Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions

James Veverka (
Tue, 18 May 1999 10:31:52 -0400 (EDT)

Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

      I will take lawless anarchy over oppressive order any day!!!!

Content-Disposition: Inline

Content-Type: Message/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Received: from ( by; Tue, 18 May 1999 07:16:58
	-0700 (PDT)

Return-Path: <>
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with
	ESMTP id HAA14252; Tue, 18 May 1999 07:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id
	HAA29651 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 07:59:16 -0600
From: "psypher" <>
Subject: Re: virus: maxims and ground rules and suppositions To:
Message-Id: <199904180959a4878>
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 09:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Sender:
Precedence: bulk

> Hmmm, the very words "moral [value] judgements" leave me just a bit
> uncomfortable. There is an implication that we as a group have the
> power to define some standard of right and wrong, good versus evil,
> etc.

...if there is no group standard for right/wrong good/evil - ie. no group standard for which courses of action are viable or not viable then there's no context for group action. This is not a position which we can sucessefully maintain. Group action has become a manifest necessity if we want this biosphere to remain amenable to the sustenance of conscious life.
...there seems to be a consensus here that consciousness is important - why?

> It is my belief that a lot of our good/bad/should thinking is a
> product of religion. Puritanical religions to be more specific. In
> taking the stance of I/you/we/he/it "should" do thus and such, there
> is always an intended element of control. Whether this is directed
> towards the masses or oneself.

...because a certain mode of thought has been unduly influenced by limited and flawed schemata is no reason to discard that mode of thought.
...and of course it's a matter of control - expressed intention.

> Although any and all of us make our personal judgments, I don't
> believe there is any true "right" or "wrong".

-hypothetical question-
shouldn't I kill you then?

In most cases, the
> circumstances create the "reality" for the individuals involved.

...absolutely. This is why the proper place of moral judgement is the common ground in which we all abide. I doubt very much that you will find a stronger proponent of the weight of individual reality than me, but even given that fact, by simple dint of shared biogenetic information bases there is a common range of perception shared by all humyn entities.

> Over simplification, at the very least, reduces the potential for
> learning and growth.

...which is my present beef [as it were] with virus. For a forum with the intent of being an "evolving and adapting" religion it [in aggregate] seems awfully resistant to any suggestion that its initial assumptions are concrete and maladaptive. Or even that it has initial assumptions.
...if all the adherents do when confronted with a challenging point of view or a voice of dissent is label it as a meme [whether or not it couts as a meme, could possibly be considered a meme or the label is at all meaningful] and dismiss it without regard to its implications then the complex is neither evolutionary nor adaptive. It's a thermometer.

> I view the CoV as predominantly a forum for higher learning and
> enlightenment.

...I view CoV as a tremendous contradiction in terms [like all sucesseful virii] which, while trying very hard to discard the trappings of "higher authority" is rife with appeals to the architects of scientific rationalism and the assumptions of the dominant cognitive paradigm of technological America. ...hip jargon, no action.

To take a black and white right versus wrong position
> is one of reduced effectiveness.

...absolutely right. To deny categories of good/bad, right/wrong completely eliminates effectiveness. All statements become conjectures or bounded by theory sets. [ie. the propositions of math, which, while lovely, do not reflect reality]

It diminishes our ability to
> reason.

...reason is the ability to make deliberate choice. Without some sort of framework for value judgement there can be no choice - all things considered equal, who cared wins.

Too strict a behavioral code is often the death of free
> thought.

...utter lack of a code is the death of freedom all together.

-psypher Fastmail's Free web based email for Canadians