The Couch

thought crimes

Comments on thought crimes

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#76 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/29/09 - 1:48 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

Its lines, folks. Lines. If you use the arching 'm' you can get fined; if you use the broken cross you can go to jail. Absolutely absurd, our society is becoming. IMMHO, rolling eyes

8)


More aligned to your views are my views. Have not gone through entire thread,though. What do you think about movie Minorty Report?


Thank You
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#77 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/29/09 - 3:27 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:


More aligned to your views are my views. Have not gone through entire thread,though. What do you think about movie Minorty Report?



Pretty awful concept, imo. It just goes to show that in the end, it comes down to someone, somewhere, making a choice to call something good or evil, and then acting on that choice. That someone says 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong' and proceeds to enforce that with violence.

If you don't want people murdering in your society, you'd better do something to make life worth living! And help everyone to see that, and to respect life and cherish it in others. That's the only answer--not more bars, jails, early detection systems. IMHO.

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#78 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/30/09 - 2:30 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

Pretty awful concept, imo. It just goes to show that in the end, it comes down to someone, somewhere, making a choice to call something good or evil, and then acting on that choice. That someone says 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong' and proceeds to enforce that with violence.


Yes,and that is related to this thread because if such a system is developed,then,maybe your opinions become similar to those of lib's.


Monk2400 wrote:

If you don't want people murdering in your society, you'd better do something to make life worth living! And help everyone to see that, and to respect life and cherish it in others. That's the only answer--not more bars, jails, early detection systems. IMHO.

8)


It is crystal clear to me that you have conviction that personal choice is very important. Similar thing was noticed by me while you were chiding some electorates in BC elections rant.



Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#79 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/31/09 - 12:59 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Yes,and that is related to this thread because if such a system is developed,then,maybe your opinions become similar to those of lib's.

how so?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#80 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/31/09 - 1:27 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

how so?


While skimming through the thread,impression gained by me regarding your views was that you are strictly against thought crimes. But,Monk2400,differs because,he is not reckoning these as crimes,since,they aren't very lucid and restricting someone based on these seems to be a hindrance to the personal freedom. Only if,there is a system which suggests that these 'karmas' are bound to have adverse effect(as in minority report)-guys like Monk2400,could be convinced of restrictions on their perpetuation.



Thank You
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#81 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/31/09 - 2:08 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
While skimming through the thread,impression gained by me regarding your views was that you are strictly against thought crimes.

i don't know what's fair to legislate where this issue is concerned, so i don't think that your impression of my position is accurate. i'm against "thought crimes" as a personal standard of behavior, meaning that i'm here speaking of a standard for governing myself, not other people. so yes, for me i'm against fantasizing about killing people and molesting children and anything else that would be deliberately harmful. but i have not advocated "thought police", nor do i even think such a thing is possible. people will always have the freedom to think whatever they want.

i have, on the other hand, questioned the propriety of producing material which may encourage a criminal tendency against children. i remain interested in seeing studies which aim to evaluate whether a tendency toward pedophilia is encouraged by virtual child porn. until then, i cannot as vigorously defend it as being harmless.

i in post #74 wrote:
it remains a difficult issue through which to draw a fair and enforceable line. i think neil gaiman makes some important points. M, i am leaning toward agreeing with a point you had made earlier, something to the effect of prosecuting people only once they become suspect or guilty of actual pedophilia. i also think it bears reiterating happycynic's point about handling this kind of issue on a case-by-case basis.

this remains the most accurate summation of my position at this point.

cheers,
lib
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#82 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 05/31/09 - 2:18 AM:

libertygrl wrote:

i don't know what's fair to legislate where this issue is concerned, so i don't think that your impression of my position is accurate.


Yes,it's so because I have not gone through thread thoroughly.



Thank You
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#83 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/05/09 - 10:26 PM:

I did not read the whole thread. I will if I start to get into this board.

In brief: thought crime is the only real crime.

But, there can be no evidence with thought crime.

