RE: creepy crawly consent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/4/2007 11:58:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

Unfortunately, the two are not mutually exclusive.  Quite the contrary.


Okay, let me rephrase: I do not find arbitrarily applying morals to be conscienable, although I recognize and embrace the fact that morals are created arbitrarily, or accepted from some other source that has created them arbitrarily. Is that clearer?

quote:

As for your first principle, the more you delineate it, the more I reject it.


That means I must be doing something right. [:D]

quote:

It is fundamentally at odds with the notion of complementarity and makes no sense at all in the context of D/s (although, not having known you long, I admit of the possibility that you reject D/s).


I do not reject D/s. It's a sacrament to me.

That said, what notion of complementarity are you refering to?

quote:

In a certain context, I would embrace your second principle because it conforms perfectly with the concept of complementarity, but Universality does not. To the degree that your first princple can be said to hold meaning, that meaning makes it incompatible with the second.


Attempt at rephrasing, then:

#1: If your line of reasoning validates (to you) an action taken with you as the subject and me as the object, then the same line of reasoning validates (to me) the same action taken with me as the subject and you as the object, even where another principle of equal or numerically higher tier (equal or lower priority) applies.

#4: It is not the people involved that determine the "correctness" of an action, but the concepts that apply to the action in that situation.

#2: If it's fine by you that I do something to you, then it's ethically acceptable to me to do so, even where another principle of equal or numerically higher tier applies.

#3a: If I need to do something to prevent the death/nonexistance of all or part of my core being, it is ethically acceptable to me.

#3b: If I need to do something to stop what I am convinced is an attack on my physical being with intent to cause permanent harm or death, it is ethically acceptable to me.

I'd point out that #3 is just an acknowledgment that such is what I would do anyway, and that, in facing reality, it would be unreasonable of me to embrace a moral system which posited a denial of reality under certain circumstances. It's a first tier axiom, as such. Some people have it in them to defend themselves at any cost, while others do not, and it appears genetic; I have it in me, and have seen no cause to suppress it, nor any reason to, and should I need to do so, I see no reason why I should embrace a system which considers such an action wrong.

Just in case we do agree on something, it'd be interesting to know if you agree with 3a, 3b, both or none.

quote:

By way of example, consider someone who likes to be spanked, and some one who likes to spank, neither of whom relish the other's role. These are complementary roles/desires/actions, and fit neatly into the 'okayness' test for both parties. Both parties would fail the Universality test, however, so the party is over before it can start.


Err. No. These two are a logical disjunction, not a logical conjunction.

That is: if either or both apply, it's okay, while if neither applies, it's not.

quote:

I'm afraid that your first principle is simply a slightly windier reworking of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you), while the second is more in keeping with the taoist maxim 'treat others as they would be treated'.  Not the same, and not even compatible.


The first is a generalization of the Golden Rule: It's okay to do unto others what they think is okay to do unto you.

The second is a generalization of the Daoist maxim: It's okay to do unto others what they want you to do unto them.

Formally, they are logical disjunctions that permit an action unless prohibited at a numerically lower tier (those I haven't outlined here).

The set of moral "rules" derived from the basic axioms (again, as I said, those are logic diagrams, not presented here, and far too comprehensive to get into over a hypothetical example of crickets, probably far too much detail for you to even be interested in) are divided into three categories: can do, must do, and must not do. These are related via disjunctions, conjunctions and exclusions (one-but-not-both) to each other according to the tiers they are derived from.

A logical disjunction cannot entail a contradiction.

Edit: Is there some formal system you are familiar with that I could use to express the relation more clearly when my head clears up? Computer programming languages? Formal logic? Math? Lojban?



charmdpetKeira -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 12:13:54 AM)

Am I wrong to think that behaviors (actions in response to stimuli) and activities, ie: smoking fighting.. ext. are different?

Also, I would ask, do environmental circumstance and nurture, change one’s personality or shape a persons reaction towards stimuli?

I ask because, most of my life dictated I respond a particular way, to my surroundings, I am quite capable of “defending myself”, if need be, but I would rather walk away. After getting involved in a D/s relationship, I realized I had actually been making myself miserable responding the way I had been.

I do believe there are others, with opposite circumstances, which would not have a problem conducting the insect experiment and not think twice.  

I don’t know; just some thoughts.

quote:

Maybe I'm just wierd, but I'd rather see men behave better than women behave worse.


