| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
    |
Posted - 2008.10.06 05:12:00 -
[1]
Looking out the endless void of space I close my eyes and watch so much that goes on, I can see the varied angles and views with my mind wide open and not held down by the fog of hate or prejudice , blinded not by personal views and find I see things so clearly when before I could not.
Only when we can detach our selves from things such as social bonds and peer pressures can we truly see what is happening around us and the way forwards, out seeing is not the same as knowing and we much each find our own paths even though they may merge with the paths of others.
For unless you can acknowledge that which you are against you can never y truly embrace that which you embrace, the priests of Ammar denounce the Apocrypta and the Sani Sabik but in doing so they denounce their own beliefs.
For how can you believe in the Spirits of Light if you do not believe in the Spirits of Darkness!
I 3ll3 acknowledge the Sani Sabik!
I acknowledge the Angels!
I acknowledge the Gist and SerpÆs!
I acknowledge the Sansha and their beloved Doctor!
I acknowledge Slavery!
I acknowledge Piracy!
For in doing so I can truly embrace Love and Freedom for all people!
I can embrace and draw close to my heart the belief of all being born Free and Equal and fight for the freedom of the Matari people only taking lives as when I must but never celebrating in doing so for all life is sacred to me.
For now I have acknowledge what I view to be wrong I can Embrace fully and follow that which I believe to be Right and True.
Who to will accept that which they despise so that they can Embrace that which they Believe to most True?
Who has the courage to acknowledge that which they View to be Evil so as to embrace that which they feel is Good?
For Good and Evil are but view points of the social norm and the individual.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
A Soporific
Caldari
Venom Pointe Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 05:31:00 -
[2]
I don't care for good or evil at all. Such distinctions are largely meaningless to begin with. No matter what label is applied to me and mine there is only one moral choice, the one that serves the most the best.
Sadly, I lack the hyperevolved superbrain requried to know and understand all the trillions of people of New Eden, so I restrict my ethical reasoning to those I owe loyalty to.
I owe loyalty to the State, to whom I owe my existance.
I owe loyalty to the Caldari People (and people as a whole to a lesser extent), without whom I could not continue.
I owe loyalty to the Kaalakiota Corporation, to whom I owe my Capsuleer status.
I owe loyalty to Venom Pointe Industries, with whom I work.
I owe loyalty to those I buy from and sell to, who work to make sure I continue in my labors.
I owe loyalty to my crew, without whom none of this would be feasible.
Finally, I owe loyalty to myself.
If an action serves a majority of those groups more than it costs one or two, then there cannot be a doubt as to what the correct choice is no matter the cost. If those groups would be best served by the death of myself or any other individual then how could there be any other ethical choice? Good and Evil are nothing but a false afterimage projected upon others, basing moral and ethical choices upon them is nonsensical.
|
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 05:37:00 -
[3]
Well said good sir good and Evil are but views of others, a wise man once said the difrance between Insane and the Mad is, one is a state of mind the other is the views of others.
So to is the concept of Good and Evil, but my only point is if you accept Light you will equaly accept Darkness as well.
But well said Dear Sir, well said.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 07:05:00 -
[4]
Without light we would not know what darkness is, and without darkness we wouldn't know light. It is through two sides of the coin that we can perceive everything around us. But by realizing that they form one coin, and that this coin is but a part of something greater, we can see the whole.
These wise words were thought me long ago and to this day I still keep them in mind.
Diary of a pod pilot |
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 08:16:00 -
[5]
That Miss/MRs/Ms Arkenath Is exactly it.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
Brother Atticus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:56:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Myrhial Arkenath
Without light we would not know what darkness is, and without darkness we wouldn't know light. It is through two sides of the coin that we can perceive everything around us. But by realizing that they form one coin, and that this coin is but a part of something greater, we can see the whole.
These wise words were thought me long ago and to this day I still keep them in mind.