Therefore, only physical crime could be a crime, this is how the thing has in fact evolved in law.

There might also be an issue of the differnce between a moral versus a legal crime.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#84 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/06/09 - 12:06 AM:

Nancy Drew wrote:

In brief: thought crime is the only real crime.



Exactly. This is a very important thought. All actions spring forth from karmas,from most subtle and crude of impressions on mind. So man has already committed crime long before its visible physical commitment. In the movie Minority Report-the thought police charged the culprits due to their karmic impurity which would certainly have manifested into the physical crime. So it boils down to our detection sensitivity in end.

Welcome on-board Nancyzen

Thank You
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#85 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/09/09 - 5:17 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Exactly. This is a very important thought. All actions spring forth from karmas,from most subtle and crude of impressions on mind. So man has already committed crime long before its visible physical commitment. In the movie Minority Report-the thought police charged the culprits due to their karmic impurity which would certainly have manifested into the physical crime. So it boils down to our detection sensitivity in end.

Thank You

Thought crime is real for me, but is it real of others? (Solipsism.) You assume epiphenomenalism too.

Non-intervention; a report machine would itself be a crime.

I object to the Minority Report analogy. It being a Hollywood film, we know, that the philosophical grounding must be corrupt.

I can never be certain what I or what an other will do. Not in mediacy at least, 'what will I do tomorrow'? That I has a very similar ontological status as a 'you' or a 'she'.

Nothing in the future is certain.

Murder as a differnt quality of crime was introduced; this is also found in Catholic thought: venial versus mortal sin. This is fair, but I don't think it can justify the certainty of a report. Science follows the same rules as the mind; science is never certain, the law also is never certain, it is at best reasonable. Science and law are very similar in vocabulary (cases, evidince, observation and witnesses, the impartial Lady justice and the emotionally detached scientist, the symbology of the scales and scalpel.

The karmic impurity is not certain: one could become an arahant between the time of a report and the arrest.

I would also myself refrain from speaking about crime in particularity; quite a few of the examples of crime given in this thread from page 1 on would be considered by many not crime.

This is not clearly put, but is some of what occurs to me on this.

Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#86 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/10/09 - 2:04 AM:

Nancy Drew wrote:

Thought crime is real for me, but is it real of others? (Solipsism.) You assume epiphenomena too.


How do you relate epiphenomenalism to it?smiling face


Nancy wrote:

Non-intervention; a report machine would itself be a crime.


Crime:
Wikipedia wrote:

Societies define crime as the breach of one or more rules or laws for which some governing authority or force may ultimately prescribe a punishment.

When society deems informal relationships and sanctions, insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, there may result more formalized systems of social control imposed by a government, or by a sovereign state. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel individuals to conform to behavioral codes, and can punish those who do not conform.


So,if societies do not define 'Thought Machine' as 'crime',then it is not a crime.


Nancy wrote:

I object to the Minority Report analogy. It being a Hollywood film, we know, that the philosophical grounding must be corrupt.


Why? Is western philosophy corrupt? OR philosophical grounding of all hollywood movies is corrupt? kooky



I can never be certain what I or what an other will do. Not in mediacy at least, 'what will I do tomorrow'? That I has a very similar ontological status as a 'you' or a 'she'.

Nothing in the future is certain.


A few things are certain,for example,if population of China is 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.),it is most likely to be so in the next one or two days. The measurements done by machines in the movie were very immediate,concept is,good,according to me.


Nancy wrote:

Murder as a differnt quality of crime was introduced; this is also found in Catholic thought: venial versus mortal sin. This is fair, but I don't think it can justify the certainty of a report. Science follows the same rules as the mind; science is never certain, the law also is never certain, it is at best reasonable. Science and law are very similar in vocabulary (cases, evidince, observation and witnesses, the impartial Lady justice and the emotionally detached scientist, the symbology of the scales and scalpel.


