Without evil there'd be no good ...

[Coito ergo sum]

You haven't even attempted to refute anything I wrote.

What? That "good and evil are mental constructs"? That they are differences of "opinion"? What's to refute? What's to discuss?

You're the one telling me I'm wrong. If you think so, then explain why.

In what way am I wiser for having heard that good and evil are not cosmic immaterial beings battling over the fate of the universe? Hasn't that charade been played out enough times?

My response addressed the Original Post, not your own wish to become wiser.

I am certainly no wiser, and perhaps I am even less wise, for having read your inane tripe. But, that's a different issue than responding to the OP and sticking to the topic of the thread.

Wake me up when something fresh is said about the English language words "good" and "evil", defined in every dictionary, and proxies for social conflict.

I'll ask the moderators if there is a requirement in the rules that we check with Surender Dorothy before we post anything to see if it's something you consider "fresh" enough to warrant posting on the board.

Maybe the thread could have been made explicitly sociological from the outset, and the question asked, what are the sources of human conflict?

Or, maybe the person who started the thread in the first place wanted to talk about the topic he or she raised, and not a topic that you'd prefer to talk about. In any case, you are free, of course, to start your own thread rather than post nonsense as you have been doing here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Subject: Without evil there'd be no good ...

You haven't even attempted to refute anything I wrote.

What? That "good and evil are mental constructs"? That they are differences of "opinion"? What's to refute? What's to discuss?

You're the one telling me I'm wrong. If you think so, then explain why.

I've seen the fruits of trying to tell you that you're wrong. I wouldn't fucking dare do it again. I can't tell you you're wrong. You haven't stated anything that might be treated as a fact. You've stated your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

And you've decided to post a bunch of tripe designed to badger and bate. If you don't care to discuss the topic, then go to a thread you care more about. Your posts were those of a petulant 10 year old.

Now: Why don't you flash your headlights and honk your horn, so's the rest of us can see what else you got for Christmas besides the opinions you got wholesale from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?

"flash headlights and honk horn" - so that you can see what I got for Christmas? What country are you from where people flash their lights and honk a horn in some manner to indicate what they received for Christmas?

What opinions are you referring to that you think I got from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? (neither of whom I listen to or watch).

[Tigger]

Namecalling?


Play nice, guys.

*Cough* --------------> Play nice, guys.

it's a linky.

[Surendra Darathy]

Namecalling?


Play nice, guys.

*Cough* --------------> Play nice, guys.

it's a linky.

Dude, the guy just disclosed, without my express consent, the contents of a PM I sent him. In playing nice, there are degrees, and there are degrees. Surely we can figure out here who is packing a six-gun in his picnic basket, and who wants to play around with water pistols.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, You hardly play nice, but let's at least give you a gold star for mentioning Mose Allison, one of my favorites. If I missed the reference to Sonny Liston, it's because I hadn't bothered to check out that music video you sent my way. It's funny, when I did try to play it yesterday, I got the visual part, but no sound. However, is there anything you'd actually like to talk about regarding Sonny Liston and his image as a bad ass?

There's actually quite a bit to say about the English words "good" and "evil," but, please, don't let us disturb your sleep...

[Tigger]

Namecalling?


Play nice, guys.

*Cough* --------------> Play nice, guys.

it's a linky.

Dude, the guy just disclosed, without my express consent, the contents of a PM I sent him. In playing nice, there are degrees, and there are degrees. Surely we can figure out here who is packing a six-gun in his picnic basket, and who wants to play around with water pistols.

If a PM's content is being disclosed, report it to a member of staff, please. My *cough* comment wasn't a response to anyone, just an observation that Charlou's post appeared to have been overlooked.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Namecalling?


Play nice, guys.

*Cough* --------------> Play nice, guys.

it's a linky.

Dude, the guy just disclosed, without my express consent, the contents of a PM I sent him. In playing nice, there are degrees, and there are degrees. Surely we can figure out here who is packing a six-gun in his picnic basket, and who wants to play around with water pistols.

Could you point out where a private correspondence was disclosed, please?

