[lit-ideas] Re: FW: Re: gashlycrumb tinies

Study away, Marlena.  It doesn't change that if you take off the external 
controls, the evil flows.  I find your concern for "The Other" interesting 
given that the G-d fearing group with which you are allied supports killing 
tens of thousands "over there" so they themselves don't have to suffer; a group 
that reduces "The Other" to flypaper.  Exactly who is this "Other" for whom you 
have such sympathy?  Rather than vague generalizations, why not supply 
specifics in which humanity's alleged inner moral law carried the day?  And 
then compare all these acts of morality against the vast majority of what 
really went/goes on in the world.


Andy Amago





----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 7/31/2005 12:37:32 PM 
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: FW: Re: gashlycrumb tinies


In a message dated 7/30/2005 5:01:29 PM Central Daylight Time, 
aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
The golden rule is a wonderful
theoretical construct.  In reality it has to be forced onto the species.

Dear Andy,
Perhaps the concept of the study of the moral law within being wondrous has to 
do more with the term 'study' rather than that of 'moral law'.

Perhaps those you state who do not follow standards of caring for The Other are 
those who have done little (or no <wry look>) study of the moral law which is 
buried deep within them.

Perhaps your frustration with those in positions whereby change for the 
betterment of The Other comes from you being aware of 'the inner moral law' 
which is there and of which you follow (I really do doubt that the only reason 
that you, or any of those of us on Our List, care for The Other is because 
we'll be whacked one side of the head by police or someone 'watching' us [much 
as I would like to be that person -- sometimes <g>])   

Sometimes living within the tension of the opposites is what leads to a 
frustration.  Here we see (in some) and know (from our ownselves) what 'ought' 
to be [inner moral law] and some of us know more than others--thus the concept 
of learning more and more about it.  Seeing those who just won't bother to do 
so or who those who have touched upon the edge of it but no more leads to a 
'why are you doing this-and-that' [i.e. the edge of The Golden Rule could even 
have the concept of taking care of oneself...which is something that some of us 
needed to remember who have, at times, focused more on the edge of taking care 
of the neighbor *rather than* ourselves and crashed and burned because of it.  
It's not always a 'bad' thing to take care of oneself and those one loves 
rather than sacrificing oneself or those one loves for the sake of the Other.  
If, however, one forgets to take care of The Other--then we have the meanness 
[and worse] that is seen.  If we only go to the edge of th
 at 'moral law' (either edge) and do not hold that tension of the opposite, 
then we have the lack of balance, freedom, sweetness that we all long to see 
flowing along each and every life in this world. (or, at least, those of us 
[most on this list, anyway], who are digging deep and who have souls which are 
screaming when we see/hear of the pain of The Other.)

Of course, that presupposes that the moral law is, really, the Golden Rule--for 
if could be, possibly, something even more deep and possibly slightly 
different...I'm not done studying yet, so I have no answer...

Just because there IS a moral law within does NOT mean that all actually study 
it. Or even go beyond the edges of it.  

But, if one does--perhaps it is that inside work which becomes a wondrous 
activity and study.  

(and, sometimes yelling at people to dig deep works and sometimes it does not. 
How, I wonder, could people who do not dig deep to study the internal moral 
code be persuaded to do so?  In what manner would they receive such 
information?  Would one have to use words of self-interest?  Would one use 
indirect methods?  Is it important to even try?  Why or why not?)

All of this leads one to going deep in all aspects--for I think of our 
conversations on the concept of 'sacrifice'--thinking of Julie's thought of the 
astronauts who think (and some state so in the Astronauts' Hall of Fame at the 
Kennedy Space Center) that exploration of space is worth even the sacrifice of 
their lives, if necessary.  But, if they left behind a four-year old 
child...would that child think it was worth it?  How would one explain such a 
father/mother's passion for space exploration which took that life...to a 
child?  Those in law enforcement/fire prevention also deal with such 
tensions--especially when they choose to have a family.  What moral law do they 
follow?  That of assisting helping society as a 'whole'--or their personal 
spouse/child/etc.?  What sort of moral code would allow that person to 
sacrifice one's own life which needs to be 'there' in order to have one's child 
grow up as healthy as possible?  But, what happens to society, as a whole, if 
no one 
 is 'there' to assist in accidents or research or other important societal 
situations?  

Such is the side of the moral code that I am engaged within studying, at this 
time.  There are, I know, other sides to study...

But, most people that I know do not like to go that deep.  Some instinctively 
follow and hold the tension of these opposites--and others do not. Some 
alternate. Most that I know don't like to think too deeply--and others are just 
now beginning. (One of the men at scout camp has begun to read Plato--and 
wanted to talk about it to lots of people <g>. It was fun to see people's 
reaction ... )

Living in the tension of the opposites (even within a moral code),
Marlena in Missouri

Other related posts: