Balder On Morals

[Redfin]

Redfin is reading this thread. Maybe he'll set me straight. He has a way of presenting logical, cogent arguments that I can make sense of.

(waking from a doze) Who? What? Uh... 1492? :crackup:

 

[Redfin]

Redfin is reading this thread. Maybe he'll set me straight. He has a way of presenting logical, cogent arguments that I can make sense of.

4 words, my friend...

"The prerogative of the Creator."

(Okay, 5 words...)

 

[Iconasostacles]

...consequences to actions are pretty easy for God to know

What's easier for Him to know?

 

[Nineveh]

What's easier for Him to know?

The hearts of men.

 

[Redfin]

Here's my proposition -

The prerogatives of God as Creator are unique, and should not be understood as setting precedents for His creatures, even when He utilizes them in exercising those prerogatives.

 

[Balder]

Here's my proposition -

The prerogatives of God as Creator are unique, and should not be understood as setting precedents for His creatures, even when He utilizes them in exercising those prerogatives.

Don't do as I do, do as I say! Yep, I've heard that one before. No wonder he wants to be called "Father"!

Seriously, what is your take on the level of his involvement in this "utilization" of people to exercise his prerogatives and his will?

 

[Ecumenicist]

The hearts of men.

Unfortunately, the hearts of women remain a mystery, even to the Almighty

 

[Redfin]

Seriously, what is your take on the level of his involvement in this "utilization" of people to exercise his prerogatives and his will?

I believe that God is and has always been continually and intimately involved in the moment-to-moment affairs of every person on earth by one or more of various means, including but not necessarily limited to allowance, permission, enabling, moderate influence, persuasion, compulsion and coercion, and that He uses material as well as spiritual agencies to accomplish this involvement according to His pleasure.

(Since no one has quoted this, I would add to the first part of the above, revelation, inspiration, forbidding and constraint, and to the second part, that the agencies mentioned work both internally and/or externally upon the individuals.)

 

[Balder]

Thanks, Redfin. Without getting in to a discussion of the moral dimensions of this, do you agree with my interpretation of Zechariah -- that it appears to suggest that God played an active, influential role in bringing judgment on the people of Jerusalem in the form of invading alien nations? That "I will gather" means he had a hand in orchestrating the attack as an expression of his wrath, and as a means of weeding out the 2/3rds of his people who had fallen away from him?

Is this reading of Zechariah an unreasonable one -- and if so, why?

 

[Redfin]

Thanks, Redfin. Without getting in to a discussion of the moral dimensions of this, do you agree with my interpretation of Zechariah -- that it appears to suggest that God played an active, influential role in bringing judgment on the people of Jerusalem in the form of invading alien nations? That "I will gather" means he had a hand in orchestrating the attack as an expression of his wrath, and as a means of weeding out the 2/3rds of his people who had fallen away from him?

Is this reading of Zechariah an unreasonable one -- and if so, why?

Yes, I agree, and believe that to be an eminently reasonable conclusion.

 

[Iconasostacles]

Here's my proposition -

The prerogatives of God as Creator are unique, and should not be understood as setting precedents for His creatures, even when He utilizes them in exercising those prerogatives.

This requires some form of selection criteria which allows us to distinguish those perogatives which are indicative of His free will uniquely and those which do set precedents for the manifest creatures. Man, in particular, is conceptualized as partially duplicating God's morphology ("image") and therefore partakes of His status to a lesser degree. Some perogatives of the Creator would thus be duplicated but clearly not All of them. The relevance of the inquiry then shifts to the question of what quality or qualities distinguish the two classes of perogatives. This is largely identical to the inquiry: To what degree is "Creator" a created position/identity (i.e. of a common nature with Creations)?

 

[Redfin]

This requires some form of selection criteria which allows us to distinguish those perogatives which are indicative of His free will uniquely and those which do set precedents for the manifest creatures.

I believe the phrase "as Creator" fulfills that requirement.

Man, in particular, is conceptualized as partially duplicating God's morphology ("image") and therefore partakes of His status to a lesser degree. Some perogatives of the Creator would thus be duplicated but clearly not All of them.

"Of the Creator," yes. "As Creator," perhaps not. :think:

The relevance of the inquiry then shifts to the question of what quality or qualities distinguish the two classes of perogatives.

Not sure I can agree with this. I would be first interested in distinguishing the classes of beings, and determining the prerogatives therefrom.

This is largely identical to the inquiry: To what degree is "Creator" a created position/identity (i.e. of a common nature with Creations)?

