
person shit too much = diarrhea.
person talk too much = verbal diarrhea.
at a diagnostical loss for person who writes/types/blogs too much...
have yet to see substance emerge from fingertips so no scientifical evidence with which to make study which means cant even ask you to volunteer. oh just being playful. didnt want you to say anything dreadful or the like (retired slug). figured id be playyyyyfulllllllll....oh yeah just one catch. i play my OWN game honeyful soul. so bribery or attempted insults bordering on blackmail without a backup, wont do it. again, just being playful. playful playful. ok getting tired. time to put the toys away/ tomorrow is another day.
there, you even got some poetry.
hugsandkisses
forever
anon
o anon i do love you. you sound like a constipated mule. charming in its own bizzare way.
dear, do try the prune juice as a toast to personal verbal diarrhea (did i get it all, hon?).
xxooxxo hin
sy-nonomous, you can run but you can't hide. The blog culture has become part an parcel with you, and shutting your own blog will just make you flood all the others with long out of place comments. I say it's time to re-open.
Peace.
I like long rambling posts so do stop harrasing the new poster on the block :) [besides it was in regard to a previous discussion on a newly deceased blog]. You are all welcome to post here- at whatever length you choose too. Interesting take on the aboslute morals thing. Isn't there a concept of law created by man being equal go G-d's? Isn't that some empowerment to humanity? Just wondering this as i eat my early morning yogurt and granola...
:) buen giorno raggazei
yes, there is the concept that law created by man is equal to g-ds. but that concept is torah-dictated and torah-endorsed, and from there is its value. so its really a torah moral, not one of men.
and if by any chance, you were referring to a concept of mans-law=g-ds-law which wasnt backed by the torah, then i wouldnt agree with the concept; those laws wouldnt be considered an issue of morals at all.
......and thanx for coming to the defense, ragazza.
grazi mille par de rispondere...
i think i got what you are saying. Torah laws endorsed by man (thru the Rabbis of the ages) are equated to G-d, but not the Judeo-Christo legal system that has evolved from it...
u actually totally confused me.
u talking torah laws endorsed by man, i.e. the rabbis with regard to most of our halochos, OR human law endorsed by the torah i.e. dina dimalchusa dina, legal systems, murder, etc?
(i dont know what the judeo-christo system is. whatever within it is consistent with torah, is ours, and torah backed. whatever within it doesnt contradict torah, then if we are citizens of its proposers, then that is also torah backed. if something within it contradicts torah, then it has no moral value.)
reminds me of the story when one of the caliphs took over alexandria way back in the olden days, he ordered its massive ancient library burnt to the ground. his rationale- if a book is consistent with the koran, its superfluous, and should be burnt. if it isnt consistent, its heresy, and should be burnt. pretty much like one of those witch trials.
if this blog is to be aborted, i assume its still a fetus. what trimester? beware of late term abortions!! you dont want a traumatic, life altering, scarring blogabortion episode. besides what is considered full term for blogs? aha and does that mean that all the early posts were the result of morning sickness:)? look, there are other options out there. you can always always give it up for adoption. and finally, never succumb to social pressures!!particularly when morality is at stake. how you do go on about jewish morals and to think that in the same series of breaths, youve contemplated abortion. why resort to an abrupt and violent end when itll die out on its own anyway? as we all will? think about this. i bid thee farewell. p.s. no wonder you wax lyrical over vanilla ice cream....its to be expected of the expecting:)
i like the story synonymous, will post thoughts later.
glad the term abortion gave you that much writing material anon.
hin, am headed to europe myself by the by, though doubt we will run into each other. will have to discuss...
thanks for your vote re. my hawaiian princess status:) though i feel far from one at the moment. actually... fat, intensely hawaiian/local, and incredibly lazy and immobile. not many more strikes necessary.
Synonmous-
Very good story, and went with your point beautifully.