This remind me of an encounter I had several weeks ago. While roaming the Amarr System, my scanners had found a cosmic anomaly. I took my Pilgrim One to the spot, there was some kind of hollow asteroid with an habitation module inside, that was being harrassed by the local thugs. After clearing the area, I docked into the module, there was a single old hermit inside.
The man was a source of greater wisdom, a collector of past artifacts from our beloved empire, treasures long forgotten. Nearly blind, he could however see deeper than most of us. He presented me with a single gold coin. One side had the figure of a defunct emperor, shining and polished like no other. The other side was charred and blackened, the picture barely reconizable. When I asked him what it was, he simply responded "This is our empire". I didn't quite catch it immediately. |
Revan Neferis
Amarr
The Archaeus of Blood
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:26:00 -
[7]
Originally by: 3ll3
Only when we can detach our selves from things such as social bonds and peer pressures can we truly see what is happening around us and the way forwards, out seeing is not the same as knowing and we much each find our own paths even though they may merge with the paths of others.
Now now 3ll3, well said.
I'll leave you something I once told Jade in a very special moment:
ôTo be a star, you must shine your own light, follow your own path, and don't worry about the darkness, for that is when the stars shine brightestö
Fly safe, my friend.
...every fire needs a little bit help |
Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Aretaic Turn
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:30:00 -
[8]
Captain 3ll3,
thank you for this insight into your beliefs. Unfortunately I have to disagree with a few points, the most important point I have pertains to the following:
Originally by: 3ll3
For Good and Evil are but view points of the social norm and the individual.
This relativist view is born out of a confusion of what actually is Good and Evil and what is viewed as being Good and Evil, for the one and the other are actually not the same in most cases. What is viewed as Good and Evil are but viewpoints of society or an individual, that is true. Now Good and Evil themselves can't be relative to society and individual, because the are per definitionem norms and if they were relative they couldn't function as norms and it really makes no sense to speak about norms that aren't funtioning norms.
On the other hand it does make sense to say that the realization of good does not necessitate the realization of something evil. And thus it is not that the Amarr deny the existence of the Apocrypha, but they consider them to be wrong. In fact if you believe that something is right you have to believe that something that is opposed to what you believe is wrong. One can't believe that everyone should be free (embrace freedom for everyone) and some people shouldn't be free (acknowledge slavery) and at the same time claim that ones system of norms is consistent.
Now there's a difference between acknowledging somethings existence and acknowledging the thing itself. Thus one can believe that everyone should be free and acknowledge the existance of slavery at the same time, because the first is setting a norm and the second a description.
In my opinion one shouldn't confuse these two different levels.
Yours faithfully
N. Mithra
 |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:44:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 06/10/2008 23:44:17
Of course, Ms. Mithra, to assign normative value outside of a societal context to the values of "good" and "evil," one must necessarily assume that such concepts exist independently of humanity-- that the universe, or something greater than the universe, some entity with what we would accept as possessing an objective (or, perhaps, defining) perspective, has a sense of right and wrong.
Though yours does, not all religions or philosophies admit to any such thing. In other words, to do good, as you would have it, one must first work out whose good one is going to do. You have your own sense of this, derived from your own culture and beliefs. The fact that you (or your god, with whom I assume you try not to differ more than necessary) may consider what I or another does to be "evil" does not make it so except in your own eyes-- unless, that is, you're right in what you believe, and the universe really does have a moral sensibility that agrees with yours.
This, I, heathen that I am, doubt.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:04:00 -
[10]
Not entirely true, that. There are certain values that remain if not universal then at least common to all humans regardless of social background, although cultures and individuals weight them differently. An aversion to unnecessary harming of the vulnerable, for example. Fairness and reciprocity. Loyalty to group and patriotism, respect for legitimate authority and tradition, the perception of some things as being "pure" and others as disgusting.
