NonE. Leads the Way Again

Hey Jorge,

Sorry I'm so obtuse, but thanks for sharing your thoughts anyway.

I have a question for you. Do you determine how to act based upon what someone has written down as a law, or for some other reason? Do you know what all the laws are? If something is not against the law, does that make it okay to do?

Okay, see, I lied. That was more than one question. But really it's not. Any way, just something to think on.

- NonE

Oh yeah, one more thing... do you think that the world needs more laws to make everything better? Just a few more laws? How many laws are there? (But I'm going in circles here.)

It's kinda like the bumper sticker: When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Guns.

I don’t have his essay open and our satlink is wonky (again), so I’m going from memory here.

Do what you will shall be the whole of the law. Interesting way to live.

I’m pretty sure he didn’t explicitly say that ... and I didn’t infer it from his words. More specifically, I don’t think NonE. was offering any sort of system to replace rights. I think Pint’s comments are helpful in this context. NonE. is taking things “down to the studs”, and looking around at the possible building materials—but no more. He observes that some use a concept labeled “rights” upon which to base their actions; others use one of a collection of writings, perhaps known as the Torah, or Bible, or Koran, etc.; others may appear to simply obey whatever someone else tells them to do; and so forth. What I took as his point is similar to the saying, “The map is not the terrain”, yet at least some of us have difficulty with this at some level: the map should tell us everything we need to get to where we want to be.

So if Humans act like chimpanzees committing murder and cannibalism, that is fine, because there are no rights. Or if Humans act like dolphins and commit rape, that is equally fine.

Some humans do act like those chimpanzees—but not all chimps are murderers and cannibals. Some humans act like dolphins—but not all dolphins are rapists. Neither are all humans murderers, cannibals, or rapists. The fact that some animals—including humans—choose these behaviors from the many possibilities says very little, if anything, about how most act. Your statement, Jorge, seems to be the antipode of my assertion some time back that too often we act as if rights will protect us—but there are some situations where they won’t. There are some humans who act in barbaric ways, and do so for a wide variety of reasons. Invoking “rights” in the face of such threats probably will not stop the aggressor from continuing his attempted action.

So it is not quite Crowely's "do what you will..." but more like do what you think you can get away with. And this is the correct way to act.

Again, I don’t see him asserting or implying this. And, for whatever it’s worth, I would feel as safe visiting NonE. alone as I would you—and you being married has nothing to do with that.

(Though I've never understood negative rights. Perhaps someone could enlighten me?)

As I see it, ALL rights are positive; that which is taken away from others is (usually) done by criminal act. One who doesn't "respect another person" may be a boor, a thug, or a government agent (but I repeat myself!); he may be insensitive to the feelings of others, or unaware of what is just and/or acceptable in a given situation. But "taking" is not acceptable - whether by theft, fraud, taxes, threat from knife, gun, fisticuffs, or ignorance. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Force, by any other name, is still anathema to free will." The *initiation* of force is what sets the criminal apart from the non-criminal, and gives the non-criminal the RIGHT to self-defense.

A voluntaryist, in any case, DEMANDS nothing from others; he simply wants to be left alone, free to socialize peaceably with others by mutual consent. If someone wishes to be disrespectful (or criminal) toward the voluntaryist, he must expect to pay the consequences of his action.

(I do believe, NonE, that being deliberately "hypocritical" is another way of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. History - in the form of many individuals and political persuasions - has proven that it can't be done.)

NeoWayland,

"How's that workin' for ya?" - Dr. Phil

I must say, as horrid as I think a lot of the things Dr. Phil stands for and postures about, that line of his is a classic and well worth quoting, don't you agree?

I mean, look at "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Isn't that one of the most profound things you've ever heard, coming from one of the more destructive men of the last century?

- NonE

Ellen,

Your post is very moving. Thank you for it. I feel exactly as you do, I think. There is nothing for it but to recognize that the future is unknown. I'm not sure I have any answers, and all that I've been pointing out is that just because we want everything to be pretty and nice does not mean that it will be, and that lying to ourselves is not a better way of living. I've not been able to find any tooth fairy, as much as I'd love for there to be one.