I would agree with this, a couple problems though;

first, in order for someone to change what is wrong, they have to acknowledge something is wrong;

second, one can not expect a physically weaker sex to “chill out” when the opposite is not changing. I would say at this point it is definitely catching up with both sexes. So, until mom and dad quit beating the crap out of each other (non consensual), while the UMs are watching, in ear shot, or worse, involved; people are not fighting to stay alive, and a host of other things, not much is going to change, unless someone who has some pull steps up and says this isn’t right, and then does something about it.

quote:

I will generally swat them by instinct if they bite,


I prefer to prevent such assaults before they occur. :)

edited to add: You do know that getting bit by a mosquito can kill you these days... don't you? ... or do you not have mosquitos where you're from?

k



CitizenCane -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 12:36:43 AM)

#1: If your line of reasoning validates (to you) an action taken with you as the subject and me as the object, then the same line of reasoning validates (to me) the same action taken with me as the subject and you as the object, even where another principle of equal or numerically higher tier (equal or lower priority) applies.

#4: It is not the people involved that determine the "correctness" of an action, but the concepts that apply to the action in that situation.

#2: If it's fine by you that I do something to you, then it's ethically acceptable to me to do so, even where another principle of equal or numerically higher tier applies.


In #1 you state that this principle applies in all cases. The principle is that if I think it's okay to do something to you, then it's okay for you to do it me.  This seems to me to presume an essential sameness between us that I think has no foundation other than a claim that it exists. The alternative interpretation is to make all cases of a hypothetical sameness- ie, to to say, well, if you were just like me and I were just like you, this principle would apply, which is a round about way of saying it doesn't have any universal application at all.  In it's simple form it appears to be 'schoolyard rules'- the principle that what others do is okay for you to do, which I believe you rejected in an earlier post.
In #4 I think you state the heart of the matter- the idea that ethics are somehow alienable from people. Categorical statements about people have a tendency to be either absurdly easy to contradict or require such elaboration as to make them unrecognizable as categorical statements.

In any case, I still fail to see where the aggregate of these principles is distinguishable from doing what you're comfortable with. You're comfortable with doing anything to anyone that they want done, you're comfortable doing to them anything they would do to you, and you're comfortable doing anything you perceive as enhancing your survival or quality of life.  It's not a very restrictive ethic.





Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 1:07:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

Am I wrong to think that behaviors (actions in response to stimuli) and activities, ie: smoking fighting.. ext. are different?


Nope. And I think much the same thing.

quote:

Also, I would ask, do environmental circumstance and nurture, change one’s personality or shape a persons reaction towards stimuli?


Both, I'd say. Personality is formed partially from interaction with others. Stimuli response is conditioned/habituated.

quote:

I ask because, most of my life dictated I respond a particular way, to my surroundings, I am quite capable of “defending myself”, if need be, but I would rather walk away. After getting involved in a D/s relationship, I realized I had actually been making myself miserable responding the way I had been.


~nod~

Came a time for me when I decided to go my own way. I never imagined where it would end up.

Feel free to do this via PM if you're uncomfortable with doing it on the public side of the board; it may be a bit OT, too. [:D]

quote:

I do believe there are others, with opposite circumstances, which would not have a problem conducting the insect experiment and not think twice.


~nod~

quote:

first, in order for someone to change what is wrong, they have to acknowledge something is wrong;


~nod~

The problem with this is, of course, as the thread has covered, that right and wrong are more subjective than people like to admit. Hence, it's hard to get any consensus to change things, and hard to pin things down in any regular framework. Took me years to do that for myself, and the conclusions were a lot different than I thought they'd be when I started out.

quote:

second, one can not expect a physically weaker sex to “chill out” when the opposite is not changing. I would say at this point it is definitely catching up with both sexes. So, until mom and dad quit beating the crap out of each other (non consensual), while the UMs are watching, in ear shot, or worse, involved; people are not fighting to stay alive, and a host of other things, not much is going to change, unless someone who has some pull steps up and says this isn’t right, and then does something about it.


~nod~

The world needs more Ghandi's, Jesus'es, M. L. King's, etc.

quote:

I prefer to prevent such assaults before they occur. :)


Fine by me. I have a few issues with it, but not many.

quote:

You do know that getting bit by a mosquito can kill you these days... don't you? ... or do you not have mosquitos where you're from?


We have mosquitoes here, mostly the smaller variety.

Fortunately, we also lack most of the diseases and parasites they can transmit.