"Right" and "Wrong", "Good" and "Evil"... People talk about "shades of grey" but I believe that human morality is so much more than that. These so-called "extremes"? They're merely points on a sophisticated five-way blend of moral shades and tones. They aren't even single points, either - seemingly opposite ends of the moral spectrum can both register as "Good" or "Right" even with humans from widely different backgrounds.
There is no one good, and no one evil - rather those words describe sinkholes on the dense and intricate geography of the human ethical framework. They exist, because most (I won't say all) humans agree that they exist. Indeed, the concepts are to a degree hardwired into us - our children enter the world with an instinctive grasp of these core concepts. That's not to say they can't be overwritten, merely that humans start out not as a blank slate, but as moral creatures, and that time and experience can reinforce or override our moral impulses.
Ethical concepts such as good and evil don't need to exist independently of humanity in order to possess normative value - the superconsciousness of humanity is quite capable of providing and defining an objective perspective while simultaneously being wholly involved and subjective, just as morality itself is at once an instinctive, intuitive response, and also a logical, cogent process.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
|
Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Aretaic Turn
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:27:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 06/10/2008 23:44:17
Of course, Ms. Mithra, to assign normative value outside of a societal context to the values of "good" and "evil," one must necessarily assume that such concepts exist independently of humanity-- that the universe, or something greater than the universe, some entity with what we would accept as possessing an objective (or, perhaps, defining) perspective, has a sense of right and wrong.
A norm is a standard embodying a judgement about what should be the case. Good and Evil are norms that are thought to concern all human actions. Good is what one should do, Evil is what one shouldn't do. To think them as depending on society or individual persons makes them defunct in regard to being a judgement about what every human should and shouldn't do.
And this is the case independently of what I or someone else thinks to be good or evil or views to be such. It doesn't depend on my personal feelings or beliefs, it doesn't need a 'god', it simply follows from logic.
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Though yours does, not all religions or philosophies admit to any such thing. In other words, to do good, as you would have it, one must first work out whose good one is going to do. You have your own sense of this, derived from your own culture and beliefs. The fact that you (or your god, with whom I assume you try not to differ more than necessary) may consider what I or another does to be "evil" does not make it so except in your own eyes-- unless, that is, you're right in what you believe, and the universe really does have a moral sensibility that agrees with yours.
This, I, heathen that I am, doubt.
Here you show that what I personally view to be good or evil doesn't has to be seen to be such by others, but this is the descriptive level and exactly what I say. You only speak about what I and/or you view to be generally Good/Evil, not about what is Good/Evil.
But that doesn't change the fact that a norm that is to be applied to all humans (and good and evil are such norms) does not make sense if this very norm is identical with what many persons hold individually to be true.
To give an example:
Tom thinks killing Jay and Kay is good.
Jay thinks killing Tom is good, while killing Kay is evil.
Kay thinks killing is generally evil.
Formal logic gives us that all three propositions can't be true at the same time. As they all can't be true they can't give what's good for Tom, Jay and/or Kay at the same time. Thus it follows that they can't give a norm that is functioning for all of them at the same time.
Therefore it can't depend on the parts of what the norm is about what the norm is.
Thus, similarly a norm about how to act for all humans can't depend on what the parts think it to be.
|
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 04:34:00 -
[12]
Ah but you must not forget what you may vie wto be one way that things should be may not be how some one else views it.
Like most things that scocity deems should be it is merely th point's of view of the majority, like with most religions whose clergy force otehrs to belive there way of thinking classing as any other way as wrong or Evil.
Most things when it come's to us hUmans is little more than points of view.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 06:06:00 -
[13]
Mm. Two to fend off at once from different angles (and thank you, 3ll3) ... very well, I'll make an attempt.
Verin:
You may be correct in large part, but I'd suggest sitting down with an anarchist and a blood raider (specifically a blood raider) to get their ideas on what is moral before you declare loyalty to the group and sparing the vulnerable to be even close to universal. "Common," I'll grant, but even granting that you might consider that all that you have named are human notions of right and wrong-- which may simply be common because, as a practical and even an evolutionary matter, they work. I doubt functionality is adequate to satisfy Ms. Mithra.