You have taken it other way. The theory was,that,grave crimes,like murder for example,occur,when the 'vibration frequency' of a person,reaches to a specific,negative peak,which could be sensed.zen

Nancy wrote:

The karmic impurity is not certain: one could become an arahant between the time of a report and the arrest.


Not at all. Only if it would have been possible for me to show you how.shaking headshaking head


smiling faceThank Yousmiling face
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#87 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 12:29 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
How do you relate epiphenomenalism to it?smiling face

If what is in the mind has no connection to what is of the body, then a crime in one has nothing to do with a crime in the other.


Everything of the body is crime. Everything of the body is of the mind.

So,if societies do not define 'Thought Machine' as 'crime',then it is not a crime.

Crime-L and crime-M (Legal/Moral) are quite different.

Interfering with others is always a crime? imposing one person's idea of what is right on another.

Why? Is western philosophy corrupt? OR philosophical grounding of all hollywood movies is corrupt? kooky

Both.

A few things are certain,for example,if population of China is 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.),it is most likely to be so in the next one or two days.

Probable and certain are not the same. Reasonable, the criteria in law is also a different thing.

The theory was,that,grave crimes,like murder for example,occur,when the 'vibration frequency' of a person,reaches to a specific,negative peak,which could be sensed.zen

If mind is not of the world, how could it have any physical 'vibration frequency'?

Crime-M is always thought crime: crime is a direct emotional experience, such a Witt asking "How do I know that I am in pain?" Of course we know. Crime-M is "self-evident". But justice, being objective and not subjective, can not make a conviction based on crime-M as it is an interiority, inaccessable to objectivity. Crime-L, objective, can only be decided where physical evidence can be submitted. I can never know if someone else has committed a crime-M, I have no certain access to their subjectivity.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#88 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 12:40 AM:

Nancy Drew wrote:

Crime-L and crime-M (Legal/Moral) are quite different.


Yes,so you were talking about Crime-M? I was talking about Crime-L.

nANCY wrote:

Interfering with others is always a crime? imposing one person's idea of what is right on another.


Not according to me. Only that which 'persons in power' define as a crime is crime. Might is right and rest is meaningless.


Nancy wrote:

If mind is not of the world, how could it have any physical 'vibration frequency'?


Who told you so?


Nancy wrote:

Crime-M is always thought crime: crime is a direct emotional experience, such a Witt asking "How do I know that I am in pain?" Of course we know. Crime-M is "self-evident". But justice, being objective and not subjective, can not make a conviction based on crime-M as it is an interiority, inaccessable to objectivity. Crime-L, objective, can only be decided where physical evidence can be submitted. I can never know if someone else has committed a crime-M, I have no certain access to their subjectivity.


Subjective 'M' is meaningful,still useless. Objective 'L' may be meaningless but it is useful. It is not pragmatism but it is common- sense


Thank You
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#89 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 11:42 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:

It is crystal clear to me that you have conviction that personal choice is very important. Similar thing was noticed by me while you were chiding some electorates in BC elections rant.


Absolutely correct.

In reality, our choices are always limited. They are limited by circumstances, but obstacles, by time constraints, resources, and, ultimately, by our personal identities.

But, as beings with volition, beings whose very essence is freedom, it is absolutely necessary that we be allowed to fully express and exercise that freedom in every way possible.

Freedom is absolute liberation, but it comes with a heft price-tag. It comes with responsibility and risk. If we assert our right to exercise our free choice, we must understand that in doing so we made create a circumstance for ourselves that will bring us into direct conflict with others doing the same thing, or against nature, who will not allow our choice to be manifest in reality. In either case the result could be violence and harm to us or others. That is the risk we take, and the responsibility that follows us. Free choice produces karma.

Of course it is practical for societies to create well-defined rules and interpersonal regulations. That's why the concept of 'rights' is so important for modern societies that recognize the fundamental liberty of volitional beings. But we also need to leave a sphere open where volitional beings are perfectly free to exercise the limit of choice (which is unlimited). This is why I am absolutely against any censorship of any kind in the arts domain. The domain of the arts is the domain of the imagination. It reflects the free play of the mind unincumbered by any external constraint. Even constraints that do exist can be transformed into leverage for the birth of new concepts and creative moments.