Norway has very stringent regulations about stuff like bringing animals to the country, travelling to/from areas with certain diseases, and so forth.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 2:22:52 AM)

CitezenCane,

I think post 83 was to me?

I do not find life to be an experience that allows one to restrict ethics in a black and white manner.

Example: I believe murder as a general rule, is wrong, but; if someone breaks into my house and it’s them, me, or my UMs, you can bet I’m going to do my best in making sure its them and not us. I do not think that I am alone in this logic, only most call it self defense; it is still murder. I look at believed intent in cases like this, to decide if my action is justifed in the given situation.

When the situation concerns insects, I look at my own, intent, motive, and purpose and that of what’s involved.

Example: While I would brush off or back away from insects that will bite or sting if they are angry or protecting their selves; I have no problem killing one that I know is only there to bite.

I look at a honey bee different then a mosquito or even an ant; one because I believe, though could be wrong, the later two are greater in numbers, and also the ecological value appears different to me. Bees pollinate and make honey, ants and mosquitoes are food for frogs and such (at least that is all I know they are good for), and now mosquitoes are becoming deadly. These values also change according to environment, out in the woods, I’m an observer, outside in my yard/on the road, they may become unfortunate casualties, and in my house, they are intruders.

The purpose of humans, I would say, is better identified by our capabilities, and not so much by our actions.

I personally would not participate in activities involving insects or any other creature for that matter, nor would I encourage it, as I believe it is wrong on so many levels. Sticking to insects though, I do not find the issue to be a matter of what it would do to the insects, as it is just a foolish thing to do and possibly dangerous.

And no, although I try not to say “never”, it appears to me, “just because I can” is an exception to that rule, and is most likely never a good reason to do anything.

Sincerely,

Oooops, perhaps not.
k



Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 2:25:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CitizenCane

In #1 you state that this principle applies in all cases. The principle is that if I think it's okay to do something to you, then it's okay for you to do it me.  This seems to me to presume an essential sameness between us that I think has no foundation other than a claim that it exists.


It's an extension by #4, essentially. It's not about me and you. It's about a line of reasoning, employed by A in regard to B such that R(A, B) yields OK, and about positing (as an axiom) that ethics are reciprocal/universal in this regard, such that for any value of C, it would be the case that R(C, A) yields OK. That is, about me feeling that it is okay for me to permit something with regard to a person if that person's own line of reasoning permits them that with regard to me.

quote:

In it's simple form it appears to be 'schoolyard rules'- the principle that what others do is okay for you to do, which I believe you rejected in an earlier post.


I rejected the notion that violating your own ethics is valid because others do the same act.

That is, if Bob thinks it's okay for Bob to beat up black people, it does not follow that it is okay for me to beat up black people.

However, if Bob thinks it's okay to beat me up because I happened to be near by, it would be okay for me to beat Bob up because he happens to be near me, because his line of reasoning already supports the argument, and I'm just carrying out the same argument as he is. It's kind of a rejection of the idea that Bob is special in this regard, and dealing with Bob in his own frame of reference.

That is not to say that I'd beat Bob up, just that, to my mind, his line of reasoning has already justified it. The principle is sort of covariant with the notion of regular self-defense, although I have it as a seperate principle.

I've considered dropping that axiom, but I don't think I will. In any case, it'll have to wait for the next audit, which isn't due for some time because of time constraints at the moment.

quote:

In #4 I think you state the heart of the matter- the idea that ethics are somehow alienable from people. Categorical statements about people have a tendency to be either absurdly easy to contradict or require such elaboration as to make them unrecognizable as categorical statements.


Ethics are not alienable from people. But they are somewhat distinct from them. In effect, if it's okay for Bob to kill Mary, it's not because Bob is Bob. Conversely, if it's wrong for Bob to kill Mary, it's not because Bob is Bob and Mary is Mary. It is the circumstances and concepts involved that are the determinants, not the identity of the people involved.

quote:

In any case, I still fail to see where the aggregate of these principles is distinguishable from doing what you're comfortable with. You're comfortable with doing anything to anyone that they want done, you're comfortable doing to them anything they would do to you, and you're comfortable doing anything you perceive as enhancing your survival or quality of life.


There are quite a few finer points I haven't raised, so that's not entirely accurate.

A closer approximation would be that I'm okay with doing most things to someone that they want me to do to them, I'm okay with applying their own logic to themselves, and I'm okay with doing most things that (to the best of my ability to ascertain) are required to prevent permanent physical injury or death to myself, or required to lose a vital part of myself (such as having part of my brain cut out, forcibly having my basic values reconditioned, being administered neuroleptic drugs, etc.; not losing a tooth as someone said, or having to bend knee to an idiot).