Ms. Mithra:
You're correct that I don't address what is right and wrong, and that's largely true because I don't believe there is any such creature. Humans set rules for humans; the rules are artifacts of the mind. These rules are very important to us, but they are nevertheless illusions.
And even within a single such shared illusion, your example is not true.
Quote:
To give an example: Tom thinks killing Jay and Kay is good.
Jay thinks killing Tom is good, while killing Kay is evil.
Kay thinks killing is generally evil.
Let us take, for the sake of argument, a culture in which it is agreed upon that to avenge a slain loved one is a proper act, that a soldier has a duty to guard his master, and that a monk must not take life. None of these are uncommon beliefs.
Now, let us say that years ago, Kay was a general who ordered Tom's family put to death. Jay is a soldier, a loyal retainer in Tom's service for many years, who personally committed the killing. Kay, in the intervening years, has retired from his position as a general and taken to spiritual pursuits, with Jay staying on as his assistant and bodyguard.
Now, under the norms-- the rules by which the entire society believes all humans should act-- Tom can rightly act to avenge his family, Jay can kill Tom to defend himself or Kay, and Kay can't kill anybody.
We can take this still further. Let us say that, while revenge is encouraged, killing is nevertheless a great legal crime punishable by death, oaths are to be taken most seriously, and constables and magistrates are sworn to uphold that law. Tom can kill Jay and Kay both, and can be arrested by the town constabulary, tried, convicted, sentenced to death by a magistrate, and executed in a most painful manner-- and nobody has done anything wrong, except, perhaps, for Kay and Jay, many years ago, and we can easily arrange the scenario so that they acted properly as well.
If you were to view a traditional play on Saisio III, you might see a story not entirely unlike this.
This is according to but one set of normative values. I don't even have to leave a single culture to set that up.
"Norms" are codes we come up with for ourselves-- and yes, we might foolishly think that everyone should live in the same way. That, it seems to me, is the error of both the Gallente and the Amarr: you both think you've found the proper "norms" for everyone. The universe, if it cares, says nothing of what we do, save through the consequences of our actions.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 09:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Verin:
You may be correct in large part, but I'd suggest sitting down with an anarchist and a blood raider (specifically a blood raider) to get their ideas on what is moral before you declare loyalty to the group and sparing the vulnerable to be even close to universal. "Common," I'll grant, but even granting that you might consider that all that you have named are human notions of right and wrong-- which may simply be common because, as a practical and even an evolutionary matter, they work. I doubt functionality is adequate to satisfy Ms. Mithra.
hehe... I did say that some people weight those traits differently. Even a Blood Raider has a moral stance on the whole idea of group loyalty, albeit assigning it a negative value, rather than the strongly positive value that most Civire would give.
These five values don't necessarily represent what is "right" so much as being the five axis along which humans measure morality.
Besides, my point here is that the overarching attitude of humanity - the consensus - is capable of assigning, and will assign, some actions as being "wrong" and some as "right". We don't need an external force dictating our moral values to us, when the overwhelming bulk of humanity is born with these ideals coded into us, for the universe to take and tweak.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 19:29:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Aria Jenneth on 07/10/2008 19:31:43
Verin ...
I say there is no universal truth of good and evil.
You say that almost all humans are hardwired to judge moral behavior along five axes. They do not weight them equally; they have only the axes in common, and not all humans share even that. You go on to say that the consensus of humanity will collectively judge certain actions "good" and others "evil," so the presence of an external force guiding human behavior is unnecessary.
I say there is no universal truth of good and evil.
Perhaps you can explain to me how your view differs from mine?
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 20:03:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Stitcher on 07/10/2008 20:04:57
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Perhaps you can explain to me how your view differs from mine?
No, but they do nonetheless. I just find myself slightly at a loss to adequately explain the difference in opinion.