Human beings need this. We need it to be fully human, to realize our humanity. We can't do this in a complex society where the needs and wants of others are balanced against our own. But in the sphere of imagination, of pure creation, we can be truly free.

In short, art should not be constrained by morality.

This means allowing all manner of things that might emmanate from the 'dark side' of human consciousness. Even these things, abhorrent as some are, are part of human reality, and we need to be free to 'go there' for ourselves.

Rules constraining imagination are for children, designed to regulate behaviour and thinking into orderly patterns. They are no longer applicable to fully volitional adults. We are men and women, not babies. We can recognize the responsibility and risk inherent in our actions. But our society should not censor us for creating or possessing art of any kind, even if it reflects things that some find criminal and evil.



Thinker13 wrote:

But,Monk2400,differs because,he is not reckoning these as crimes,since,they aren't very lucid and restricting someone based on these seems to be a hindrance to the personal freedom.
Only if,there is a system which suggests that these 'karmas' are bound to have adverse effect(as in minority report)-guys like Monk2400,could be convinced of restrictions on their perpetuation.


LOL, since I often have very strong feelings about things, those time cops would be busting down my door on a regular basis.

But reflecting on the idea of thought crimes, it's interesting to note that we can define the scope of criminal culpability any way we want. I recall reading about certain tribes that treat actions that occur in dreams as morally relevant. In the gospels, Jesus suggests that people can sin by thought alone, that the thinking of doing something is practically equivalent to the actual doing of it (which might be neurologically true, given the nature of mirror neurons).

For me the only relevant sphere of criminality is action taken against others because that is what we need a policing/legal infrastructure to protect against. It is not the duty of the law, or, indeed, your brother, to try and regulate actions one takes against oneself, as for these one is solely responsible (to oneself). But as soon as we start acting against others, the issues of justice and fairness and equality are raised.

And here we need to differentiate the legal (political) and the moral (spiritual).

We may judge a person who thinks of bloody murder all the livelong day as morally suspect, such that there personal spiritual state is in question; but so long as they live their life and never commit a murder, they are legally blameless, and a model citizen. The mind, the imagination, is the only place we volitional agents can fully and completely explore our freedoms. And I, for one, feel it's important to allow this.

8)
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#90 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 1:07 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
But in the sphere of imagination, of pure creation, we can be truly free.

Imagination is limited and it's not clear what you mean by "pure creation."

It's true that anyone is free to indulge their private thoughts or pursue imaginary experiences that, at least to some degree, may fulfill desires that would be unattainable in the real world. Though in truth our imagination may prove too limited to adequately fulfill all our desires.

It seems all that you are saying is that our desires may exceed our ability to fulfill them in reality.

In short, art should not be constrained by morality.

Imagination and art are not synonymous, however they are both goal oriented activities. They seek to fulfill some need. Transcending morality or a pure aesthetic experience has no purpose and is not bound to art or imagination. You can't separate art and morality.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#91 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 1:28 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

LOL, since I often have very strong feelings about things, those time cops would be busting down my door on a regular basis.


Not at all. That is an imaginary story,therefore,to argue about its plausibility is not just,still,it should be seen in a more reasonable way. It should be a 'nearly perfect' machine,if any. It ought to work on the principle of frequency of vibrations. After a certain critical sync in the frequency,or say,after a certain peak in wavelength,it would be impossible to come back. And that should be the point where someone should be convicted of the crime.


Monk2400 wrote:

But reflecting on the idea of thought crimes, it's interesting to note that we can define the scope of criminal culpability any way we want. I recall reading about certain tribes that treat actions that occur in dreams as morally relevant. In the gospels, Jesus suggests that people can sin by thought alone, that the thinking of doing something is practically equivalent to the actual doing of it (which might be neurologically true, given the nature of mirror neurons).


Indeed.