Perhaps that is more distinguishable from mere comfort.

The first bit goes to consent. Whatever rocks people's boat, I'm fine with, and if they want me to participate, I don't see an ethical problem with it, although I'll still need a reason to do it. That part is basically an extension of "your kink is okay". Either way, the requirements involved in ascertaining that they actually want it and so forth are a different matter. Perhaps we agree on the basics of this principle, perhaps not.

The second bit goes to consistency. If you think freedom of speech should be restricted to a certain subset of opinions, I think yours should be restricted to the same subset. If you think people should be allowed to involuntarily enslave anyone off the street, I think it's okay to do so to you. If you think it's okay to kick someone for offending you, I think it's okay for me to kick you if you offend me. Equality/consistency/coherency. Again, perhaps we agree on this, perhaps not.

The third bit goes to survival, in an extended sense, but not any random quality of life issue. I think it's okay for me to do what I strictly need to survive, to the best of my ability to determine. I think it's okay for me to do what I need to preserve my freedom, whether it's someone looking to lock me up in a cage against my will, or someone who wants to enforce a fascist dictatorship in my country. I think it's okay for me to preserve my mind, so I will not allow a doc to inject me with neuroleptics without consent (they have irreversible effects on my personality), and I will not allow someone to carve out a piece of my brain without consent, and I will not allow someone to force me into their religion. I think it's okay for me to preserve my core principles, so I will not allow someone to force me to rape a five-year-old.

As for those bits, I think we probably agree on the basics of it, and probably most, if not all, the cases I mentioned. The problem is explaining to you all, clearly, where the boundary goes, which is complicated for reasons that appear as obvious to you as they are to me. That is where a huge chunk of those years went. If we agree on the basics of it, I don't think we need to delve into all the specifics.

I think it should, at least, from the examples used to illustrate, be clear that it's not a simple "quality of life" issue.

quote:

It's not a very restrictive ethic.


It wasn't intended to be overly restrictive, or overly loose. And these are just a few points. There are over a hundred different axioms involved, in several tiers, from which I derive the formal system of ethics by which I abide, using formal logic, and relying on no other arbitrary factors than the axioms in distinguishing compliance from noncompliance.

There are some areas where it's more restrictive than usual; I don't pick up dessert, for instance, and there are kinks I do not engage in without protocols in place that partners would generally not agree to (e.g. some of my kinks involve permanent harm, and there are women out there who share them, but I would not go for that without a workup; all the "mainstream" BDSM stuff is fairly simple, though).

There are also some areas where it's less restrictive than usual; I don't feel guilt about a lot of things that most people around me feel guilt about, for instance. Some of those, I did feel guilt about in the past, like everyone else, but found no principles I could agree to that would sustain them when applied more objectively. The classic example being outright self-defense.

And then there are some areas where it requires action that gets me in trouble. Civil disobedience is not just an option, but a requirement, in many cases, for example. If things were as messed up in Norway as they are in the US, and I did not have a first-tier commitment to providing for my nephandi, or if they were screwed up enough that they interfered with providing for her, it would be a moral imperative for me to participate in an uprising, or organize one if one wasn't already in progress.

It's not better. It's not worse. It's just different.

And it's mine. Both in the sense that it's an expression of my values and beliefs, and in that it is the intersection between who I am and who I want to be, and in that it is a personal creation, rather than having been handed to me from someone else or by society as a whole.

It's an expression of my sense of self and integrity, and a code I can and do live by.

The axioms will probably change at some point; people change, after all, and it would not continue to be an expression of self, nor be compatible with integrity, if it did not reflect that to some extent. But at any given time between audits, it allows me to pin things down in a manner that remains consistent across cases and without gray areas. Those few times when I encounter something that appears gray prior to closer inspection, I can apply the logic to the objective facts of the matter if I need to resolve it, and it is no longer gray. Most cases have been run through so many times that it's second nature, but some require conscious thought, that being what I refer to as "appearing gray". And the results of applying a formal system to a set of facts is consistent; this is reflected in my actions being consistently in line with my morals.

Again, not better, not worse, just different, in being what works for me.

