I didn't say that the subjugation was evil, I said that the concept of evil
was imposed upon incompatible values within the subjugated ethical
system.
I don't agree that anything boredom related can be characterised in the
terms you describe.
When an action is described as thoughtless, one does not say that the act
itself was without thought since that would be nonsensical, but that it was
thoughtlessly acted, I have never encountered such a use of boredom in the
use of romance languages I have learnt. Similarly an ation could be
performed through boredom and yet one would still be able to attribute a
good or evil value. Far from binary, one can scale it from one to one
hundred, or any other scale with as many arbitrary points in between
absolutes (in as far as they exist), but one cannot scale it from one to
one hundred and include 'G.' G may cause 5 to be pushed to 10, similarly 50
may have mitigated L to a mere K, but they are seperate entities.
____________________ Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
callei
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 31/1/2006 at 04:29 PM
W- I am sorry i misread that part. that whole section of your post read, to
me, as predicated on LOTS of assumptions, intrenched and only partically
acknowledged assumptions at that, again to my eyes and i responded with
alot of assumtions on my part.
IF two or more groups of people had a concept of "Good" and then one of
those groups got subgugated by another, HOW does it follow that the
subjugated group would develop the idea of evil? why not shame? why not
envy? or, in this "good/evil" paradiem do those states of being, or motive
forces come from somewhere else and not fall into that same line of
good---evil?
Also, Humans exist in Time (meaning 4 dimensions), or at least relate to
each other using the medium of time. Would not thier motive forces also
have more than 2 points? if you use a point on the good---evil line and a
point in time, that is only 3 dimensions. not the implied necessary 4 using
the 4+ dimensional model of the universe that western culture uses these
days. You cant use the human as the fourth point since the arguement is
that good and evil are seperate and independant of humanity themselves.
There are at least 6 billion people on the planet. At least 1/3 (ok yes i
agree, less than 1/3 does use this good evil thingy, but you dont argue
that in the middle of the good/evil arguement, at least not after making a
plea to pick one nit at a time) of those dont have or use the good-evil
stick to measure actions or motives. Yet it is still a valid way to process
life information.
Just to toss up another concept here... Is right action the same as
good?
(giggle)
____________________ Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
W0rmW00d
Fanatic
Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 1/2/2006 at 12:16 PM
I don't think that the subjugated group would develop the idea of evil, as
such, it would be overlaid by the subjugating group in order to create the
shame etc that is the internal justification for ethical issues. If there
is no normative ethical base then this internal value system is its only
base, therefore if it does not exist it needs imposing. Over generations
(as few as two or three, I would imagine, although it depends on the scale
of the populations) it will become the only value system known to the
group and thus their good/evil concepts will arise.
Step 1 - Two groups, group1 and group2, two ideas of good, good1 and good2,
neutral concepts, and what shouldn't be done for expedient reasons, bad1
and bad2.
Step 2 - Group1 takes over group2 and needs its good1 to take precedent
over good2. It is notable that all conquering groups attempt to impose
their value systems upon others. Often, indeed, it is the reason for
conquering (or at least has been since the Judaic religions became the most
prevalent)
Step 3 - the 2 of good2 is discouraged, outlawed or otherwise designated
'evil' by group1 as are the bads, in order to impose this internal
justification.
Step 4 - Generations of knowing the moral system designed above lead it to
become unquestioned as the original reason for it becomes subsumed by
mythology, routine and all of the other things that makes any ethical
system stick.
This seems to make sense. There are, of course, assumptions, but each of
these steps is derived from a real life model. The motives I give will have
been given differently by group1 and group2, but there is certainly a
pattern of using ethics in this way throughout history.
Human thoughts are beleived to be two dimensional at the moment. I agree
that there are other motives, and motive has a part to play in the
definition of good and evil in most value systems (at least all which I
have studied), but it is not a part of the same spectrum. I do not thnk
that good and evil are generally motivational forces in many cases. It is
very rare that one would ever decide that 'I am going to be evil, now what
shall I do?'
Right isn't the same as good. Right is a subjective, context based concept,
whereas good is intended as an absolute, objective value, although we all
know how often that is the case....
____________________ Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 7/2/2006 at 05:44 AM
Gothicmormon is so cool he once completely sidelined an entire forum
thread...
true story.
hehe.
____________________ In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King