Monk2400 wrote:

For me the only relevant sphere of criminality is action taken against others because that is what we need a policing/legal infrastructure to protect against. It is not the duty of the law, or, indeed, your brother, to try and regulate actions one takes against oneself, as for these one is solely responsible (to oneself). But as soon as we start acting against others, the issues of justice and fairness and equality are raised.


Indeed. That is what I said to Nancy up-thread,that crime-L are only types of 'crime' and crime-M are just 'fudges'. Might makes Right. Society defines crime. It is another thing that Crime-L and Crime-M are very much interrelated.

It seems to me that suicide is not a crime according to you? Should anybody not be hindered from committing suicide,then?





We may judge a person who thinks of bloody murder all the livelong day as morally suspect, such that there personal spiritual state is in question; but so long as they live their life and never commit a murder, they are legally blameless, and a model citizen. The mind, the imagination, is the only place we volitional agents can fully and completely explore our freedoms. And I, for one, feel it's important to allow this.

8)


Truly speaking,if even our imagination is constrained,then,it is impossible to have any persons with true character. Because,everyone can act a hero,on stage,while in a constraint,but those,who act righteously,in spite of the freedom and power they enjoy are 'truly moral'.peace

As an aside: You have a dashing new avatar.thumb up



Thank You
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#92 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 2:04 PM:

praxis wrote:

Imagination is limited and it's not clear what you mean by "pure creation."


How is imagination limited?


praxis wrote:

It's true that anyone is free to indulge their private thoughts or pursue imaginary experiences that, at least to some degree, may fulfill desires that would be unattainable in the real world. Though in truth our imagination may prove too limited to adequately fulfill all our desires.


If a desire is a desire for something tangible, physical, then imagination will never be sufficient, of course.

But desire is just a form of energy, afterall. It is energy directed towards something. And in the case where expressing this energy will lead to personal/other harm, finding another way to express this energy can satisfy it. But it will take a bit of a shift in the person cultivating the desire, of course, to be able to accept a so-called lesser attainment, a diversion of the desire's expression from its original aim to a derivitive aim.


praxis wrote:

It seems all that you are saying is that our desires may exceed our ability to fulfill them in reality.


They usually do.


praxis wrote:

Imagination and art are not synonymous, however they are both goal oriented activities. They seek to fulfill some need.


I don't see imagination as fulfilling a need or being goal-directed. Imagination has a function, of course, allowing cognition to take place. But when employed by volition, it is liberated from its natural range and becomes unlimited. The free play of imagination represents the random association and remixing of elements of thought and experience.


praxis wrote:

Transcending morality or a pure aesthetic experience has no purpose and is not bound to art or imagination. You can't separate art and morality.


Of course you can. Morality has to do with two things and two things only: The cultivation of the character of the individual and the cultivation of the behaviour of the individual within a social context. Moral values are connected to dispositions (of the moral agent) and actions (of the agent in society). In the former case morality is purely 'spiritual' as an individual can only reward or punish themselves for 'being' a certain type of person. The morality of dispositions is valid even on a desert island, because within its scope, the moral agent is wholly responsible to hirself and the ideals hesh sets up. In the latter case morality is political and crosses over into the realm of the legal, where we find crime and prosecutable offenses.

Art is not primarily a morally relevant act. That is, insofar as it is morally relevant, it is relevant to the dispositional side of morality, pertaining to the expression of an individual's nature, desires, imagination. If art creates a product, then that product might--like any product of human ingenuity--be wielded in a social setting to act against others.

However, I suggest that if 'art' is created to be used as a weapon it is no longer 'art' at all, but something else, like propaganda. A creator cannot be responsible for how his creation is used by others, just as he is not responsible for how others interpret the work. As such, the creation of art is an intensely personal experience, akin to giving birth. The mother is not responsible for the crimes of the son just by having given birth to him.

I see all manner of grey lines here.

Art is not primarily a moral concern.

Neither is a garden shovel.

But a person can use a garden shovel to murder another human being.