I am just going to clarify the term I used- (I take it from reading your other posts on other blogs that you actually seek knowledge and appreciate the fill-ins) Judeo-Christo term used for anything that 'evolved' from Jewish or Christian customs. The prohibition of stealing would be such a concept. I am just wondering... I read in another blog I am not sure if it was you or someone else, that said you could break any law that is not in Torah provided that you do not get caught.
There are definitely people with that rationale... I am keeping tabs on the conversation on Plato on Ricki's blog- and it goes with this topic... what laws govern man? What civil laws do we institute to prevent anarchy and disaster? Many people have argued that religion is a form of control (I don't belive this personally, but I know plenty, plenty of people who do).
Ultimately, it is a system of checks and balances... Plato argued that democracy crippled the most talented and successful of the group (he's right, it does) doesn't this convultued form of faith that people worship, revolving around money, etc. etc., simply do exactly that? What are we worshipping today? And what laws justify our behavior?
indeed anon-
i am mesh of contradictions and paradoxes. As far as vanilla is concerned it is a life-long love-hate relationship.
Blogging is like pregnancy: you either are or you aren't.
Currently I am- blog is six months going strong and still taking shape. nice fetal image, Phantom.
sorry for the long post (im no good at brevity)...
thanx for the info about the judeo-christo thingee. i guess most of western society has evolved from the basic mosaic values. (code of hammurabi as well...?)
u mention rickis blog. the whole plato thing, where it can be immoral to steal even without a g-d or the like, i dont really understand yet. is it a concession to the Form of Justice? who decided what that is, and that we must concede to it? isnt that concession just the logical conclusion as a way to maintain society, i.e. ultimately self-interest, and not morals? if my questions are based on misconceptions, please lemme know.
about breaking legal law if it isnt in the torah...every legal law you must keep- but only because the torah said so. on its own two feet (which is basically theoretical, unless the law contradicts torah), yes, break the law, just dont get caught.
im facing the same dilemma u had in explaining descartes. do you temper it with judaism, or give it as it is? your questions about civil law, anarchy, etc. you mean the torah perspective? the torah has its' civil laws. i dont know them well enough to propose if they are thourough enough to run a society; i assume they are. (dovid had a blog on this...).
and, hindi, religion IS a form of control. religion is a dictatorship, in the strict sense. you can free yourself from it, but as far as it is concerned, u have no right to change or determine. it has high values and personal rights within it, but it dictates. thats not all its about, though. its just that the torah wont spend its time debating the truth. heres the truth, shun it at your own risk. (you dont like the idea that the torah endorses the killing of an adorable 2-yr-old blue-eyed baby, if hes an amaleki? too bad)
about crippling the best- i dont know. ppl produce best when they feel it serves a purpose, i think. ppl who worship money are sometimes driven to succeed and be the best, so not necessarily does money-worship cripple.
but im actually not sure really what u mean, and this post has by now overstayed its welcome, so i shall run along.
i just realized i probably misunderstood what u said about religion and control; if i did, scratch.
shloime (you'll have to excuse me, i loathe all 'anonymous' variations at this point), firstly i take the liberty of responding for hindi on this one - by no means apologize for the length or overstayed welcome... as she was quite desperate for a new conversation or thought process. and you don't seem to think much of morals, wherever they arise! (hin i guess my brainstorming session before wasn't much help:) on a separate note, the farewell party was quite a successful send off...took all eyes off the fact that i'm leaving as well, apparently no one took particular notice:) i have a heck of a lot more to add to that intangible list btw, but for now, just remember :) :) :) :) :) and all's well!
shloime (you'll have to excuse me, i loathe all 'anonymous' variations at this point), firstly i take the liberty of responding for hindy on this one - by no means apologize for the length or overstayed welcome... as she was quite desperate for a new conversation or thought process. and you don't seem to think much of morals, wherever they arise! (hin i guess my brainstorming session before wasn't much help:) on a separate note, the farewell party was quite a successful send off...took all eyes off the fact that i'm leaving as well, apparently no one took particular notice:) i have a heck of a lot more to add to that intangible list btw, but for now, just remember :) :) :) :) :) and all's well!
