Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:27:14 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: global elites...and Goodness




Hugh/Eric

I remain, as ever, fascinated by the religious difference between us. I 
am, of course, the 'rabid atheist' referred to below,  though the idea 
of being 'rabid' is as entrancing and enjoyable to me (it may be my 
affection for the SI coming out) as it must be to religous people 
everywhere if you prefix their particular beliefs with the term, as in 
rabid-christians, rabid-jews, rabid-hindus, rabid-buddists and the 
current favorite rabid-islam.... Personally however I don't 
differentiate between the religions whether they are monotheisms or 
polytheisms it really makes little difference they along with all 
religions are engaged in terrible activities reproducing  positions that 
are intimately related to the terrible things we humans do to one another..

Where the statement ' needs of the state '  is made surely you really 
mean 'needs of society' which may include the 'needs of the state' but 
does not excuse or exclude the other aspects. Without the state the 
necessity for charity would after all be much greater.


regards
steve

hbone wrote:

> Eric/All,
>  
> Thanks for going to the nitty-gritty.
>  
> As for the "born again text".  I grew up as a born-again Christian, 
> which has become a pejorative in spite of the the efforts of Jimmy 
> Carter and millions of others,  Perhaps its discreditied because 
> of radio evangelists, and far-right politicians.
>  
> At different times I lived with a lapsed Catholic and a semi-lapsed 
> Jew - at least she hated "Jews for Jesus". 
>  
> Never knew anyone who was a rabid atheist, or who hated the religious 
> rituals of christenings, weddings and funerals, or took lightly the 
> grief of those who suddenly lost children, parents, or spouse.  
> Nor did I ever know anyone who committed murder or suicide, yet our 
> prisons and cemeteries hold millions of them.
>  
> I share most of your opinons below, but have a few comments.
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
>>Hugh, Let me respond to your postings in the context of this message.  >Certainly .ethics has ties to religion, but a post-religious, 
> post-Darwinian ethics is >possible as well.  
>  
> Yes.
>  
>>Conscience is not merely a vestige of a previous time we carry within 
> us like an >appendix, but an open judgment that can be made in any place at any 
> time.  >Badiou makes this point well I think, using the camps as an example of an >ongoing attempt to dehumanize inmates.  "We are dealing with an animal 
> whose >resistance, unlike that of a horse, lies not in >his fragile body but in his stubborn >determination to remain what he is - that is to say, something other 
> than a victim, >other than a being-for-death, and thus: something other than a mortal 
> being."
>  
>>What I find intriguing here is the use of quasi-religious language for 
> what is not a >religious context and the use of the concept of ethics that does not 
> require the >belief in some supernatural deity.
>  
> The usual way for a person to be "other than a mortal being" is the 
> religious way.
> If there's another way, without a supernatural deity, it might be 
> self-deification.  At any rate, its not "natural".
>  
>>Certainly I am familiar with interpretations of "quantum evolution" 
> that link it with >theology; however, what the issue comes down to for me is this.  The 
> essence of >the traditional concept of God seems to be tied up with teleology, the 
> idea that >there is a predetermined, overarching plan, some final end towards 
> which all >creation moves. The earlier physics of Newton could still inscribe 
> itself safely >within this metaphysics.  The break seems to come with relativity, >incompleteness, complexity, and quantum theory whereby a new universe is >ushered in; one the is fundamentally indeterminate and which thereby 
> makes the >concept of God in the old sense incomprehensible because that is 
> simply not how >the universe now appears to work.
>  
> Agreed.  For me, God made nature or nature made God. 
>  
> Either way, gravity and light, atomic particles and matter in 
> general, behave as indicated by homo-sapien's perceptions, his 
> observations, theories, experiments and consensus of qualified 
> scientists.  No one knows why.
>  
> However, my reference was to writings on the Internet that in some way 
> identify the the cosmic foam and matter jumping into and out of 
> existence, with a sort of cosmic consciousness in which humans 
> partake, participate. 
>  
> It seems to relate more to Buddhism, Hinduism, other beliefs of the 
> Far East (of which I have hardly any knowledge) rather than to Islamic 
> or Judeo-Christian Divinities. These people have out-of-body 
> experiences, one remembers when he was born....things I can't believe.
>  
>>God still remains with us, however, in some sense as the voice of 
> moral obligation. >As Lyotard points out in the beginning of his chapter on ethics in 
> "The Differend" ?>the dilemma is that we are never intrinsically sure whether the voice 
> is that of God >or that of madness. 
>  
> I think its the voice of people who taught you to believe in 
> yourself.  I just read a review praising to the Heavens the movie "The 
> Hours"  I couldn't get interested in
> Woolf's novel "To the Lighthouse" - although I finally forced myself 
> to read it.  I enjoyed very much selections from her diary.  Her 
> husband probably edited out the madness.
>  
> I expect she knew when the inner voice was madness. That might be an 
> exception to the rule.
>  
>>That said, I do think some kind of religion remains defensible.  Kant 
> wrote a book >entitled "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone" and, for me, 
> something like >that remains true.  My understanding of Christianity, in the 'good' 
> sense, comes >down to this.  
>  
>>We are not merely animals, but becoming human is an option, not a 
> necessity.  >Ultimately, it is a matter of choice.  As the Gospel of Saint John 
> puts it: "Unless a >man is born again, he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven."  This 
> rebirth is our >elevation to becoming a human subject, one that is disinterested in 
> the sense that >it acts not merely because these actions are good from a pragmatic or 
> utilitarian >standpoint, but because they are the right thing to do.
>  
> Doing the right thing is doing the pragmatic thing, selfishness rules 
> us all, but idally, it wouldn't be an option.  I remember talking to a 
> young man about his church-going. He said: "It makes me feel like a 
> human being."  That sounds very consistent with your point of view 
> experessed above... and below.
>  
>> In discovering our humanity, we become universal subjects who treat one >another .as ends, not merely as a means, because that is what our duty 
> requires >and because we have come to respect the innate humanity of our 
> neighbor.  To >love our neighbor as? ourselves becomes for us a universal maxim.  
>  
>>Something like this religious message must endure if we are to remain 
> human and  >certainly didn't intend to devalue charity on its own terms.  I 
> recognize that the >people giving have good intentions.  My whole argument is that these good >intentions are often co-opted for the needs of the state and that good 
> intentions are >used against them.
>  
> Yes.
>  
> best regards,
> Hugh

HTML VERSION:

Eric/All,

 

Thanks for going to the nitty-gritty.