So too can a person use art to offend another human being.

But then again, on the scale of crime, 'offense' is merely an annoyance and not particularly weighty, compared to a direct action taken to obstruct the liberty of another human being.

My point is that a moral evaluation of art is not an aesthetic evaluation. Anything can be judged in a moral context because anything CAN be used by humans to do moral rights or wrongs.

But what we need to remember here is that morality is concerned with human beings and their activities--how they conduct themselves in a social setting and impact other people. Morality is concerned with keeping society orderly and functional without infringing on liberty and encouraging diversity and responsibility.

We aren't free to do what we want in society. Hence, we are constrained from attaining the full expression of our nature as volitional beings endowed with imagination, whose very essence is freedom. Our freedom in society is always structured and bounded in a way that it is not when we engage in the free play of the imagination.

We need a sphere where we can experience the full range of liberty our imaginative faculty allows. And we can do that through art. Hence why the creation of art should never be limited by moral concerns, even though the creation of art is, of course, a human action. To limit art is the same as limiting speech: It is to say that as a human being you are not allowed to make certain sounds and thus achieve the full use of your natural vocal capacity. And this is absurd.

And let's also make this distinction: A concept cannot be morally right or wrong. Only actions (or dispositions) can have moral values attached to them.

Hence, the depiction of an action or disposition is in itself neither right nor wrong. It is, in effect, beyond the moral sphere. It is not the concept of rape that is wrong, only the act of rape. Which is why we prosecute actions and not merely the thought of actions. And so neither should we prosecute the mere representation of actions, for these are not, nor ever shall be, actions themselves.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#93 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 2:08 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:

It seems to me that suicide is not a crime according to you? Should anybody not be hindered from committing suicide,then?


No, how can it be? LOL, who will go to jail or get fined for suicide? Let's dig up the body and give it 20 lashes!!

Of course, God may see things differently.


Thinker13 wrote:

As an aside: You have a dashing new avatar.thumb up


Cheers. Truly, a free expression of imagination.whee

8)
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#94 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 6:02 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
In short, art should not be constrained by morality.

This means allowing all manner of things that might emmanate from the 'dark side' of human consciousness. Even these things, abhorrent as some are, are part of human reality, and we need to be free to 'go there' for ourselves.

Art is representation, is ingenuine, and is always immoral: criminal... and you do get to this below, Art's use: a tool, a prostitute, a slave.

Rules constraining imagination are for children, designed to regulate behaviour and thinking into orderly patterns. They are no longer applicable to fully volitional adults. We are men and women, not babies. We can recognize the responsibility and risk inherent in our actions. But our society should not censor us for creating or possessing art of any kind, even if it reflects things that some find criminal and evil.

Usually I think of children as quite imaginative and rules being for adults.

You would censor criminal and evil in society I'm guessing, why not in Art? Art can never be criminal. Art is useless...

For me the only relevant sphere of criminality is action taken against others because that is what we need a policing/legal infrastructure to protect against.

Impossible. How do you know you are taking actions against another and not against a meat-robot, or a figment of your imagination?

The mind, the imagination, is the only place we volitional agents can fully and completely explore our freedoms. And I, for one, feel it's important to allow this.

Holly doodle; how the heck could anyone stop you?

Monk2400 wrote:
How is imagination limited?

"The reality principal." "The limit of my words..."

The mother is not responsible for the crimes of the son just by having given birth to him.

She is responsible for murdering him.



Edited by Nancy Drew on 06/11/09 - 6:08 PM
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#95 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 6:56 PM:

Well, which is it, I wonder:


Nancy Drew wrote:

Art is...always immoral: criminal.

---

Art can never be criminal.


Perhaps art is both criminal and not-criminal, in which case both the moralist and liberalist err when they say 'art is evil' or 'there is no evil in art'.


Nancy Drew wrote:

Art is representation, is ingenuine, and is always immoral: criminal... and you do get to this below, Art's use: a tool, a
prostitute, a slave.