I honestly do feel that there ARE such things as "Good" and "Evil" and that both these terms refer to multiple points on that huge wovern tapestry of human morality. I do not, however, consider an external force to be necessary to the process of defining where these points are, when we already have a perfectly adequate human force to do that job for us - consensus.
More to the point, the overwhelming majority of the galaxy DOES value those five principles to a greater or lesser degree. It's not a question of "some people value A and B, but do not value C,D and E", the reality is "People inherently value A,B,C,D and E, but to different degrees".
Actively shunning any of those five moral foundations, or considering them contrary to good morality, or simply finding them irrelevant? Those are aberrant behaviours, a massive deviation from the core... programming, if you like, that humans are born with.
You're quite right, the universe does not contain a hard-and-fast codex to define good an evil - those things are defined by humans. There is not a "universal" truth of these things - there is, instead, a human truth to define them.
After all, our opinions are the ones that count. It's not like mankind has ever encountered another organic sentient with which to compare notes. And the synthetic ones are our own creations anyway, and apparently very angry about it.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 21:31:00 -
[17]
Ah, Verin-- the only reason why our views should differ is if you presume mine to proceed from a perspective of moral nihilism. If I thought that the unreality of morals meant that there is no reason to act in accordance with them, then you would indeed be correct that there is a difference, and a large one.
As it stands, however, I simply believe that different actions may be considered "right" or "wrong" by different peoples and societies-- and that, within the context of those societies, those values are of great importance. Each society dictates its own moral reality, and this reality is as "real" as the society itself. That is to say, again, not at all, and yet it is terribly important in much the same way.
While you're correct that there are many similarities between various societies, the devil is in the proverbial details. The differences between our societies that make this recognition of acceptable difference important and useful. I do not say "right"-- in the absolute sense, there's no moral obligation present-- but important. Without it, conflict, violent conflict, becomes functionally inevitable.
If my society sees some vast aspect of what yours does as wrong, inherently wrong, and vice versa, conflict is functionally inevitable. Each society is an affront to the other's existence. If, on the other hand, my society sees some vast aspect of what yours does as wrong, but not so much inherently wrong as wrong within the context of our own society, and vice versa, conflict is not so inevitable: neither society is a part of the other, so neither can be said to be bound by the other's moral sensibilities.
There will likely be other things to quarrel over, of course, but at least there is not the assertion that the other's ways offend the very universe itself.
No, Verin, I don't say that there is no such thing as universal "good" and "evil" simply because I wish to be able to act as I desire. Quite the opposite. I think the morals of a society are essential to its function. But I think the one who claims to know what the universe thinks, and who claims to act with its sanction, is almost inevitably wrong-- and I think such arrogance leads to much suffering.
Arrogance could then be said to be something I see as a universal wrong, an evil, but I'd say rather that it is destructive and impolite, the former being the effect to the arrogance's cause, the latter being a social judgment based on the fact that I, like most beings, don't appreciate it when someone's stupidity is making existential waves.
The universe doesn't appear to judge, save through cause and effect-- but we may, in deciding the future we make for ourselves.
|
Nicoletta Mithra
Amarr
Aretaic Turn
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 00:27:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra on 08/10/2008 00:29:02
Ms Jenneth,
I fear you fail to see what I tried to show. It's as simple as this: At the same time all thre proposition can't be true in the general way they are stated. Sure you can construct cases where seemingly diametrically opposed propositions turn out to be not opposing one another, but that doesn't change that real opposing propositions can't be true at the same time. You are lost in your illusions though, it seems.
Moral relativisim is surely a position that one can occupy but it's neither a consistent position nor a reasonable.
|
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 01:39:00 -
[19]
Ms. Mithra, what I believe regarding the universal truth of morality is that there is no universal truth of morality, and that though we make up the answers for ourselves.