Noah raised a question by quoting an offhanded remark where I was playing devil's advocate, and I tried to answer. Usually, when I post, I try to explain myself well enough the first time around that I don't have to go back and address a lot of misunderstandings. But in this case, that would mean pages upon pages of axioms and endless logic derivations, so I tried to "pare it down" to what was needed to illustrate my position and the reasons for it. In that, I did not succeed, apparently. Normally, if I can't make my point without going beyond the effort I'm willing to put into it, I don't post at all, but in this case I sort of felt obligated to comment, as the original post was about a statement I made, and drawing conclusions from insufficient background, ending up at a different conclusion than my own in some areas.

I never meant for it to become pages upon pages of nitpicking about details, because the basic idea is the only thing that can be reasonably conveyed without stuff that will take the readers hours to read, and days to years to process.

The axioms are, after all, essentially expressions of values, hence not up for debate. The system derived from them is an extension of that, and I live with that system; any debate would be either "you were wrong about deduction #713, here's how that goes", taking forever, or it would be reduced to the following cases:
  • "I don't agree with your basic values", which is just "duh, they're mine, not yours", and not constructive for anyone. One point about the arbitraryness of morals that the two of us agree on is that the choice of values is entirely subjective, and there's nothing to debate, really, it's just who we are.
  • "I agree with your basic values, and can't find an error in your argument, I but I don't approve of the conclusion", which is "fine, your problem, I didn't invent logic". Absence of internal consistency doesn't work for me, so back to no point in that.
  • "I can't follow this", or "I don't have the energy for this", possibly followed by "But...", which would miss the entire point, since any reply I could make would rely on the formal framework, and hence be beyond the capacity (energywise, timewise or otherwise) of the reader.
In short, the reason there is any debate at all, is that Noah raised a point, and I felt it required addressing, and people aren't buying the general idea without getting bogged down in details that are not easily addressed, so I'm kind of stuck trying to find a good way to argue the exact bits raised, without having to post the whole shebang and thus unfold every bit of my core values for public scrutiny and unlimited-time archiving (at Google and Internet Archive) for no other possible outcomes than those listed above.

I'm not judging anyone, and not claiming to be better, smarter or more advanced than anyone. I'm just defending my position on a tiny, simple issue, and trying to avoid having that become a friggin' full-time job.

Hope this clears some things up.

P.S.: Sorry if I sound frustrated. I am. Hopefully, you can understand why, from what I said above.

P.P.S.: If someone wants to play external auditer for the whole thing, I'll do the digging, find the notes, find some software that can represent the logic diagrams, type it all in, and send it to them for review under an informal NDA. But I'm not doing that for a "Hmm, I can't follow this" or "lol, I can't believe you went to all this work" or whatever. It's just too much work for casual conversation, sorry. Just finding them means exactly 30 cubic metres of junk to dig through.



Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/5/2007 2:40:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

I do not find life to be an experience that allows one to restrict ethics in a black and white manner.


Being arbitrary, one can choose ethics that can be applied in such a manner, by designing it so.

I have found life to be a very complicated, and at the same time very simple, experience.

And I have found that tangible things can be quantified, with effort, and that ethics is too important to me to be left to chance, whim or any other factor that may not be constant from moment to moment (even in the absence of a change in values). I need that bit to be consistent, for me. And I could either do that by going the dogmatic route of "murder is always wrong", etc., or I could do it by creating values and putting them in a system that can be applied objectively, even though the values themselves are, by nature and definition, subjective.

There are some important concepts to me in that regard, and one of them is "the map is not the territory".

Another was put rather concisely by a fantasy author (don't laugh), in saying "The only sovereign I can allow to rule me is reason. The first law of reason is this: what exists, exists; what is, is. From this irreducible, bedrock principle, all knowledge is built. This is the foundation from which life is embraced. [...] Reason is a choice. Wishes and whims are not facts, nor are they a means to discover them. Reason is our only way of grasping reality--it's our basic tool of survival."

So, bearing these points and my values in mind, I applied reason to the problem I had with ethics.

quote:

Example: I believe murder as a general rule, is wrong, but; if someone breaks into my house and it’s them, me, or my UMs, you can bet I’m going to do my best in making sure its them and not us. I do not think that I am alone in this logic, only most call it self defense; it is still murder. I look at believed intent in cases like this, to decide if my action is justifed in the given situation.


~nod~

It's still murder. And I'll still do it, regardless of what the law or anyone else says.

And while I will regret that the person died, I will not regret my decision.

quote:

Example: While I would brush off or back away from insects that will bite or sting if they are angry or protecting their selves; I have no problem killing one that I know is only there to bite.