Art is not ingenuine. It is what is is, genuinely. Folks who take it to be something that it is not perhaps impose an inauthenticity to it, unreasonably expecting it to be something that it clearly is not.

Art is not primarily a tool. It is a product. The product of the imaginative faculty of a volitional, axiological being.

But, like a rock in front of an open door, art can be used in a functional manner. I can club a person to death with a bust of Socrates just as easily as a baseball bat. But neither were intended to be used in such a manner.

Art is neither a slave nor a prostitue because art is not an entity that can enter into contractual relationships with other entities.


Nancy Drew wrote:

Usually I think of children as quite imaginative and rules being for adults.


Rules are made for those who are not responsbile for themselves. They require the strict guidance of a rule to regulate their behaviour. Rules are made for children because children do not possess awareness enough to regulate their behaviour based on a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. They are 'innocent', but in this innocence are dangerous.

A fully developed human being, a moral agent, uses rules rather than be bound by them. They ought to be aware of the choices they make and the responsibility attached, and the fundamental relativity of the values they apply to moral situations. In short, the moral agent is always at the center of the creation of rules and values as he is their source. Children need to be given rules and values and have them enforced upon them.


Nancy Drew wrote:

You would censor criminal and evil in society I'm guessing, why not in Art?


I answered that in my previous posts, viz. the need for a volitional being to have a sphere to be fully expressive.


Nancy Drew wrote:

Impossible. How do you know you are taking actions against another and not against a meat-robot, or a figment of your imagination?


Irrelevant discursion into metaphysics. Let's just say that for practical purposes, agency of the other is assumed until proven otherwise. The onus is on those who assert the reality of meat-robots or claim solipsism.


Nancy Drew wrote:

Holly doodle; how the heck could anyone stop you?


They will try, try as they might. They will curtail every chance of expressing thought, speech, and creation. They will make every attempt to hypnotise you, socialise you, and wash you tender brain until your thought patterns resemble their ideal model. This is what we are talking about here--the interference of a State with the very process of thought itself. It is happening all the time, constantly. Our society thrives on this subliminal coersion.


Nancy Drew wrote:

She is responsible for murdering him.


huhn?

8)
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#96 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 8:11 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Art is...always immoral: criminal.

---

Art can never be criminal.
Well, which is it, I wonder:

You caught that, he he! ... just let me think about this all a bit ...

Art is neither a slave nor a prostitue because art is not an entity that can enter into contractual relationships with other entities

Slavery contractual? Sign right here for a life of servitude!

Children need to be given rules and values and have them enforced upon them.

Gosh! I'm glad you're not my mom!

Irrelevant discursion into metaphysics. Let's just say that for practical purposes, agency of the other is assumed until proven otherwise. The onus is on those who assert the reality of meat-robots or claim solipsism.

Debate tactic.

It is very relevant, you can't avoid the main issue with that little phrase.

The onus is on who to prove the unprovable?

They will try, try as they might. They will curtail every chance of expressing thought, speech, and creation.

Are they going to hand-cuff your consciousness? What?

Besides, these things: express, speech and creation are not thought, they are objective in the world things. By this standard all thought and action, all experience is thought; fine, but then thought crime has to be written in a different way. Then J-walking is thought crime.






Edited by Nancy Drew on 06/11/09 - 8:27 PM
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#97 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 9:30 PM:

Nancy Drew wrote:

Debate tactic.

It is very relevant, you can't avoid the main issue with that little phrase.

The onus is on who to prove the unprovable?


No, it isn't relevant. You don't preface a moral question like 'is it ok to murder this human being' with a pointless metaphysical speculation about the status of the soul of the human being in question or whether or not solipsism is true or not.

'Hey, is it ok to kill this person?'
'Hold on--if solipsism is true, then that person isn't real, so it doesn't matter.'
'What if it's not true?'
'Well, then they might still just be a meat-robot, and meat-robots aren't worth bothering about, so it's ok.'
'How do you tell if they're a meat robot or if solipsism is true?'
'Uh....'
'So is it ok to kill this person or not??'