I also am appalled at the crap in Gaza, and in my back yard, as a matter of fact. That does not mean that my wishing it were not true will make it not true. My brain doesn't want it to be true either. But my intellect knows that it is. So now my task is to try and figure out the best way to live with this reality. Keep in mind, however, that the stuff written in Desiderata is also true, that love is as perennial as the flowers. It truly is. There is beauty all about us. So is it fair to ignore all of that beauty and focus only on the horrors? After all, this afternoon the internet brought me a very moving reply to my post written by a beautiful soul. It was a gift. I thank you.

- NonE

Not saying that’s what you’re reporting here, Ellen; but that’s what I call my thoughts and feelings that run similar to what you’ve shared. And even though it hurts me deeply at times, ultimately I wouldn’t choose to not care, because it seems that that would require not feeling at some level. I cannot conceive of giving up any ability to feel. My daughter has been teaching me many lessons in these areas recently.

Hey there, Jorge! Thanks for your comments. (Really!) Obviously your style and mine differ widely. Feel free not to read, of course. You are ever so correct about my rambling. I don't know if there is any relevance, but the thought that just went through my head is that bees apparently fly in very intricate aerial ballets in order to communicate with their hive mates the directions to nectar sources and such. I do a dance with my words, hoping that others may see the picture as I do. Of course we all have different reference points, the extreme of which is that those who speak entirely different languages have a harder time than those of us, like you and I, who have the same language but perhaps very different referents in our past and in our views of the world.

Your last paragraph is interesting. You said:

I recommend that instead of try to be conscious, which he clearly is, that he try to stay focused and on topic, then perhaps, there will be something to discuss.

If you were to look at my writing as art perhaps it would change your view. I say this as one can look at a painting, watch a play, read a novel or a poem, and come away with the experience, perhaps having one's world view enhanced or expanded or changed in some way, without there being some specific theorem which can or even wants to be logically analysed for correctness of content. How, for example, do you discuss (using your word) Van Gogh's work? I had the extreme luck and pleasure to see a massive amount of his work just before it got shipped off the new museum in Europe where it now resides. I must say, my world is different having looked at his paintings. I can't tell you why. I can't tell you how.

Now, please don't go off on a rant about how I'm comparing myself to Van Gogh, as that is not the truth at all. I'm simply trying to describe an experience and communicate it such that you may have a sense of what I'm feeling in an area where perhaps words are insufficient to communicate. Or maybe it is just that I am not sufficient enough of a wordsmith to do so.

I don't know. Maybe you're right. Maybe I have nothing of value to say and should just shut up. Or maybe you are missing my message. I suspect that there is some truth to both of these perspectives.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

- NonE

Jorge, in critiquing my STR post, made this statement:

The very first statement admits to hypocrisy. This is not a good start if one wishes to make a serious point. In the response to Pagan he seems to be unaware of the full definition of "hypocrisy". It is implicitly deliberate.

and he referred to a link quoted here:

hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy [hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.
1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

Jorge, I think you miss the point. Your linked definition says "pretense of having..." but note that it does not include the word "conscious." THAT is the point. You state that, "It is implicitly deliberate." I see nothing in the given definition which makes that claim.* I do believe that many (most? all?) of us have various beliefs which we unconsciously hold in conflict with other beliefs. This was my point. I had looked at some of my thinking and found it to be conflicting. These were beliefs that I thought were well founded. I honestly trusted that my thinking was correct. But no! Upon examination I found that something was amiss. And so I had to admit that if I held on to conflicting beliefs I was a hypocrite. In fact, even if I didn't know that my beliefs were in conflict, that does not absolve me from the hypocrisy.

The point is to try to be humble enough to be willing to admit that I was wrong, and to try to understand how and where I was in err and then to see if I could find a workable solution to the problem, aside from remaining a hypocrite.

To me, the idea of admiting my own hypocrisy is very serious indeed. That is what makes it worthy of examination.

Does that help to clarify my opening with such a statement?

- NonE

* Here I will suggest to you the benefit of trying to paint a picture with words rather than to depend solely on the expectation that another will hold exactly the same definitional view as your own. As someone said, "First, define your terms." If one creates a picture more may be infered from the view than perhaps from one certain word. Which may be part of the difference between the Asian languages and the Western. I'm listening to an Amy Tan audio book at the moment, and as a native born "American" of Asian roots, much of her writing has to do with the differences in the cultures, language crafting being a large part of that. Alan Watts refered to this in one of his talks as well, the simplicity of Chinese speech and how it differs from the structure that Western language enforces on our mental constructs. Of course both methods have their own strengths and weaknesses.