Morality and perversion

That isn't a bad thing. An abstract concept can be quite real, and very important. Higher-order thinking skills, when applied to abstract concepts, can lead to tangible results that have great positive impact.

Karma works, but not everyone can reason through all the complex cause-and-effect relationships that Karma implies. Honesty, we all struggle with that at times. Lists of rules and laws and guidelines that cover specific situations can be useful, especially for younger and less intelligent people. But they aren't perfect, which is why regulations are constantly having to be changed and expanded. There is no real substitute for higher order thinking skills.

I think there is no higher moral goal than to seek constantly to refine your ability to apply the abstract concept of morality to new situations. Always a work in progress, this complex discipline requires you to apply everything you have ever learned, and to carefully consider new input from others.

The worst thing you can do is give up the challenge and retreat to static lists of rules, and push others to do the same. That is intellectual fascism; a great threat to what I view as true morality.

 

The point of stating it is an abstraction is to recognize that it is a quality of mind, the mind being naturally abstract. That it is an abstraction is not a problem, the problem comes when we do not recognize that our moral sense is an abstraction, that our moral sense is malleable, not a static pulse emanating from an ideal perspective.

Your perspective leaves you not with higher morals but consistent moral challenge. Every one has an outlook that there is good in the world and that we should have it, and we proceed to find that good based on our model of what that good is. All happenings are lawful but not all happenings are helpful and helpful, is a matter of timing, not of moral fortitude.

There is another way to organize our minds. We cannot stop the tide from turning but we can change our minds about the world. We do not need moral judgment to organize our lives humanely.

 

We do not need moral judgement,but it sure comes in handy sometimes. It's understood by me to be a commonly used facet/construct of humanity in general, (given the potentialities for us to be exactly the same in action or non-action) mostly for useless judgements of the flesh and perhaps usurpation of so-called rights and/or worldly posessions,but its use-the most important use to me -reduces to one understood axiom-Thou shalt not kill. Life is really all we truly have--after all-we're just passing through-- and to end someones life is truly a grievous ,non- reversible act. It dials down the subjective-objective-spectrum from there to mere rudenesses. But then,what and why does ANYthing matter? Because most of us say and think so. ------I need a personal sense of morality to organize my life according to my experience and natural born sense of right and wrong. I don't struggle personally with those terms at all. Perhaps a "fully self realized" (if there are such) persons sense of morality is not so malleable. Then again--if I had to kill to protect a loved one---there ya' go.

Have I missed your point? Sometimes you are a tad obtuse for my little brain.

 

Perversion is the reversal of morality. When someone says that something is perverted, and they're talking about a different person, they may well be wrong.

For example: If fox news says my war on christmas is perverted, they're wrong, I was never taught to NOT wage war on christmas, I was brought up in a secular fashion, so it's not perverting anything for me to dislike pretending jesus was born a time that he was not and that it has something to do with cutting down trees.

It would be totally correct to say that a catholic priest molesting young boys is perversion, IF he was not molested by a priest as a boy. If he was, then it was the norm, (and the original thing that perverted him) and thus, not perversion for him to do it to others.

Lots of sexual attraction is legitimately based on perversion, doing the OPPOSITE of what's known and accepted, especially by religious cults that try to limit sex. So a lot of people have a good time violating those cults rules intentionally. That's perversion.


So yeah, perversion is just when your code of morals gets turned on it's head. However, I guess I can't be perverted, all my code requires me to do is do no harm to others.

 

And is as often inconvenient. A better way to organize ourselves or use our powers of discernment it seems to me is to first ask the question "what is it for?" From there we may find utility at the time in that purpose or not. Beyond that we may ask the question, is it true or real.

What is false is by definition, not real, and therefor does not exist. Reality can be trusted to support it's constituents.

There you go, even the most fundamental moral baseline, don't kill, is insufficient to deal with reality on a consistent basis and that is why there is perpetual contention for moral authority.

The point is the motive of the most idealistic and the motive of the most base, is the same. It ranges from the instinct for self preservation in it's simplest form, to gratitude in it's most complex.

 

And if you have an automobile accident, for example, and someone is injured, are you then immoral?

As far as sexual perversion. Ask what a thing is for. When we look at sex across the spectrum of life, sex is fundamentally for procreation. To put it to uses beyond that is when distortions begin to appear.