The fact that I do not agree to the assertion that morality can be reduced to logic, nor that there must be one universal truth to it (save that it is a very useful illusion), does not mean that I am failing to see, Ms. Mithra. But where you see inconsistency, I see flexible utility, and where you see an unreasonable proposition, I see the only reason that can stand.
You seek universal moral truth. I tell you: none exists. It is left to us is to decide how we are to live. I see nothing inconsistent or irrational in this.
|
Red Katherine
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 04:03:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
Ms. Mithra, what I believe regarding the universal truth of morality is that there is no universal truth of morality, and that though we make up the answers for ourselves.
The fact that I do not agree to the assertion that morality can be reduced to logic, nor that there must be one universal truth to it (save that it is a very useful illusion), does not mean that I am failing to see, Ms. Mithra. But where you see inconsistency, I see flexible utility, and where you see an unreasonable proposition, I see the only reason that can stand.
You seek universal moral truth. I tell you: none exists. It is left to us is to decide how we are to live. I see nothing inconsistent or irrational in this.
You chose to believe a lie founded in a nothingness.
You see utility, but utility without any end.
You say you see nothing irrational about any of it.
I've read some of your essays on infomorph teleology, Ms. Jenneth, and I have to admit, if you really don't see anything inconsistent with these statements, I feel you've quite succeeded in become something else.
 |
|
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 04:27:00 -
[21]
Edited by: 3ll3 on 08/10/2008 04:30:34
A norm is little more than some thing set up by humans who feel their morality and customs are correct way, Definition is created by what a group structure deems it to be or in some cases inderviduals deem it to be.
Example to you and I mass murder is wrong and for us that is the Norm but for those who take great pleasure in doing so it isn't wrong it isn't against the their Norm.
That is the problems with Points of views as they differ greatly or not so greatly form person to person save for when influence from someone or a group who see things the same way force on to others so eventualy it is passed on to children who being brought up in that view of seeing things deem this to be the Social Norm.
One example is if Imay use it with out causing offence.
The Amarrians for them who deem there actions as Good Enslave Matari inderviduals who deem this to be Evil and fight back seeing their resisting the Amarrians as an act of Good.
The Amarrian's see this and for them deem this as Evil.
Though I do apolagize for any offence this Example has caused as that wasn't my intent.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 05:21:00 -
[22]
3ll3:
I'd be interested in speaking with you privately when you have the time. If that would suit.
Red Katherine:
Utility without end ... ah, dear.
I'd say rather that it is utility without the need or desire for transcendence. That is, its aim is a good life well lived-- and little more. Of itself, it is subject to no promise of a Heaven, no fear of a Hell, no worship of gods, and no terror of demons.
That is not to say that such things might not be added in; Achur folk religion has more than its share of deities and spirit-beings. But they are not transcendent in the same way as the Amarrian god: if there is a heaven, or a hell, and if there are gods or demons, they are all things of this universe, playing a role within it and ultimately subject to the same mysteries as the rest of us.
The nothingness you say my lie (and it is a lie, as is the rest of me) is founded in ... is everything that is, and everything that is not. From this "nothingness" we arise, and to it we return-- and between, we are inseparably part of it still.
We are illusions, nothing more. But these illusions, our lives, are important to us.
It is in the hope that these illusory lives may be lived fully and well that these socially structured norms exist-- and what greater utility can we illusions ask?
|
Red Katherine
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Aria Jenneth
I'd say rather that it is utility without the need or desire for transcendence. That is, its aim is a good life well lived-- and little more. Of itself, it is subject to no promise of a Heaven, no fear of a Hell, no worship of gods, and no terror of demons.
It is exactly this part I have difficulty understanding. How can I know I am living the good life without some reference to the good.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:48:00 -
[24]
Originally by: 3ll3
Example to you and I mass murder is wrong and for us that is the Norm but for those who take great pleasure in doing so it isn't wrong it isn't against the their Norm.