I could use some expansion on and clarification of this question. What are the ramifications of some probable responses?

 

[Iconasostacles]

I believe the phrase "as Creator" fulfills that requirement.

What kinds of things does Bob down that I do not? Answer: Bob's things. This is not inaccurate but contains no information. Rather, there should be a suggestion as to what qualities/types of action fall into the category of "employed by God-as-Entity but not legitimately employed by His partial duplication as Man."

I would be first interested in distinguishing the classes of beings, and determining the prerogatives therefrom.

That is a very practical place ot begin (if the word "practical" has any bearing on discussions of this sort...). One assumes that some forms of activity are resonant with Divine Will in this type of being, not that type, etc. One also assumes that certain types of action are resonant with the Divine Will only insofar as they are directly engaged by the Locus of that Will (God-as-Entity). An investigation could build up from an examination of classes of being OR begin by distinguishing the classes "Creator" and "All Other Creations."

I could use some expansion on and clarification of this question (This is largely identical to the inquiry: To what degree is "Creator" a created position/identity). What are the ramifications of some probable responses?

"Creator," when considered on an absolute scale, is a dual position. It is real enough to create everything and therefore has the reality-quality associated with created things. The Creator has no Creator other than Himself. This is a position of simultaneously "having no creator" and "self-creating." The Creator is in one respect similar to creations and in another respect completely different. This likeness is the structural determinant of which perogative could be legitimately actualized by creations (in varying degree), and the un-likeness puts certain perogatives off limits to creations.

The ramification is simply a cosmological model in which all beings partially duplicate the perogatives of The Being, in varying degree and kind, but with certain (probably logically discernable) types of action that violate the overall teleological polarization (divine will) UNLESS initiated by The Being (and this would always appear as correlated to the activities of created beings employed as sub-agents).

 

[Balder]

Balder,

Genuine curiosity, does the Universe take an active or passive role in karma?

Or is it just willing to take resonsibility for it

Dave

Hi, Dave,

Sorry to have been slow to respond to your question. From a Buddhist perspective, the universe -- if you mean the manifest world -- is not considered to be a singular, monolithic entity with its own distinct will, so it wouldn't make sense to choose either option. There is no single place called "the universe." Worldspaces and sentient beings are co-arising and co-determining.

Leaving aside the notion of universe, I think you are asking if ultimate reality takes an active or passive role in the operation of karma. Again, from a strictly Buddhist perspective, karma is not "meted out" by a singular sentient agent; it is understood in more naturalistic and individualistic terms, as one of the "laws" of sentience.

If I were to adopt a more trans-religious perspective, where I admitted that there might indeed be something we can call Spirit that can be legitimately related to as an intelligent Other, then I think the perspective you espouse is a distinctly moving and powerful one -- though I understand it causes more traditional or conservative-minded Christians some discomfort...

But even adopting your perspective, it seems there is a difference between "accepting responsibility" and actively orchestrating events by using human evil to accomplish certain ends...

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Ecumenicist]

Hi, Dave,

Sorry to have been slow to respond to your question. From a Buddhist perspective, the universe -- if you mean the manifest world -- is not considered to be a singular, monolithic entity with its own distinct will, so it wouldn't make sense to choose either option. There is no single place called "the universe." Worldspaces and sentient beings are co-arising and co-determining.

Leaving aside the notion of universe, I think you are asking if ultimate reality takes an active or passive role in the operation of karma. Again, from a strictly Buddhist perspective, karma is not "meted out" by a singular sentient agent; it is understood in more naturalistic and individualistic terms, as one of the "laws" of sentience.

I'm guessing that there is a strong correlation between Individualism and Communalism
in terms of Karmic cause and effect, i.e. sentient activities on an individual or communal
basis bearing individual and / or communal consequences.

I'm reminded of Psalm 18:

25 To the faithful you show yourself faithful,
to the blameless you show yourself blameless,

26 to the pure you show yourself pure,
but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd.

27 You save the humble
but bring low those whose eyes are haughty.

In fact, this is the prevalent message through out scripture, from Eye for an Eye to
the Golden Rule, its all a very Karmic lesson.

If I were to adopt a more trans-religious perspective, where I admitted that there might indeed be something we can call Spirit that can be legitimately related to as an intelligent Other, then I think the perspective you espouse is a distinctly moving and powerful one -- though I understand it causes more traditional or conservative-minded Christians some discomfort...

But even adopting your perspective, it seems there is a difference between "accepting responsibility" and actively orchestrating events by using human evil to accomplish certain ends...