Sa- the midnight piqnique in Propsect Park will be your 'goodbye party'...
:)
Shloimie good post. I can relate: it is very difficult to articulate a point in two lines of less... longer helps me understand what you are saying better.
Righto. the Plato aspect. Despite being THE most boring philosophical work i've ever read, Plato shaped all of western civilization. To him, Justice, was each man performing his function. Remember the world of the Forms were only seen the fewest most enlightened philosopher-kings... everyone had to take his/her (they could be woman as well) that they've seen the Form and mandate the law. In Plato's society only people who served a purpose where allowed. The rest, poets, artists...etc. gone. Being that Plato's society was never instituted, it is difficult to say how it really would have been applied. There's no description of what exactly IS the Form of the Good. Only Socrates' claim that he's seen it, and the brilliant light of clarity that comes with it (state of Nirvana of the Buddhist?). They would train for many many years to become philosophers (his educational goals were immense, gorgeous really)and they were not allowed to seek the Form until 50...
I digress. Society needs laws (as children need discpline) it is what makes it a functioning society. Torah obviously has a strict civil vision (Halacha, Beis Din...etc.) more than any other faith, Judaism dictates the most intimate and intricate facets of a person's life- thus making incredibly people oriented, no? Dictating how you sleep, eat and sneeze... this is the ultimate. Yet, unlike communist China- you can leave. There is that liberty/curse, is there not?
Therefore religion is a form of control that isn't mandatory. It is control that is self-induced- a yoke placed upon your shoulders willingly. Are you not supposed to be most liberated in your freedom of faith? Are the laws that bind you not bring continuously closer to the awesomeness of G-d? You write like a Halachist :) an aged philosopher, a practical mathematician... ultimately it comes to do this or don't- but shouldn't we want to? On one hand it hangs above us like a murderous mountain, yet on the other hand- it holds our peace in its hand...
[as for the amalek murdering squad- morals or not- there is no way i will be there].
I was thinking on different lines though. Do you not feel that you do not know what god people are worshipping? Have you ever been so appalled by behavior of the righteous that you could not help but think they served no god, but themselves? When morals are misconscrewed with other standards, and life, G-d, and all that is beautiful and meaningful is simply forgotten in a wasteland of possessions.... this disturbs deeply.
i like long rambling posts- as they actually make a point. Don't apologize or i'll send you a bill :)
sari- i guess ill have to forgive u about my name; u're about the only person who ever spelled it right. i dont think much of morals when theyre not based on a theology; i just dont understand why-how-what. i have a theology, and so have morals. that difference is mostly theoretical though, we're anyways brought up to naturally bring in your plate, pick up after yourself, respect ppl, etc, regardless of anything.
-synonymous
Hindy- when the Yidden had a sanhedrin, the yoke wasnt optional.
"Kofen oso ad sheomar 'rotzeh ani'"
kaye (for old time sakes; these long posts are making me nostalgic for tweedlydeeland)- i hear ya
- so plato wanted whatever would make society function the smoothest. is that because he wanted society that way, or because if it made society function smoothly, it proves its objectively moral, wtvr that means?
i dont see so much his outlook as a moral issue, just as a collective self-interest issue, so the question of who determines the morals is irrelevent, its whatever is good for society. (utilitarinism?) (or maybe the whole issue of "morals" is no more than collective self-interest?)