 

Ugh everyone should just remember not to hurt anyone and it will all be ok

 

that ^ .... and yet, somehow, that is a terribly hard, next to impossible thing to expect, I have found out.

 

I also think that there will be times that EVERYBODY will be "immoral", in that we all sin...and yes, dope, I know you don't believe in sin...but just bear with me.

I do NOT think everybody will have a perversion, but if a person does - they should learn to deal with it...and not let that perversion run/ruin their lives.

We have free will.

 

There is nothing to bear. Beliefs only contend with other beliefs, never with the truth.

You believe EVERYBODY will be immoral. Why do you believe this?
If nobody is perfect, then perfect is an imagined state that does not exist in reality. If perfect, a moral ideal, is imagined, then imperfect, immorality, is also imagined.

Why should we organize our perceptions based on hero worship and taboo? Why not organize our perceptions around the fact that we live in a solar system and that is enough to account for all that occurs?
Why must someone be found guilty to account for the unpleasant experiences we may encounter?

The answer is, we were taught to accuse instead of comprehend. The lesson is a political/cultural device. It's ideals, if embraced, can inspire murder en mass. The accusation's premises allows us to do inhumane things to each other, for the cause of "justice". The accusation's premises are an excuse for violence.

The accuser sets himself above the accused as being better and therefor sanctioned toward punitive measures to combat the "wrong". It is a way of separating ourselves from our innate humanity toward each other. Consider we have an instinctive prohibition against harming ourselves and those we call our own. Most often, we can only war upon those things that we do not accept or reject as not being a part of ourselves.

 

No, it leaves me with my own morals, instead of whatever has been given to me by whoever has presented themselves as an authority figure.

At this point in my life, I find the challenging moral issues to be mostly political, on the national and global levels. In my daily life, I know what I need to do. Those are old issues that I figured out a long time ago.

This confirms what I was already thinking, that perversion has become a rather useless word. I'm going to stop caring about it.

hedonism + intelligence + learning = viable alternative to conventional morals

 

If your own morals are preferable, then are they not higher on your list of preference?

Then at that level you are left with the challenge. The reason being is you position yourself as having the superior sense on the issues, the moral high ground.

A mind without anxiety is kind. And I have seen you at peace more often than not so I appreciate your level of maturity.

It appears to me that I am constrained by the self organizing principle of life. It is my only prohibition. In that single prohibition, I may find grace.

However, in order to realize that grace, I in turn set no prohibitions on those around me, because where I am prohibitive, I am prohibited.

Which is the point of this thread, to quietly bring these issues to a relevant conclusion. To quiet the rages of conscience, to have justice for all, the verdict need be, not guilty.

With peace, no morals are needed.

 

It's more about the process. It's an honest process, and often quite humbling, as it requires me to examine my own motivations. It leaves me no place to hide from myself.

I'm not going to abandon a thought process just because it sometimes makes me feel good about myself. I don't see that as a serious problem. I haven't been told that my ego is out of control. If my friends say otherwise in the future, I will have to take that into consideration.

...a great benefit of Zen, especially daily meditation. An anxious mind is attached to many worldly things, in ways that are not productive and useful.

 

I find pride and humility to be variations of the same vanity. I more than appreciate the quest for honest or truthful relations. Honesty in this case would be consistency, where what we say and what we do and what we say and what we expect from others is all the same.

No one asked you to abandon anything. Whatever your process, you are more tolerant than most. I am addressing whether there is a de facto need to find people guilty at all.

As long as we perceive the world as threatening in any guise, we are obliged to defend ourselves which makes us, the thing we defend against. We find people guilty because they do not play a role that we have assigned to them. It is not their past that we defend against, it is our own.

However what we resist persists. If we want the future to be different from the past then we need make a different choice in the present. My suggestion is to avoid the attractive temptation to assign fault and react to the fault and instead seek an end to the criminal all together.

I don't know what you mean by Zen. I do not find the world valuable for what it has to offer. My treasure is in being itself. I am carefree, not careless. That is free with my care, I resist the sloth of caring more or less.

 

I think I have that with my friends, but with the world at large...that's a pipe dream. Everybody's head seems to be going in a different direction these days. I do expect from everybody the basic respect that I give to everyone, whether I get it in return or not.