Best wishes,

Balder

Suppose that we're only getting half the story from these prophets, suppose Israel
had been as abusive towards its enemies in the process of conquering the area,
and in defending itself against the constant threat of invasion from neighboring nations?

Suppose the armies of Israel had raped and mutilated women and children? Far fetched?
Probably not. Perhaps these admonitions from God through Prophets represented
a consistant warning of Karmic consequence? Perhaps Israel's offenses, lack of
faith, idolatry, etc, were in fact perpetrated against others through these very same
acts? Or even, more likely based on the Scriptural witness, these offenses were
perpetrated within, against the poor and helpless, widows and orphans. If these
offenses were being perptrated within,and recorded, as they were, then they were
certainly being perpetrated in warfare against "enemies" as well.

For "we the faithful," we sometimes confess we don't know the whole answer, but we
have faith that God has beneficient purpose in all things.

The value of understanding God as an active agent is the knowing that sinful acts
perpetrated in the back alley and on the battle front will not go unanswered, even though
no human witness may exist.

I'm not abandoning my previous suggestions, but perhaps "reverse fulfilling" them, in
moving from a New Testament perspective towards attempting to understand the old.
God warns justice, God allows and exacts justice, because God doesn't want us to hurt
ourselves or others, in public or in private, in peace or in war, in domestic or "neighbor"
relationships.

But scripture tells us over and over that we need to trust God to take care of bringing
truth and justice, while we ourselves strive to forgive and love. Otherwise, the
cycle of retribution goes on and on, and escalates, until the Original Sin is
forgotton altogether, and all that's left is blame and retribution in the form of escalating
attrocities.

While the Holy Spirit Convicts us of our sin, and makes plain in Scripture and in
mirrors the horrors that are enacted under the cover of darkness, in the morning
light, in plain view of all humanity, God takes those horrors, and the consequences of
those horrors upon God's self, in the form of Self Sacrifice, so that the cycle might
at last be broken.

(Apologies for the high horse preachiness, sometimes it gets out of the box...

Dave

 

[Iconasostacles]

nirvanAmen

nirvanAmen

Hi Dave (and Balder),

The Buddhists do not feel a solid, "monolithic" universe -- but they still tacitly acknowlege an overall Reality... an All-and-Everything-ness. Even if we consider this to be the totality of co-creating sentiences and worldspace, it still has a type of singularity. Yet it cannot be asked whether this excercises an active or passive form of agency relative to the unfolding of the Karmic process. The reason for this is that active and passive are not applicable to the Totality. In order to be Real, active and passive must partake priorly of Reality which must then be both inclusive and indeterminate of these distinctions. In the matter of Karmic unfolding we could only say that Reality demonstrates a type of activity-passivity.

A "naturalistic, individualistic" understanding of Karma as one of the "laws of sentience" presupposes a level of Reality at which laws are encoded and distributed non-locally to all the interdependent co-arisings. This level does, essential "mete out" the unfolding of Karmic... but the Buddhistic temperament is not to imagine a human-like character involved in this process.

Even if this is so AND we attribute Karmic responsibiltiy to a level or Totality of Reality which is isomorphic to an Other Entity, THEN can we say that "it" makes legitimate use of "evil" actions to accomlish morally instructional and ultimately beneficient ends?

And are Buddhistic and Biblical notions comptabile in this regard?

But scripture tells us over and over that we need to trust God to take care of bringingtruth and justice, while we ourselves strive to forgive and love. Otherwise, the cycle of retribution goes on and on, and escalates, until the Original Sin is
forgotton altogether, and all that's left is blame and retribution in the form of escalating
attrocities.

A nested teleological benevolence principle is needed. The Total Reality, isomorphic to a Divine Other, is partially duplicated in all Real structures. When parts of Reality are resonant on this basis they "line up" along a direction axis which runs toward the Totality (presenting itself as prior to, above, throughout and terminal to Time). It attracts its own partial duplications by way of resonance... exerting a teleological-type pull upon them and producing a deeply authentic positive feeling whose configurations are humanly interpreted as kin to benevolence, compassion, love, et al. By "nested" I mean that each local zone is free to be aligned in this manner or not -- without interrupting the overall unfolding of the Divine Plan. In all local zones, however, the consequences of non-alignment with the heart-attractor produce a distinct variety of self-destructive interference that is experienced as "evil." The overall Totality works to undermine these events both by "pulling" on those involved AND through the self-cancelling, self-toxifying consequences of being "off course."