These pointless excusions are nothing more than diversions and can never, ever answer the basic moral question. It's like suggesting animals don't have souls therefore it's ok to vivisect them. But wait, we can't really tell if they have souls or not, but that's ok, we'll just say they don't to justify our actions.


Nancy Drew wrote:

Are they going to hand-cuff your consciousness? What?


If they could, I'm sure they would. All it takes is a mechanism to read brain patterns, identify undesirable ones, and enact the appropriate punishments. And the basic technology already exists, in case you think this is idle speculation (like the question of solipsism).

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#98 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 10:44 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


No, how can it be? LOL, who will go to jail or get fined for suicide? Let's dig up the body and give it 20 lashes!!

Of course, God may see things differently.


So,police does not hinder someone attempting to commit?



Monk2400 wrote:

Cheers. Truly, a free expression of imagination.whee

8)


Have you designed it yourself? Your previous ones?


Thank You

cool
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#99 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/11/09 - 10:51 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:

Rules are made for those who are not responsible for themselves. They require the strict guidance of a rule to regulate their behavior. Rules are made for children because children do not possess awareness enough to regulate their behavior based on a full understanding of the consequences of their actions. They are 'innocent', but in this innocence are dangerous.


You seem to suggest that you know beforehand about the moral and immoral ones. Standards decide the value assignment and not the other way . Rules are for everyone,it is their value assignment as axiological agents,which decides their morality or immorality based on its comparison with the standards.

Monk2400 wrote:

A fully developed human being, a moral agent, uses rules rather than be bound by them. They ought to be aware of the choices they make and the responsibility attached, and the fundamental relativity of the values they apply to moral situations. In short, the moral agent is always at the center of the creation of rules and values as he is their source. Children need to be given rules and values and have them enforced upon them.


Come on,you do not say that you use 'Meter' or 'Tesla' for your personal gains. They are standards and you have to follow them,in order to do proper measurements. No exceptions,as far as there are tentative axiological contexts.



Thank You

cool
Nancy Drew
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2009
Location: Kiev

Total Topics: 7
Total Comments: 36

Last Blog:

#100 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 06/12/09 - 1:38 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
'Hey, is it ok to kill this person?'
'Hold on--if solipsism is true, then that person isn't real, so it doesn't matter.'
'What if it's not true?'
'Well, then they might still just be a meat-robot, and meat-robots aren't worth bothering about, so it's ok.'
'How do you tell if they're a meat robot or if solipsism is true?'
'Uh....'
'So is it ok to kill this person or not??'

I quite seriously think this is very key. Metaphysics of morals and all that.

But wait, we can't really tell if they have souls or not, but that's ok, we'll just say they don't to justify our actions.

Or do, to justify our mercy?

Non-intervention is the way out of this binarism.

If they could, I'm sure they would. All it takes is a mechanism to read brain patterns, identify undesirable ones, and enact the appropriate punishments. And the basic technology already exists, in case you think this is idle speculation (like the question of solipsism).

This is pointless metaphysical speculation about the impossible. If they could they would, but they can't so they won't.

"All it takes"? All it takes to traverse the infinity of nothingness between consciousnesses? Just that?

Monk2400 wrote:
No, it isn't relevant.

No.

You are wrong.

You are completely wrong.

If you believe this then you are a fool.

Putting these hooks at the lead of a reply doesn't make it so, silly.

No need using negatives or question marks either: we doubt everything you say, we consider the opposite of every point. Debate tactics are the worst. Dialectic is little better. Travel reports from the noƶsphere ...

Please
clap

'Solipsism is a key and central fact about moral decisions.' They are made in uncertainty, as you said above -- and moral decisions are more uncertain even than you imagined. Restrain your wild metaphysical assumptions. Who knows what is behind the veil of illusion?

The slave questions. The master commands. The wise are silent.




Edited by Nancy Drew on 06/12/09 - 1:57 AM
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.