- on the issue of the form of good, which illuminates all forms.(wasnt it like measure, beauty, art, pleasure, or something like that?).... i read a really cool thing in a sicha yesterday which is lehavdil the chassidus paralell. it says that every cow in this world has its shoresh in the "pnei shor" in the merkavah. the ruchnius cow, or the cow in its most pure form; essential cowhood. an eagle likewise has its shoresh in pnei nesher, thats the pure form, the conceptual eagle. so too every gashmius thing has its ruchnius pure conceptual form above. sounds very platonic, no? then the sicha continued, and it sounded suspiciously like the form of good, though i havent thought it to the dregs yet. the sicha said, that all of these ruchnius sources, when they get traced back even further, all have their ultimate form in the "dvar havaye and ruach piv" which brought into being all of the pure conceptual forms. what do u think? (disclaimer- this is obviously not verbatim from the Rebbe. i took a tad of liberty, so feel free to read it yourself. chelek 33 first sicha of shavuos.)
- i agree that the jewish ppl, and the torah, are beautiful in how we accept on ourselves the dictatorship, so to speak. and even when we choose to, we should realize how lucky we are that we get to impose it on ourselves; we get to express what makes man unique, the ability to be spiritually sensitive. one of the most amazing feelings is to be dead starving and walk past a delicious smelling restaraunt w/o going inside, for no reason other than that u've chosen to limit yourself. no cops, no nothing. u can curse me in the streets and laugh, but i believe in something, i have a g-d who cares... yes, u can leave the beautiful dictatorship; true quality can afford to give ppl the liberty to choose otherwise.
- it can sometimes be disturbing to see ppl profess to do something in the name of a g-d and truth, while clearly thinking no further than themselves, and perverting/abusing whats really beautiful and holy. but we can never assume or judge; every jew is beautiful and means well, really, and has positive points, and has life curcumstances, etc. though you're right, the idea of not sucking the juice of judaism is a shame.
on a tangent, though its not directly connected, theres a story about one of the early chassidic rebbes who once entertained a non-believing jew for an unusually long period of time. afterwards, one of his chassidim expressed suprise, and said to the rebbe that this guy doesnt believe in g-d. the rebbe asked him, and you believe in g-d? when the chassid said yes, the rebbe told him, that with the type of g-d u imagine u believe in, you're just as much of a koifer as him.
- i hear ya about amalek. no complaints there; i'da been scared if you'd be volunteering.
i wont apologize; a bill for these posts would bankrupt me.
sometimes it feels that you can argue about nothing, doesn't it? :)
the beauty of intellectual thinking is that it is often circular, taking you in full, yet wider circles...
i hate sounding like a professor and giving philosophical lectures, but in my little brain utalitarianism is a modern form of applicable Platonism. I could be incredibly off here, but the functioning society the basics of Mills' society seem to be one of the same. Fundamental difference is that utilitarianism claims that you can do anything you want as log as it is "good for the majority of people". I refer here to the Greatest Happiness Principle. They used a standard to measure 'happiness' on Bentham's Calculus (lord, my philosophy professor would be beaming right now). In Plato's society there is simply a hierachry of order, innate function, happiness is fulfillment of function. Mills clearly differs from this when he says "happiness is pleasure". not pleasure in an animalistic sense (ie sex) but the fulfillment of higher human pleasures-
Hmm... good point on the objective morals of Plato. Honestly, I don't know off the top of my head- i'll research a bit (time to dust off the book) and get back to you.
I have to tell you, that in my little exposure to Chassidus I have wondered if the merchavah was somewhat the same. Obviously everything comes from the Source...then it is all channeled through the sephiroth and the forms throught the worlds... again, (i think i am on repeat here :)) Judaism is different in the Oneness aspect. Especially in the fact that equates the One to G-d. (By Plato the Form of the Good, I believe, was Logos- the 'Word', the Creation- not G-d). It's a very very interesting point to bring up. It's been a while but perchance i'll look it over...meantime feel free to expand on it. :)
And how right of you. We can never judge. It is one of my maxims. Bad articulation on my part, as that wasn't quite what i meant. (besides, if you knew me better that would be essentially most hyporcritcal for me to say that) We should just leave that alone- avoid getting personal and slanderous-like.