And also, can you bear in mind that none of the staff care who started it. The reminder was a general one to several members that appear incapable of discussing any topic without resorting to insults. But the next one will be a reminder with a warning of suspension to the next individual that ignores it. Clear?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Coito ergo Sum,

It is against the rules here to post the contents of any private correspondence without permission of both the sender and receiver.

No disclosure of any private details relating to other members (including all forms of correspondence, physical meetings, details of relationships, photographs, anonymised recounts or stories, etc.) without the permission of the other party/ies involved.

Consider this a warning that any further breach like this will result in a suspension.



Edit: fix dodgy link.

[Surendra Darathy]

Surendra, You hardly play nice, but let's at least give you a gold star for mentioning Mose Allison, one of my favorites. If I missed the reference to Sonny Liston, it's because I hadn't bothered to check out that music video you sent my way. It's funny, when I did try to play it yesterday, I got the visual part, but no sound. However, is there anything you'd actually like to talk about regarding Sonny Liston and his image as a bad ass?

There's actually quite a bit to say about the English words "good" and "evil," but, please, don't let us disturb your sleep...

I prefer to say that I don't suffer fools gladly, not that I'm calling anyone here a fool. "I don't suffer fools gladly" is an expression about how much patience one has in dealing with the "asked-and-answered" tedium of court proceedings. Some judges are more lenient than I am.

Mose Allison strikes me as another guy who doesn't suffer fools gladly. Gradually, but as surely as the mighty Missisip through the bottomlands of Mose Allison's stomping grounds, cynicism erodes blind tolerance, and dumps it like so much mud all through the French Quarter. Laissez le bonton roullez!

As for Sonny Liston, I don't know how much he enjoyed being WBA WBC champ for a few months after destroying Patterson in two successive fights of less than one round. The song is about how he was just too scarey for the fight game to really invite him up to the penthouse for tea and biscuits. Clay evidently outboxed him in their first match and was smart enough to know not to walk into either of Liston's fists.

If you couldn't hear the music, it's because some software on your computer isn't working properly. You're missing the only point of viewing the video if you didn't get the music, which is about Sonny Liston.

[LaMont Cranston]

Coito sum ergo, Let's see if we can get back to the thread topic...

I agree with your basic position that such things as "good," "evil," "beauty," "ugliness," etc. exist in our minds; they are not material things. However, that position is very simplistic, and it appears to be in denial of so much else. The fact is, we do have minds that make those kinds of judgements. More than that, none of us live in vacuums. We live in societies in which we form relationships and social contracts with other beings and objects. Many, but not all, of these understandings are so commonly held that they are made into laws and form entire legal systems. It's all part of the lives we live.

I get it that laws, ethics, taboos and a lot of other things vary from culture to culture. Is there something that says that all human beings must arrive at the same set of standards about the judgements we make? The point is that we have the capacity to make those judgements, and we do. In most civilized countries, there's considerable agreement that it is decidedly uncool to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. As rational beings, we can know that if we do that, there is a very high probability that we will suffer negative consequences that include going to jail, being fined our getting our ass kicked. If one of our goals in life is to not have these experiences, then it is a "bad" experience from our point of view.

We do live in a world of material objects. However, concepts, theories, ideas and other non-material things have a way of manifesting themselves in that world. Historically, there's a status quo, and somebody like Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc. comes along and their non-material ideas change the way that most of us perceive the world. In a very real sense, non-material things impact the world with a certain power, and it's often quite easy follow the path that these ideas take over time.

You live in a country where there are certain laws and other modes of behavior you're supposed to follow. Are you aware of those things? Most likely. Since we know that we have minds that make judgements about "good," "evil," "beauty," etc., what are we supposed to do...find the switch that turns our minds off? Give up our goals? Deny that those judgements don't effect how we act in the real world?

The judgements we make determine how we live our lives. Rational thinkers can use such things as logic, reason and the scientific method to discover what actions work better than others. Rigid thinkers, many of whom self-proclaim themselves to be "more rational than thou," seem to have trouble getting next to the idea that many of the decisions we make about our lives are pretty easy to make for most of us (i.e. most of us would rather be out of jail than in it). That's what rigid thinking is about.

PS: In my opinion, you are taking Surendra's comments much more personally than you have to. He is baiting you, and you are going for it. You might find it much more rewarding to stick to the thread topic. Best wishes...