 

As for the "born again text".  I grew up as a born-again Christian, which has become a pejorative in spite of the the efforts of Jimmy Carter and millions of others,  Perhaps its discreditied because of radio evangelists, and far-right politicians.

 

At different times I lived with a lapsed Catholic and a semi-lapsed Jew - at least she hated "Jews for Jesus". 

 

Never knew anyone who was a rabid atheist, or who hated the religious rituals of christenings, weddings and funerals, or took lightly the grief of those who suddenly lost children, parents, or spouse.  Nor did I ever know anyone who committed murder or suicide, yet our prisons and cemeteries hold millions of them.

 

I share most of your opinons below, but have a few comments.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

>Hugh, Let me respond to your postings in the context of this message.  >Certainly .ethics has ties to religion, but a post-religious, post-Darwinian ethics is >possible as well.  

 

Yes.

 

>Conscience is not merely a vestige of a previous time we carry within us like an >appendix, but an open judgment that can be made in any place at any time.  >Badiou makes this point well I think, using the camps as an example of an >ongoing attempt to dehumanize inmates.  “We are dealing with an animal whose >resistance, unlike that of a horse, lies not in >his fragile body but in his stubborn >determination to remain what he is – that is to say, something other than a victim, >other than a being-for-death, and thus: something other than a mortal being.”

 

>What I find intriguing here is the use of quasi-religious language for what is not a >religious context and the use of the concept of ethics that does not require the >belief in some supernatural deity.

 

The usual way for a person to be "other than a mortal being" is the religious way.

If there's another way, without a supernatural deity, it might be self-deification.  At any rate, its not "natural".

 

>Certainly I am familiar with interpretations of “quantum evolution” that link it with >theology; however, what the issue comes down to for me is this.  The essence of >the traditional concept of God seems to be tied up with teleology, the idea that >there is a predetermined, overarching plan, some final end towards which all >creation moves. The earlier physics of Newton could still inscribe itself safely >within this metaphysics.  The break seems to come with relativity, >incompleteness, complexity, and quantum theory whereby a new universe is >ushered in; one the is fundamentally indeterminate and which thereby makes the >concept of God in the old sense incomprehensible because that is simply not how >the universe now appears to work.

 

Agreed.  For me, God made nature or nature made God. 

 

Either way, gravity and light, atomic particles and matter in general, behave as indicated by homo-sapien's perceptions, his observations, theories, experiments and consensus of qualified scientists.  No one knows why.

 

However, my reference was to writings on the Internet that in some way identify the the cosmic foam and matter jumping into and out of existence, with a sort of cosmic consciousness in which humans partake, participate. 

 

It seems to relate more to Buddhism, Hinduism, other beliefs of the Far East (of which I have hardly any knowledge) rather than to Islamic or Judeo-Christian Divinities. These people have out-of-body experiences, one remembers when he was born....things I can't believe.

 

>God still remains with us, however, in some sense as the voice of moral obligation. >As Lyotard points out in the beginning of his chapter on ethics in “The Differend” ?>the dilemma is that we are never intrinsically sure whether the voice is that of God >or that of madness. 

 

I think its the voice of people who taught you to believe in yourself.  I just read a review praising to the Heavens the movie "The Hours"  I couldn't get interested in

Woolf's novel "To the Lighthouse" - although I finally forced myself to read it.  I enjoyed very much selections from her diary.  Her husband probably edited out the madness.

 

I expect she knew when the inner voice was madness. That might be an exception to the rule.

 

>That said, I do think some kind of religion remains defensible.  Kant wrote a book >entitled “Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone” and, for me, something like >that remains true.  My understanding of Christianity, in the ‘good’ sense, comes >down to this.  

 

>We are not merely animals, but becoming human is an option, not a necessity.  >Ultimately, it is a matter of choice.  As the Gospel of Saint John puts it: “Unless a >man is born again, he will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”  This rebirth is our >elevation to becoming a human subject, one that is disinterested in the sense that >it acts not merely because these actions are good from a pragmatic or utilitarian >standpoint, but because they are the right thing to do.

 

Doing the right thing is doing the pragmatic thing, selfishness rules us all, but idally, it wouldn't be an option.  I remember talking to a young man about his church-going. He said: "It makes me feel like a human being."  That sounds very consistent with your point of view experessed above... and below.

 

> In discovering our humanity, we become universal subjects who treat one >another .as ends, not merely as a means, because that is what our duty requires >and because we have come to respect the innate humanity of our neighbor.  To >love our neighbor as? ourselves becomes for us a universal maxim.  

 

>Something like this religious message must endure if we are to remain human and  >certainly didn’t intend to devalue charity on its own terms.  I recognize that the >people giving have good intentions.  My whole argument is that these good >intentions are often co-opted for the needs of the state and that good intentions are >used against them.

 

Yes.

 

best regards,

Hugh