I apologize for spelling your name wrong- it is horrible when people can't remember your name and how to spell it.
you are all keeping me on my toes (damn. just when i thought i could file that stuff out of my data base)
get some sleep boys. :)
'sok about the name. as long as u can spell synonymous, its cool.
we can indeed go in circles forever here; now u see how cool and unambiguous math is? if we'da spent equal words discussing math, by now we'da for sure invented some new theory or proof. the namastaeian theory, or something real exotic sounding like that. alas.
according to strict utalitarinism, should u sacrifice urself to make 10 ppl happy?
funny u mention logos; thats the word the Rebbe used. dvar havaye veruach piv.
duly going to sleep.
Synonymous- brace yourself :)
I am very interested in understanding that bit you mentioned. It always strikes me as incredible that the ancient Greek philosophers belived in the Logos. I love seeing the gaps- whether in evolution or Platonism the whole world is attempting to explain the Truth.
Overview:
In pre-Socratic philosophy, logos is the principle that governs the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos.
Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves.
In Stoicism (another philosophical school- stoic, lack of emotion), logos is the active, material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous (also Law). Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of reason residing in the human soul.
In Judaism, it is often used as the word of G-d, which itself has creative power and is G-d's medium of communication with the human race.
(also more connotations in Christianty as the gospel...)
Ha! Add this to science's latest 'string theory' you got yourself the basics of Creation. [strings- vibrate: sound: word).
I am interested in this Word. Perhaps you can offer a synopsis of the sicha? It would be an interesting thought to get into. Instead of what differentiates us (which we all pretty much have established) how does the world approach life, the beauty of the diversification- that all leads to One Truth.
Back to original conversation. Utiltariansim is not like Communism or mesiras nefesh. It is a teleological philosophy- how could everyone be as happy as possible. According to the Greatest Happiness Principle the ultimate end is to be as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in ejoyments. This, according to the utilitarian opinion is the end of human ation and is also the standard of morality which may be defined as rules of human conduct. By observing these rules one can achieve an existence of pleasure and happiness at the greatest extent possible secured by all mankind, and not only present but for as far as the nature of things admit. The general problem with Utilitarianism that there is no procedural method of what should be done in the event that society x has two parallel rules (two opposites) in which the effects will be equal.
hmm.. i think that's all for now- must run as life calls.
and Ricco-
you are no interruption.
i will come back to the topic (besides now you are sleeping) as soon as i clean up the cocoa cloud that has exploded in the kitchen. :)
you better be sleeping....
namastaei
hin
Utiltariansim, although not Socialism per se, is quite a justification for Socialism. It's a mathematically incorrect theory, and has serious loop-holes. What if everyone would be happy if we killed one person? Happiness is too relative a term upon which to base laws meant to sustain a society.
-ishechadblevechad
realist- "of course morals is whats good for society?" who said that my actions have to be influenced by a concern for society, what if i dont care? to care about society is itself a moral, and who determined that moral? and even if we established it to be self-evident somehow, that we have to care about society, what if we differ whats better for society? doesnt morals have to Absolute and irrelated to society? isnt the whole definition of morals totally absolute, this is good and this is bad?
hindi- i was under the impression that utalitarinism isnt just to lead the happiest life for yourself possible, but to act in a way that brings pleasure to the greatest number of ppl possible. if im wrong, enlighten. so if thats the case, i should sacrifice myself to keep 10 ppl happy, no?
-interesting theory about the "strings- vibrate:sound:word". but in a way, the strings are meant to be the matter of the universe, whereas the vibration doesnt automatically effect a sound, which would be the creator, there needs to be another ingredient, the hevel hapeh, the actually breath, and that's the real life energy force. i think we went thru this once.