[LaMont Cranston]

Surendra, I would like to hear that video. I'll probably check it out on a friend's computer.

Floyd Patterson was a rather sensitive guy, and he was genuinely intimidated by Liston. He was also stupid enough to think that he could trade punches with him. The truth about Liston was that if he could hit you, he could kill you, but he was rather slow and plodding, a rigid thinker. Ali was a sumpremely gifted athlete, he was smarter than a lot of people gave him credit for at the time and he hit harder than a lot of people thought. In the first Ali-Liston fight, Liston's corner even put some stuff on Liston's gloves in, I think, the fifth round in an attempt to blind Ali, but Ali made it through the round. Liston, knowing he'd lost the fight, refused to come out of his corner after the seventh round.

I've seen footage of all of Ali's fights. His fight with Cleveland Williams was incredible, an amazing demonstration of how fast Ali was and how he could hit you at will. I also like the fight with Ernie Terrell, who had disrespected Ali by continuing to call him Cassius Clay. Ali would hit him repeatedly and ask Terrell "What's my name?" Ali didn't suffer fools or those who disrespected him gladly. By the way, Terrell's sister, Tammi, was a singing partner of Marvin Gaye and had quite a few hits with him at Motown. If memory serves, she suffered a stroke or something while performing and died at a young age.

One more boxing story before we get back to our regularly scheduled program...
A number of years ago, a bunch of us used to hang out at a place called the New Oakland Boxing Gym on 12th St. in Oakland. It had been there forever and looked like it was out of a classic movie set. Some of us backed a fighter named Erwin who had been the California St. Middleweight Champion and was looking to make a comeback. We covered all of his living expenses and started booking him for fights. I even wrote some press releases that made it into the local papers. Erwin was a pretty fighter, and somebody gave him the nickname "Steel Lace," but he wasn't very bright. He won his first couple of fights, but then we got him a fight, in San Jose, with the 8th ranked middleweight in the world, a boxer named James "The Heat" Kinchen. Our boy started acting like an asshole in the fight, and, finally, in about the ninth round, he suffered one of those spectacular KOs where he sort of slid down the ropes and fell to the canvas in a lump.
Ah, yes, those were the days...

I've got to tell you, I'm enjoying sharing stories about boxing and music with you. Is there anything else you'd like to talk about?

[Surendra Darathy]

You live in a country where there are certain laws and other modes of behavior you're supposed to follow. Are you aware of those things? Most likely. Since we know that we have minds that make judgements about "good," "evil," "beauty," etc., what are we supposed to do...find the switch that turns our minds off? Give up our goals? Deny that those judgements don't effect how we act in the real world?

The judgements we make determine how we live our lives. Rational thinkers can use such things as logic, reason and the scientific method to discover what actions work better than others. Rigid thinkers, many of whom self-proclaim themselves to be "more rational than thou," seem to have trouble getting next to the idea that many of the decisions we make about our lives are pretty easy to make for most of us (i.e. most of us would rather be out of jail than in it). That's what rigid thinking is about.

But you've already said (and are repeating yourself a bit) that, when we make our own choices, it makes no sense to assess them in terms of "good" and "evil". We reserve those words to refer to the choices other people have made.

Unless, of course, we carry around such strange concepts as "original sin" or "teleology".

In referring to the choices we ourselves have made, we tend to use expressions like "wasn't I smart to do that?" or, "that was stupid of me, wasn't it?"

[Surendra Darathy]

Floyd Patterson was a rather sensitive guy, and he was genuinely intimidated by Liston.

I think you'd be among the first to say that, when you're boxing within your weight class, feeling intimidated is a bit of a handicap. This is something on which, I am sure, we can both agree. Feeling intimidated by boxing out of your weight class is an entirely different matter, and has often to do with trying to swat flies with an elephant gun. I hope my sense of humour is starting to come through to you.

The truth about Liston was that if he could hit you, he could kill you, but he was rather slow and plodding, a rigid thinker.

That may be an apt characterisation. He sure did not have the foot speed of Clay. But he was ten years older than Clay, no matter when they fought one another. Time wounds all heels, and Clay/Ali eventually grew old enough to retire. From boxing. He found other things to do, as did Foreman. But I'm not going to grill you on those details.