~nod~

quote:

And no, although I try not to say “never”, it appears to me, “just because I can” is an exception to that rule, and is most likely never a good reason to do anything.


~vigorous nodding~

Even if something is ethical to me, I'll need a reason to do it.

And being able to do it does not make it ethical to me.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/10/2007 1:25:35 AM)

Aswad,

I apologize for taking so long in getting back to this topic. My life has been “interesting”, as of late.

quote:

[quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

I do not find life to be an experience that allows one to restrict ethics in a black and white manner.


Being arbitrary, one can choose ethics that can be applied in such a manner, by designing it so.
/quote] 

Two things canceling each other out, does not make them the only possibilities.

Perhaps I do not understand what you saying, correctly. Are you saying you believe my ethics have been chosen arbitrarily?

I believe my ethics follow nature fairly close for an omnivore. I do acknowledge however, my capabilities and potential, as a human; dictate a different purpose, then other species. (I often wonder what life would be like, if humans were capable of using all of their brains.)

I believe it is our purpose to grow; growth calls for expansion, and most times that means destruction of something.

Other wise, our capabilities would be pointless, wouldn’t they?.... reminds me of a bird that’s wings have been clipped.

I also believe, as humans, we are somewhat like guardians; it is our responsibility to maintain a balance, as much as possible.

I also wonder what extreme prevention of insect death, would do to the balance, “How many insects, can one frog eat?” kind of thing.

quote:

I try to chase them away instead, unless they are persistent. I will generally swat them by instinct if they bite, though, which I'm fine with. Accidents happen.


Have I misunderstood your posts, in thinking, you believe all things are equal? I apologize if that is the case.

If not, I am not seeing consistency in your line of thinking. It would seem to me, someone who felt that all are equal, would take the correct precautionary measures to prevent “accidents”, in insect death, as they would in other areas.

If I believed that insects were equal to me; knowing I might kill one if it bites me; I would want to do what it would take to prevent that from happening. Perhaps, keep my hands tied behind my back.

Do you not try to avoid “accidents” where humans are concerned?

As a kid, we were always taking in; injured, stray, and orphaned creatures. I have also invited people, who needed a place to stay, to do so, in my home for a while. I would want to extend the same to all and would be happy to have the company of insects in my home.

Would you nurse an injured person or animal back to health? Would you attempt the same with an insect?

Would you not offer a place to stay, to a human, you trusted?

I have helped my neighbors, friends, and family out from time to time. I would wish to help an insect in self preservation, as well. If all an insect needs is a little blood; I have so much I could offer.

Perhaps you don’t give blood.

Sincerely,

k



Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/10/2007 7:46:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

I apologize for taking so long in getting back to this topic. My life has been “interesting”, as of late.


No need to apologize to anyone. That happens sometimes.

quote:

Two things canceling each other out, does not make them the only possibilities.


I'm afraid I don't understand what you meant by this. Could you elaborate?

quote:

Are you saying you believe my ethics have been chosen arbitrarily?


No, I am saying that ethics are a choice, and that there is no objective guideline to that choice. Hence, ethics are arbitrary by nature. But that does not preclude the choice from being deliberate. Essentially, ethics can be a deliberate choice among arbitrary options.

quote:

I believe my ethics follow nature fairly close for an omnivore.


It would make sense. I did consider using nature as a guideline at one point, but found that there were no analogies to certain concepts that I had found useful to my mental health and to my interoperability with society in general.

quote:

I do acknowledge however, my capabilities and potential, as a human; dictate a different purpose, then other species.


There is no discernible purpose, and nothing inherently dictated. It is all a choice, which can be any choice at all.

quote:

I often wonder what life would be like, if humans were capable of using all of their brains.


Humans use all of their brain. Just not all at the same time, unless one has significant neurological disorders or developmental disorders. I don't remember where the notion originated, but it's a myth that we don't use it all.

That said, increasing the capacity of the human brain would be very destructive, as the human communities have not developed a tradition of viable coping strategies for this that can be passed on from one generation to the next, and it would probably take a lot of time for such strategies to find a stable middle path.

I posted some ramblings about that in the thread "So Why Are All The Genius's [sic] Insane?". Just click the link if you'd like to read them; a lot of interesting thoughts in the rest of the thread, too.

quote:

I believe it is our purpose to grow; growth calls for expansion, and most times that means destruction of something.