-now to the WORD. i dont know enough about the different philosophies of the logos to contrast. the sicha doesnt focus on this point, but in shaar hayichud vehaemuna in the tanya the Rebbe explains it. the letters are primordial, theyre 22 types of powers that have creative power by virtue of their connection to g-d. theyre the building blocks of everything, and their different combinations are like formulas, producing diff energies, which is the "form" for the creation it energizes. (the letters are like atoms which combine to produce a molecule). the energy from the combined letters aleph/beis/nun are the "form" of a rock. diff combinations make more spiritual creations (energize angels) or less spiritual creations (energize rocks), depending on the combination, permutation, etc. something like that; this is at best inadequate and at worst incorrect. how have you learnt how this process works?
synonymous - hear ya about the morals, was just an observation:) and pray tell, how on earth could your name involve difficulty spelling?? mine, on the other hand...
and we're not discussing math or coming up with theories or proofs b/c math doesn't allow much room for opinions, digressions, totally irrelated chassidic thoughts and circular conversations.
sari- (spelled right?) 'tis true, if we only discussed math, we'd end up with nothing to talk about, which would be a shame, and no speculation, which is no fun.
but as far as hard value is concerned, i think that proves its value. anyhow.
since this stuffy philosophical mini series bores me to despair, i will take the opportunity to make my humble self, including several others (ten people), happier, by sacraficing synonymous. yeah i know, its not done. rather only HE can ultimately choose to individually sacrafice for the benefit of the whole, but on this exraordinary circumstance, i take matters into my own "oh so boring uncool dont know when plato farted" hands. an insect of a theory keeps creeeping up about you guys, pestering my fingers to spit it out, but hindi will then promptly sacrafice me a la abu musab al zarqawi, not in mere theoretical terms, and contrary to popular belief, I DO FEAR HER WRATH. so i wont say what i think which is that would shloime kindly ask hindi out on a date and may you both smooch your philosopies to kingdom come:):)
I leave this blog for a several hours and look what's going on...
:) this is great entertainment for an insomniac.
(hey anon- guess where i was? went to get some vanilla with Rose)
shloime last post i went into this thing about the Breath. I deleted it as it felt like a tangent. But yes, i agree with you its the breath itself not the motion. "G-d breathed life into Adam", Tanya: breath comes from the depths of a being- soul- it is what binds the mental to the physical, the mind to the body... it is the binding force of life.
Breathing is fundamental to meditation too (i suppose the yoga bit gave it away somewhat... i will stop here :).
According to utilitarianism- its the greatest happiness for everybody. There would be no human sacrifice as it would go against the grain of society. Again, this is not communism (ie for the people, public phenomeneon). Despite whatever issues you may have, utilitarinism has one major flaw that cannot be reckoned- or that relies on some non-utilit. principle to resolve it. So it can't work. In regard to the Itzakadoozie dude- yes, happiness is the goal of all men. Whether is is as Aristotle believed 'fulfillment' or 'pleasure' as Mills believed. We all want to be happy. The objective of laws ensure, protect, achieve justice all of which aide in our quest for happiness.
As per the 22 primordal letters of the Aleph Beit (Alpha, Betta, A, B)i have heard of it somewhat before (although i have never fully delved into it). 22 letter name for G-d i suppose is such a formula as well (don't ask i did a thesis on Magic and Kabbalah)- would love to hear more about it.
Sar- how hard is it to spell your name?? S-A-R-I ??
Ricky just informed me that she is with a 'y' not an 'i'. For all who care i spell my name any number of ways (i don't really care) Hindy/Hindi/Hin/Hinn/Hind so either way is just peachy fine by me.
Anon- you disappoint me and yet you have taken full advantage to say what you feel, and as always, i will not reprimand your freedom to speak your mind (tho' don't test me darling). What is wrong with a little brain flexing? Will return with some nice visual pictures that you can rest your eyes upon for stimulation. Trust me, dear, despite your anger, initially i hated philosophy, sometimes its incredibly fascinating, sometimes it's utterly pointless. We can agree on that much...
was referring to k-r-a-s-n-j-a-n-s-k-y dear (as apparent by the 10 spelling variations in a family of 8, and many many ridiculous abbreviations. didn't explain the obvious...
was referring to k-r-a-s-n-j-a-n-s-k-y dear (as apparent by the 10 spelling variations in a family of 8, and many many ridiculous abbreviations. didn't explain the obvious...