Ali was a sumpremely gifted athlete, he was smarter than a lot of people gave him credit for at the time and he hit harder than a lot of people thought.

Yes, he did. If you can't hit hard, don't take up heavyweight division boxing. You can quote me. F = ma. You can't quote me on that, because Isaac Newton figured that out, and he was no boxer, from all reports I've heard.

In the first Ali-Liston fight, Liston's corner even put some stuff on Liston's gloves in, I think, the fifth round in an attempt to blind Ali, but Ali made it through the round.

Yes, this is a disturbing report. Professional boxing has a lot of gray areas, does it not. Nobody asks questions like this of Joe Louis' career, though.

Liston, knowing he'd lost the fight, refused to come out of his corner after the seventh round.

Probably true. This is a mystery, and something of a blot on the notion that Liston was really that much of a badass, when what he could do was hit you hard, and mix it up a little with the Mob. News Flash: Mob involved in pro boxing! Extra!

Ali didn't suffer fools or those who disrespected him gladly.

An admirable trait, indeed.

Our boy started acting like an asshole in the fight, and, finally, in about the ninth round, he suffered one of those spectacular KOs where he sort of slid down the ropes and fell to the canvas in a lump.

What was it in that baseball story? Million-dollar-arm and a ten-cent head?

I've got to tell you, I'm enjoying sharing stories about boxing and music with you. Is there anything else you'd like to talk about?

Good thing one doesn't have to take up boxing unless one wants to. Know anything about Thomas Hearns? You can look it up. The middle and light-middle divisions have given us the most artistry in boxing. F = ma. But m scales with volume, which goes as cube of linear dimension. If arm length really scaled with body mass, boxing would be a different game. Liston had a very long reach for a guy his height. Bet you knew that already. Given that fact, Ali/Clay's speed was remarkable.

But we've since seen tailbacks weighing 240 pounds who could sprint a 40 in 4.1. Technology rules.

[LaMont Cranston]

Surenda, You have no chance of twisting my words or of putting that kind of spin on what I've said. We can and do use such terms as "good" and "evil" to assess both the choices we make and the choices others make. Our choices are not so limited as to be "either/or."

Yes, we, as a species, do carry around some strange concepts. If we refer to a choice we have made and say it was "smart," that tends to mean, from our point of view, that we made a "good" choice in that it helps us achieve goal or in some way enhances our life and the lives of others. If we say that we made a "stupid" choice, it's a way of saying that we made a "bad" choice, that it somehow negatively impacted our life. Really, dude, it's not all that hard to figure these things out...

[Surendra Darathy]

Surenda, You have no chance of twisting my words or of putting that kind of spin on what I've said. We can and do use such terms as "good" and "evil" to assess both the choices we make and the choices others make. Our choices are not so limited as to be "either/or."

Yes, we, as a species, do carry around some strange concepts. If we refer to a choice we have made and say it was "smart," that tends to mean, from our point of view, that we made a "good" choice in that it helps us achieve goal or in some way enhances our life and the lives of others. If we say that we made a "stupid" choice, it's a way of saying that we made a "bad" choice, that it somehow negatively impacted our life. Really, dude, it's not all that hard to figure these things out...

I'm not really trying to do the job of twisting your words, LC. I'm having trouble seeing anything specific in where you think the power of the words "good" and "evil" comes from, except from indoctrination.

Then we can use this to confuse people who have merely made choices that were "successful" or "unsuccessful" in relation to previously-specified goals. Sure, most people will say "success" is "good" and "failure" is bad, but sages are all the time trying to tell us we learn much more from our failures than from our successes, and that "learning" is a "good" thing, but that a "little learning" can be a "dangerous thing".

When it comes time to hunt mosquitos with an elephant gun, "appropriate" and "inappropriate" come to mind as well. But then, efficiency and inefficiency are objective measures in the practice of engineering.

It seems that the usual meanings of "good" and "evil" come down to "popular" and "unpopular". Asking why things are the way they are is a recipe for trouble. Success is popular, and failure is unpopular. It's a sort of tautology.