I prefer transcendance to growth, but each to their own. Growth is certainly a more realistic option.

quote:

Other wise, our capabilities would be pointless, wouldn’t they?.... reminds me of a bird that’s wings have been clipped.


Our capabilities are pointless, as far as anyone can discern.

Each individual must assign their own meaning to things, as there are no objective underpinnings for any meaning.

quote:

I also believe, as humans, we are somewhat like guardians; it is our responsibility to maintain a balance, as much as possible.


I'm not sure such is the case, though I do try to limit the signs of my passing, "like thoughts inside a dream", as the song goes. And I try to find a balance for myself.

I would be interested in hearing your rationale for viewing humans as guardians, though.

quote:

I also wonder what extreme prevention of insect death, would do to the balance, “How many insects, can one frog eat?” kind of thing.


I don't go out of my way to prevent things outside my immediate sphere of influence.

I try not to kill them, which makes it much as if I wasn't there, but I don't try to prevent them from dying, either.

quote:

Have I misunderstood your posts, in thinking, you believe all things are equal? I apologize if that is the case.


I believe all life is equal in value, yes.

quote:

If not, I am not seeing consistency in your line of thinking. It would seem to me, someone who felt that all are equal, would take the correct precautionary measures to prevent “accidents”, in insect death, as they would in other areas.


Believing that all life is equal, and that all life is sacred, does not prevent me from pursuing my own survival, much as any animal would. My morals recognize that, since it would be pointless to feel guilt over it. I take precautionary measures, to the extent that I can, but that extent is limited by my limitations as a human, and again my morals recognize the basic reality of things: what is, is.

I'll go to fairly extensive steps to prevent having to kill an insect. But I draw a line. That line is pretty far into what most would consider "loonie-bin land", though. When I say I wouldn't hurt a fly, I almost mean it literally, much to my friends' amusement. They can roll around on the ground laughing sometimes while I try to keep a wasp from getting close enough to sting me without injuring it. And I see where they're coming from, but I can't live that way.

As for accidents, that's fairly simple: I act instinctively.

It's not premeditated, and deconditioning the reflex would be contrary to my survival, as I've had to rely on the same muscle reflexes for other things in the past. In short, it is not viable for me to decondition the reflex, which is provided for under certain parts of the moral system. Hence, the accident may happen. And when it does, I'll regret killing the insect, but I will not be contrite about it.

quote:

Do you not try to avoid “accidents” where humans are concerned?


Humans and insects both.

I try to maintain my personal space, to be aware of my surroundings, and so forth. Further, I'll try to avoid harming any being that doesn't attack me or trigger my fight-or-flight response (that will take a human or large animal to do, though).

Sticking me with a knife will be just as fatal as sticking me with a stinger, though.

quote:

I would want to extend the same to all and would be happy to have the company of insects in my home.


I'm all too happy to have certain insects in my home, just like certain people.

I'm picky about both. Like you, I've chosen a naturalistic set of values.

That includes maintaining my personal space and "territory".

quote:

Would you nurse an injured person or animal back to health? Would you attempt the same with an insect?


I have attempted all three, succeeded at all three, and failed at all three.

Where possible, I prefer to use professional care, though.

quote:

Would you not offer a place to stay, to a human, you trusted?


There are very few humans I trust enough to invite into my "nest" unsupervised. Those I do are welcome to stay, though, as far as I'm concerned. The landlord and nephandi may both object, though.

quote:

I have helped my neighbors, friends, and family out from time to time.


~nod~

For the right friend(s), I'll help move a corpse.

quote:

I would wish to help an insect in self preservation, as well. If all an insect needs is a little blood; I have so much I could offer.


There is, as someone pointed out, a risk of infection from that, but mostly, yeah, I'd be okay with it, if the risk was negligible. What happens, though, is that I feel the sting, then realize I've splatted the poor bugger in the space of time it took for the sting to register. So I feel sorry for the poor thing, say a blessing or prayer, and move on.

quote:

Perhaps you don’t give blood.


No, I don't.

