The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Irishcop,

I do not mean to lessen the importance of self-sacrifice either.I had intended to approach this from both the perspective of Mark Twain the said link no one is apparently willing to read and Schopenhaur's treatment of explaining what might over ride that prime directive self-survival.These story are inspireing but I shall check back in at a later time to see if anyone has been willing to read the inspirational link that started this thread.

It may inspire me. But since Twain did not know that Navy Seal, I don't think it will change my mind given the evidence that we do have.

[boagie]

How do you know that without having read the piece? There are generalities that can be made about the human species,man has more generalities in common than particulars that make him a distinctive individual.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

It can tell you what's going on in Boagie's mind, which isn't as apathetic as it first meets the eye. Otherwise, I would not have erased a long point I was making.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,

You could always put god there!,but I will hold him responsiable for the flaws in his work----------lol!

It (the link's content) is purely about God being the source of all input, that is inherently saying the Universe is an open system, something you have advocated.
The point of my spear here, and don't take this defensively, is if you accept the principle layed out at that link, and you also accept that we are in an open system, what acceptable form then can the source take?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Irishcop

It (the link's content) is purely about God being the source of all input, that is inherently saying the Universe is an open system, something you have advocated.
The point of my spear here, and don't take this defensively, is if you accept the principle layed out at that link, and you also accept that we are in an open system, what acceptable form then can the source take?

Irishcop,

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Thanks Irish,for the vote of good intent,for a while there I felt like a suspect in the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping,vile creature of the shadows.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Thanks Irish,for the vote of good intent,for a while there I felt like a suspect in the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping,vile creature of the shadows.

Geesh, I wish you had posted this in the Almighty thread, this would have spun off some purdy good tangents. I might have snookered you into a Verbal Judo choke-hold..... but alas.

[boagie]

Irishcop,

Yes,I can see where that would be tempting,the non-local control of our actions leaves it wide open for someone/thing pulling the strings of the puppet.Actually it might be said that,that thing pulling the strings is the environment itself.I know,you are salivating aren't you.I think that is a sin of some sort------isn't it?

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,

Yes,I can see where that would be tempting,the non-local control of our actions leaves it wide open for someone/thing pulling the strings of the puppet.Actually it might be said that,that thing pulling the strings is the environment itself.I know,you are salivating aren't you.I think that is a sin of some sort------isn't it?

Salutations. Sure, if it's a salivation sin, ...I shall receive salivation salvation.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

kennethamy,

The link is provided I think five times throughout the thread and in the quote of me in your last post.

Yes, I read some of it. And Twain also seems to think he can determine what goes on in the minds of people who do good things for others, and who sacrifice themselves for others, in the absence of any evidence, but on the basis of some vague analogy between human beings and machines, which he has not bothered to substantiate either. Just what makes you think that this analogy (and that is all it is) is correct?

[boagie]

kennethamy,

You most definitely seem to have your mind made up that there is no need for further discussion.It did not sound like you even finished the piece,the material is in line with the topic as listed.If you find it to disturbing that hero worship might be more complex than surface observations then I guess there is no discussion.Do you have a statement you would like to make about the nature of self-sarifice,something more developed than you admire those who make the sarifice?


The God is not the unknown,the unknown is God.