What if the happiness of "society" depended upon the sacrifice of one individual?
-ishechad
im drowning here. not all of us mere mortals grew tall enough to access our philosophical intellect. ouuch i just cant reach. much as i try, the fascination eludes me. id try to flex my brain but ive been told to never awaken a sleeping baby. besides, as a yogee would know, you pull too hard, the rope snaps. why test the delicate grey matter? and just a tip from me to you, attempting to appear smarter, doesnt actually make you smarter. did you know that? damn didnt mean to knock down any of those established edifices of "what i say is what others see /cant see thru me" attitudes. find something fluffy to discuss in place of this choo-choo train wreck of flying gibberish. thanks in advance sweetness.
anon
hey anonymous,
what if the happiness of society depended on the sacrafice of one individual? nothing. you get j.c. and christianity. and no happiness.
anon (and the ten others)- if i tied up the blog and irked/bored you, i'm sorry; i hadn't meant to.
i'll make myself less conspicuous...
anon-
shall i suggest you open up your own blog- that way you can mandate precisely what appears on it? And dearest, darling sugar plum, I, and I alone will determine what I write on this blog, who I date and what I do, tho' i am obliged for well-thought of suggestions. Do have a lovely day, love.
will return to conversation a wee bit later.
shavuah tov everyone. We seem to be in three different field of philosophy: metaphysics, normative ethics and epistemology.
To clarify the easy part: the realm of epistemology. In his Republic, Plato illustrates teh contrast between appearance and reality by using the two vivid illustrations of 1. divided line 2. the cave. These two illustrations (do not mix up with his funadmentals of the actual Republic) serve to differentiate the members of the society and the steps the mind takes on its way to true knowledge. Just to claify, the imaginary line is divided into two major parts; the lower part refers to the 'visible' world and the upper part to the 'imaginary ' world. In the visible world we encounter things that are constantly changing; in the intelligible wolrd we recognize ideas and IDEALS (as you said Ricky) that Plato calls 'real'. Similarly, the illustration of the cave describes how individuals who dwell in the cave have a very disorted idea of what they are experiencing (hmmm what can we know? do we honestly know what an apple is???).
It is not until they come up out of the cave do they discover (see the light), step by step, how limited their knoweledge was in the cave (what does your cave look like??). These two illustrations of the divided line and the cave are meanst by Plato to say the same thing, namely there is a basic difference between appearance and reality (echo of a Chassidic thought?)
Plato had a quite optimistic view about our ability to acquire knowledge. Not all philosophers, though, agreed with him, and a school of philosophy arose that specifically emphasized our inability to know ANYTHING. Founded by Sextus Empiricus believed we do not doubt just for the sake of doubting. Instead, we achieve a kind of psychological tranquility when we set aside our dogmatic views of everything- including metaphysics, religion, and MORALITY. The underlying reasoning behind most of the ten modes of skepticism is that there are vastly different ways of perceiving things, and we cannot prefer any one of these ways to another...
It is in his dialogue Euthyphro that Plato discusses the metaethical question concerning the relation between morality and the will of the gods. Is morality G-d made? Is it a notion that is invented by man? The classic dilemma: "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods beacuse he is holy, or holdy because he is beloved by the gods".
In normative ethics- Aristotle believed reason is the guide to moral behavior and by living in the Middle Way [not in extremes] we develop it (like the Rambam- anyone who knows more about this - please share!!).
In answer to the question: In his book On Liberty, JS Mill defends the notion of individual freedom (that the Util. guy). As long as others are not harmed by our conduct, then, we should be free to engage in almost any activity we please, without governmental influence. So, no Anon, sacrificing Synonmous is not an option...
I hope i am not being repetitive. If I am apologize, thought it might help do see the broader view of all this.
Post a Comment
<< Home