Sin, as "missing the mark," is a thoroughly Karmic-type concept. It produces the causes of its own rebalancing, illuminates the resonant direciton by way of contrast, reaffirms the practical necessity of alignment with Divine (or Dharmic) Will, and generates an ongoing source of potential wisdom about how Reality functions.

NirvanAmen!

 

[Ecumenicist]

Excellent rejoinder, thankyou.

Would that evil in actuality self toxified, reality seems to rather bear witness to evil
being self motivated.

Unless your talking about total annihilation being the self toxification that
alleviates evil. This would be true, but it doesn't speak well for a beneficient
Creator guiding things...

Dave

 

[Iconasostacles]

Self-Erosive Evil

Self-Erosive Evil

Excellent rejoinder, thankyou.

Would that evil in actuality self toxified, reality seems to rather bear witness to evil
being self motivated.

Unless your talking about total annihilation being the self toxification that
alleviates evil. This would be true, but it doesn't speak well for a beneficient
Creator guiding things...

Dave

I think evil does self-toxify and self-cancel. Unfortunatley this does not mean that it immediately self-eliminates. If evil "merely" destroyed itself then the requirement of voluntary alignment with Divine Will would have little meaning. It is a matter of intelligence. We know, for example, that harbouring evil-oriented feelings creates pain and suffering in the body, imbalance, etc. Terrorists kill themselves to an astonishing degree. Serial killers often want to get caught and tend to take increasing "risks" over time. None of this removes the Terrible from our world -- and there are certainly zones in which a tragic cycle of bad intention > pain inflicted > new bad intentions occurs -- but this "karmic" tendency seems to exist whereby evil works against itself. By "missing the mark" it interferes with other systems and with the overall pull of the Divine Attractor, generating countless accumulating problems for itself. These problems, among others effects, tend to decrease intelligence, vitality, relationality, etc. The guidance of a beneficient Creator has an enormous amount of time and flexibility with which to work. Its guidance must allow for local volition in terms of alignment which means that evil can arise and even exist for long periods but constantly generates negative feedback and internal problems which work against it.

 

[Ecumenicist]

I think evil does self-toxify and self-cancel. Unfortunatley this does not mean that it immediately self-eliminates. If evil "merely" destroyed itself then the requirement of voluntary alignment with Divine Will would have little meaning. It is a matter of intelligence. We know, for example, that harbouring evil-oriented feelings creates pain and suffering in the body, imbalance, etc. Terrorists kill themselves to an astonishing degree. Serial killers often want to get caught and tend to take increasing "risks" over time. None of this removes the Terrible from our world -- and there are certainly zones in which a tragic cycle of bad intention > pain inflicted > new bad intentions occurs -- but this "karmic" tendency seems to exist whereby evil works against itself. By "missing the mark" it interferes with other systems and with the overall pull of the Divine Attractor, generating countless accumulating problems for itself. These problems, among others effects, tend to decrease intelligence, vitality, relationality, etc. The guidance of a beneficient Creator has an enormous amount of time and flexibility with which to work. Its guidance must allow for local volition in terms of alignment which means that evil can arise and even exist for long periods but constantly generates negative feedback and internal problems which work against it.

Hi Icon...

I really like your "control system" representation of Cosmic process, it appeals
to my engineering sensibilities. I also was surprized at how "on the mark" the
suicide terrorist metaphore is to the model.

I guess this was a "spawned" thread meant to (unsuccessfully) target Balder, I
guess it might be best to spawn yet another thread at this point which more
accurately reflects the line of inquiry...

I know Balder was hesitant to reply to me in the first place because doing
so often creates tangent discussions, for which I apologize profusely .
But I hope Balder comments on this subject, it seems to be productive.

Dave

 

[Balder]

Dave, I don't mind your questions on this thread at all, and I'm glad Icon has also helped to take the conversation in this direction.

My understanding of the self-toxifying, self-cancelling nature of evil is quite similar to Icon's. I think I first "grokked" that idea in Tolkien's works, where he described how the evil forces always worked to undermine themselves and their ultimate success because of the essentially selfish and corrupt nature of their orientation. Buddhist notions of karma, and David Bohm's notions of disorder, fragmentation, and "pollution," among other things, lend strong support to this basic model, in my opinion.

As Icon illustrates, this model works well in both non-theistic and theistic contexts (and personally, I think non-theistic and theistic perspectives are exactly that: perspectives on a singular, transcendent reality, which does "attract" or call all sentient beings towards its own beneficent fullness. Suffering and disorder naturally attend any resistance to or active efforts against this agapic pull.

Best wishes,

Balder