Actually, it's very typical for a serial killer to fully accept that what they are doing is wrong. That's where the thrill comes from for them. It's also why so many serial killers operate in patterns that ultimately lead the authorities to them - they want to be found by the law.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:53:00 -
[25]
Ms. Katherine,
The real question is where you look to find "the good." You may be inclined to look above, to your god, for answers, but I'd argue that what you find is only the words and ideas of humans-- perhaps wise, certainly imaginative.
I accept that right and wrong is largely defined by what my society says it is. I would argue that it is the same for you-- only you don't recognize this to be the case, because part of your national "story" is the divine inspiration behind your societal rules.
It may seem cold, hostile, bitter, to exist in a universe in which the only binding moral code is what we agree it to be. Indeed, that seems to be what some of the nihilists among us believe: that freedom is found in denial of everything that could limit our actions.
I don't agree, of course; nor do I consider myself a nihilist or even an atheist. The Totality, the All, if you like, does not accuse, judge, or disdain. It enfolds-- indeed, it is impossible to escape it. We are but drops of water in a river; nor are we apart from it. From birth to death, there is no reality to our supposed identities, yet we are each a part of something wonderful.
It does not instruct us as to our morals, except in that some work better than others over time. But it is no less significant for that.
|
3ll3
Gallente
Tranquillity Nation
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:19:00 -
[26]
Mr Stitcher:
This returns to the difreance between madness and insanity thing, one being a state of mind the other the views of a social norm as to what is and is not.
In this case the indervidual has mental condition but is awhere of it but can't control the impulses like some adict hooked on that which gives them their high, they may want to stop but feel unable to do so.
Mrs,Miss,Ms Jenneth:
I would be honourded to converse with you, please feel free to do so.
________
Click above to learn more on 3ll3 |
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 23:24:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Stitcher on 08/10/2008 23:28:01
Urgh, please... every time somebody calls me "Mister Stitcher" I feel physical pain!
"Stitcher" is my callsign. If you want to use it, it's just that one word. If you'd rather call me "Mister" anything, the name's Hakatain. Verin Tarn-Hakatain, to be somewhat more precise. Lt.(ret) Yakil Verin Guriolo Tarn-Hakatain BSc, MEng, MD, PhD, FSAK and FSSA if you absolutely must.
Hell, as far as I'm concerned you can call me "Lucy" if you really want to, so long as the "Mister Stitcher" stuff stops. Though obviously, I'd rather you didn't.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
SOFcode H666
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 05:30:00 -
[28]
Oh come on you can not be taking this self proclaimed traitor, seriously after all this thing that claims to be pod pilot can not even spell; or use grammar correctly and he would have us believe he has any form or rational or intellectual opinion worth listening to?; Come on buffoon where did you copy that rubbish from?; this vat baby is desperately in need of a mind wipe and reprogramming! As for the gallentean units comments they are laughable and obsolete, for there is only one real destiny for us all a hive mind where all minds are one all thoughts are shared and controlled as one being with many bodies. As for this caldari unit designated "Lucy" this unit highly doubts your qualifications: BSc; MEng; MD; PhD; FSAK and FSSA; as all but a few do not exist.
|
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 03:11:00 -
[29]
Originally by: SOFcode H666
BSc; MEng; MD; PhD; FSAK and FSSA; as all but a few do not exist.
Bachelor of Science, Master of Engineering, Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Philosophy, Fellow of the School of Applied Knowledge, Fellow of the State Surgical Academy. In about three weeks, I'll be adding an ScD (Doctor of Sciences) to that list. I could add the medals I earned during my service with the Watch to the list as well, if you like?
Last I checked, all of those things DO exist you weird bastard. What is it with you and this "unit" stuff? |
Aria Jenneth
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 07:54:00 -
[30]
It looks to be another aberrant Sansha entity, Verin. Not that I can say for certain, but it's more likely that than a rogue drone, and those seem to pretty well cover the possibilities.
... This one doesn't seem sane enough to be properly coherent, even.
|
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |