miikaawaadizi
Posts: 134
Joined: 11/19/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rover
Obviously I don't think he's the final arbiter of who is Gorean either, nor do I really think he does. Still, when given the opportunity to say so, he did not (leaving one to wonder).
if a slave might be forgiven for presuming the thinking of a Master ... I think it was more a case of the accusation was so unbelievable as to not warrant rebuttal. you have to bear in mind that a lot of things are simply "common knowledge" and "common sense" for us, that people seem to be having difficulties seeing from the same perspective we do. my original post, I hope, did a pleasing job of trying to explain that "common sense" with regards to the accusations.
quote:
Though the criteria is laid out in books, it still takes a human being to judge someone against them. Someone is sitting in judgment.
not quite, you're still making the mistake of equating personal views of what constitutes a peer as the overall community definition of what constitutes a Gorean. the latter is pretty well stated by the books.
quote:
And without causing a stir, it's a problem because not everything in the books can realistically be a part of people's lives. So everyone picks and chooses to some degree or other.
and this is the other problem ... the books are the stories written using the philosophies as the background. the books themselves, as the stories, cannot be lived to, no. but the underlying philosophies, the "spirit" that formed the backdrop sociologically for those stories can be, has been, and is.
quote:
Well, actually it is. The books are either an individual's interesting philosophical musings (as has been alleged), or they are a primer and framework for a lifestyle (as it is used). Religion makes no pretense as to what it is... a primer and framework for one's life. Written for that purpose, and used for that purpose.
my apologies, but I never said that they were, I said that there was no difference between using adherence to the concepts and standards outlined in those books with the same form of methodology being used for defining "Gorean". deciding which (if either) of the two definitions you've laid out is the most accurate one, I must defer to the Free to decide, since it requires a judgement, not knowledge.
quote:
Ordained religious figures sit in judgment of their flock, in the service (and under the spiritual guidance of) their diety. Leonidas is a (self proclaimed) builder, not an ordained minister in service of (and under the spiritual guidance of) John Lange.
yes, but again, you're viewing it from your perspective, and assigning constants that apply to your perceptions, that might not tie with how Goreans handle the heirarchy of the community.
quote:
Where we disagree is on who makes that determination.
I'm not sure that's true. it's possible that you're falling into the trap that is supposed to be mine alone, overthinking things. those traits and qualities that define one as "Gorean" are actually very simple, and clear cut. there is a clear delineation between honour and morality, and honour is given primacy. as a result, Goreans tend not to be quite so bothered by how others see them, because their focus is being true to themselves, not trying to please everyone else. add to that the Gorean perspective of boiling things down to their least ambiguous denominators, and it's pretty easy for the Free to see who is Gorean, and who is not.
absolutism? absolutely. Occam should have been Gorean.
quote:
Sure, I absolutely endorse everyone's right to determine who they wish to associate with. But that is different than denying another the right to associate with others, based upon their personal judgment.
I'm sorry, but there is no "right" to associate with others. if you (or anyone else) was to come visit my Master's Household, and he slammed the door in your face, I don't think you'd be able to get the case heard in the Supreme Court. the first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of association, which simply means people -can- associate. not will. all that's been said is the choice of the individual in who they choose to associate with, it has no requirement the rest of the community do the same, it's individual choices.
quote:
That's not true at all. What is now commonly referred to as "Old Guard" (and no, I'm not referring tot he "new" Old Guard) did not consist of a uniformity of opinion, protocol, custom, etc. In point of fact, it differed from place to place, and group to group. They were not all about judging others for their leather lifestyle choices (oh, yes... they were exclusive in their sexual orientation, for sure, but that is NOT the meaning of "lifestyle" in this sense).
I would note that you just proved my point, and you answered your own questions quite admirable by analogy :)
quote:
Philosophy, by definition, denotes differing interpretations.
not really:
> Philosophy \Phi*los"o*phy\ (f[i^]*l[o^]s"[-o]*f[y^]), n.; pl.
> {Philosophies} (f[i^]*l[o^]s"[-o]*f[i^]z). [OE. philosophie,
> F. philosophie, L. philosophia, from Gr. filosofi`a. See
> {Philosopher}.]
> 1. Literally, the love of, inducing the search after, wisdom;
> in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained
> by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and
> laws.
> [1913 Webster]
> Note: When applied to any particular department of knowledge,
> philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under
> which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating
> to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when
> applied to God and the divine government, is called
> theology; when applied to material objects, it is
> called physics; when it treats of man, it is called
> anthropology and psychology, with which are connected
> logic and ethics; when it treats of the necessary
> conceptions and relations by which philosophy is
> possible, it is called metaphysics.
> [1913 Webster]
> Note: "Philosophy has been defined: -- the science of things
> divine and human, and the causes in which they are
> contained; -- the science of effects by their causes;
quote:
I cannot reconcile your assertion that Gorean philosophy stresses individuality, with the previous assertions that individuals (and the community) determine who is "real" and not.
then I apologise for having failed to explain sufficiently the difference between community and individuals and it's application within Gorean society.
you've never seen a flame war until you've seen Goreans arguing amongst themselves. they will disagree on most everything, because they are individuals, Free, and aware of themselves, and deeply aware of those standards they call their own, their honour - by definition. however, as much as they might disagree with each other, they all still have one common denominator, those traits that they live by that make them Goreans. individual vs community.
you'd probably also be surprised, I think, at the readiness of acceptance, amongst Goreans, of the differences in implementation between the Free ... as long as they remain within those traits that constitute "Gorean", each Free Man can do what the hell he likes. he might not get invited to dinner parties, but I don't believe a Gorean would turn around and say "I disagree with what you do, stop it".
quote:
I would say that as long as people are human, they will not agree on what constitutes honor and morality.
my own view, as one who follows Gorean philosophies (and based on past experiences that are irrelevant as specifics to the discussion) is:
honour is the standards of self.
morality is the standards of community.
~miika
proud collared and marked property
If you don't like what you're doing, you can always pick up your needle and move to a different groove.
Dr. Timothy Leary
< Message edited by miikaawaadizi -- 9/30/2005 9:35:08 AM >
|
RE: Challenging Inquiry - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread