Theos-Talk Archives (August 1998 Message tt00193)

Chuck wrote regarding Daniel's examples of 'immoral' behavior:

>There is no, reliable, empirical evidence that behavior in this life has any
>negative impact on future lives.  On the contrary, it is possible to posit a
>system where such behavior would be rewarded with benefits in a future
>incarnation.

When you use the terms "such behavior" - it sounds as though you are
referring to the examples Daniel offered - that these are actions that
could be "rewarded" due to their fine use of the intellect.  Yet, you go on:

>Consider if you will a universal system that values only one thing,
>intelligence and has no sentiment whatsoever (all the mentioned cases are
>based on sentiment).

Here you seem to be saying that the above cases are "sentiment" and not
"intelligence."  Which is are they?

>It does not matter how the human intelligence is used
>(individual lifetimes are so brief and transitory in the universal schema as
>to be meaningless anyway), all that matters is that it is used the more
>efficiently it is used (efficiency being the amount of work the brain can do
>with the least electrical activity in the brain), the happier the universe is
>and reacts to the soul accordingly.

The "happier the universe is?"  How can a universe be "happier" (is that
not a sentiment, and if the universe doesn't value sentiment, why would a
universe express happiness (sentiment) or even value or prefer its own
happiness)?

And, your philosophy appears to suggest that the universe would be far
"happier" if only machines existed - fast, efficient, without sentiment.
Why, then, would humans have ever even been "thought of" and "manifested?"
What's the point of ever having humans exist in such a universe - which
serve to pretty much, by your account, merely bum the universe out?

>Now, as conscience seems to be a terribly inefficient thing to have (it
>requires a lot of excess neuro-electrical activity for no purpose other than
>making the person feel bad) it would seem that the less conscience an
>individual has, the higher that individual is on the evolutionary scale.

Your statement that a conscience does no more than make a "person feel bad"
is clearly false.  The conscience is the dancing partner of the intellect -
neither means much without the other - a classic lack of balance.  A
combination of intellect and conscience is the creator of the finest things
in life.  If you throw out sentiment (conscience), you throw out art,
philosophy, relationships, theatre, social interaction, psionics, books,
sex, laughter, humor, etc. . .all these things are inefficient in some way,
but they are the things that make life worth living.  "Sentimental twaddle"
as good ole' Bazzar would probably term it; but, nonetheless, humans would
rather die than live without it.

>In such a cosmos (and given the opportunity to write a book-length
>dissertation I could probably make a good case that that is precisely the
>cosmos we have) any notion of morality is anti-evolutionary and not at all
>conducive to anything except to limit the individual and make societies
better
>able to control folks.

Actually, I doubt you could do that (Plato attempted the same in his
Republic) especially since pure intellect threatens to do the very same
thing you fear sentimentality will do - limit the individual.  People are
born with differing intellects - those with the most "refined" ones would
rule, censor, control, and bind humanity.

Again, I fail to see how one can really make a case for ONLY intellect or
ONLY sentiment - adoption of either philosophy would result in unspeakable
horrors.


Kym