I have a problem with needles, and was- until recently- a walking pharmacy. That is, you could probably use blood transfusions from me to treat certain illnesses at the time. I'm joking here, of course, but you get the idea. Even if I overcame my fear of needles and positively threw my blood at them in plasma bags, they would not accept it.



mons -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/11/2007 3:23:18 AM)

greetings

what you both said makes not sense at all they are bugs. i too think it id sick to do this to someone they (the people ) can not find something more pleasing it id gross to do that to a person and cruel kink can go to far when it comes to placing lve thing insode of a person it is so grosss next the may put roaches up there or spiders . and who suggest or did this? and did they really do this to a person a woman what things people will let somone do just to please a man domme are so different i do not see the reason behind this action.. you spoke of the bugs as lving thing but what of thre person who this was do to . well what of her you place a high redegrad for the bug but what of the woman? is she consent of her own will? or that of her master think of that one.

mons ( all god creature are inportant but a human is most important of all ) now thin og that

mons



Aswad -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/11/2007 6:30:50 AM)

mons,

If it does not make any sense at all, then you did not understand the argument.

An assertion that humans are more important than any other creature makes no sense to me.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: creepy crawly consent (6/12/2007 4:51:07 PM)

Keira,
I do not find life to be an experience that allows one to restrict ethics in a black and white manner.

Aswad
Being arbitrary, one can choose ethics that can be applied in such a manner, by designing it so.
Keira,
Two things canceling each other out, does not make them the only possibilities.

Aswad,
I'm afraid I don't understand what you meant by this. Could you elaborate?
 
While it is true each person can choose which set of ethics they deem appropriate, or even pick and choose from a bunch of different places, does not mean that there are no objective guidelines.
 
Keira,
Are you saying you believe my ethics have been chosen arbitrarily?
 
Aswad
No, I am saying that ethics are a choice, and that there is no objective guideline to that choice. Hence, ethics are arbitrary by nature. But that does not preclude the choice from being deliberate.
Ethics are not arbitrary by nature; the ways people decide what ethics they will follow and to what degree, are arbitrary by nature. Nature itself provides an objective guideline for ethics.
 
Aswad,
Essentially, ethics can be a deliberate choice among arbitrary options.
 
Does this not, according to you, translate to; deliberate choosing of random, randomness?
 
Aswad
Humans use all of their brain. Just not all at the same time, unless one has significant neurological disorders or developmental disorders. I don't remember where the notion originated, but it's a myth that we don't use it all.
My bad, I did some research and it is true; I was misinformed, though, not quite sure when, or by whom; myself.
 
Wikipedia states, it is possible the misconception may have derived from the fact that only 10% of the neurons in the brain fire at any given time and a few other possibilities.
 
It also says; “if a large percentage of the neurons were to fire at the same time, the result would be a grand mal seizure.”
 
That being said, I will rephrase and say; I wonder what it would be like, to be able to use our brains to their fullest abilities.
 
Aswad,
That said, increasing the capacity of the human brain would be very destructive, as the human communities have not developed a tradition of viable coping strategies for this that can be passed on from one generation to the next, and it would probably take a lot of time for such strategies to find a stable middle path.
I’m not sure if this is a “too smarts for one’s own good, due to others opinions”, or ‘ not smart enough to control one’s ability to be smarter”, scenario.
 
Just because a way is not foreseeable, does not make it impossible.
 
Aswad:
I would be interested in hearing your rationale for viewing humans as guardians, though.
 
Think fire department, fish and game, forestry dept., humane society, coast guard, ect….

My Views on Balance, on an Unequal Scale
 
I believe people are equal to insects, in the same way a Dominate is equal to the submissive  in a D/s relationship... both parties are equal to the relationship; both are needed to have the relationship, therefore making them equal in the aspect of importance.  This is seen as a balanced scale.
 
In standing, people are greater then insects; in the same way a Dominate is greater then a submissive in a D/s relationship. There still has to be balance though, and there is. This type of balance is relevant to a pivot point; like a see-saw.
 
People have  higher standing then insects, due to capabilities. I believe this to be true, in light of the fact; while every species evolves along with the rest of the planet; people are the only creatures that do so at such a fast rate; with the ability to create tools, to help us on our way; while everything else is, subject to the limits of their abilities.
 
To say we should not use our abilities, for any reason, would not only make humans the only specie with such capabilities, but the only ones, not allowed to use, what we were given.
 
To say these abilities have no purpose, also goes against the rest of nature. Birds have feathers and wings to fly; fish have fins and gills to swim underwater; and every other creature, its abilities to serve its purpose; it does not make sense that humans would not have a purpose, It is also notable, we have neither feathers, wings, fins, nor, gills and yet we have created the tools in order for us to do all of those things, and many more.
 
I stated before the purpose is growth, not only physically, but mentally and “spiritually
 
The goal, I would think, would be those things that the vast majority, regardless of faith, religious beliefs, or physical abilities all crave; to live free and in peace.
 



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875