Philosophically, no. Pragmatically, yes.

I "assign" to everyone I meet the role of someone who does not want to harm me and take everything I own. If they don't agree, I see nothing wrong with them being forced to playing a role that does not suit them.

It would be great if everyone around me achieves a level of enlightenment that enables them to see why it is important to respect others, but I'll settle for much less. If simple fear of punishment gets the job done, that works for me, for now. Maybe they will become enlightened in the future.

Fair enough. The word had become about as well-defined as a serving of mashed potatoes run over by a truck, thanks to mainstream pop culture media.

I have read books that read like your posts, written by authors who have lived their entire lives immersed in Eastern cultures. Is that your situation?

While I see great value in studying Eastern philosophies, I never have sought to have them completely replace everything I have learned about Western thought. I don't think any one system has all the answers, but all of them have something to offer, as they represent the collected wisdom and life experience of many people from different situations.

 

I think it might appear a pipe dream because we suspect disparate motives in those we have not come to know as friends. However, it can be shown that there is one motive inherent to all life and that is to be and beyond that to have comfortable being. So, in good conscience I can say there are no bogey men out to harm me. I require no personal defense from anyone because I have seen that nothing real can be threatened. Any sense of harm I have perceived to befall myself has proven only to be to my illusions about the world.

Why? It occurs to me that what is practical is what we practice.

The role you assign then is respect for a proprietary model.

What use can an enlightened being have for enlightenment. Power is only attractive to the weak. We cannot wait for critical mass, we must create it by becoming singular intent. Our hopes and dreams may or may not materialize in time, but what will be done, is done.

My situation is that I have lived my life many times over through serendipity or adventurous choice. In doing so I have become virtuous in some things, mostly in knowing myself and recognizing that the I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself.

I have applied myself to the unraveling of the suffering of my own nervous temperament having discovered that there is no place to go or nothing to become. I have no other ambition for this world other than we might together lay aside our hardness of heart toward each other

Many try and classify the things I say as emerging from a particular philosophy but my education has been of different cultures and classes, as you say, a broad sampling of life.

If I were to classify myself as being of a particular philosophical bent, it would be christian mystic.

 

You have no concerns about violent crime? The statistics are quite clear. We know what goes on.

I don't live in fear, but I take ordinary precautions. I know everyone has to die, but it doesn't have to be today or tomorrow. There are other things I would rather do.

"Real" is another plastic word. Everybody uses it, but its meaning is debatable.

 

None whatsoever. We are subject to discomfort as a matter of course. I am ready for anything that may transpire as I see it all as energetic exchange and in that regard there are no imbalances. I do not regard anything as criminal, but at the same time I obey the law to the extent that my behavior might be monitored so as to not arouse fear in others. Philosophically, that would be giving unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar. In other words I don't give any authority any reason to fuck with me.

I just don't see the ill intent in anything that should befall an individual. Our lives are sensational, one sensation being followed by another, some of which we may call pleasant and some not so. This is true regardless of our level of attainment in life.

Harm is a story without an author so everyone has a different version of what harm is. The curious thing about it is the level and extent of any harm can only be defined by the individual story teller.

When we feel good it seems we want to live forever, there are miserable times though when we would be inclined to question the benefit of longevity.
As far as things you would rather do, you have no experiential conjugation for the word death from which to make comparisons.

Our death does not have to be today or tomorrow, but if it is today or tomorrow, there is nothing you can do to prevent it. What is ordinary precaution?

Do you doubt that you are real?
Would you debate the description that real is non local, nor is it remote? That is, there are no places more or less real than other places.

 

Questions like this make me wonder if you are for real, or just a bullshit character that you write online to fuck with people's heads. Maybe this is a game to see how many questions with obvious answers you can get me to bite on.

 

I don't have this problem, I see everything as love or the call for it. I don't write to fuck with peoples heads but I do ask questions that make people think about their own causes.

I honestly do not know what you mean by you take ordinary precautions. Do you mean you put a coat on when it is cold?

In a world of condition it always takes two, the word condition coming from syllables meaning to "speak with". If I defend myself, I am already attacked.
You cannot take from me what I give freely.