A contineuing introduction...

March 19, 2004

Obviously, I have little reservation speaking-up, here. Some people

prefer to lurk in the shadows, I've been that someone for along time

on some lists, quietly judging the relevance of the list to my

outlook on life. This one just begged me to add my two cents,

immediately. Please accept this and my enthusiastic participation as

my " ultimate complement " . I must set the record straight, I try to

be (academically) " the ultimate cynic " . When I argue I do it from

that perspective, even with myself (I try to).

Considering that I'm utterly-ignorant by my own judgment. IRL I must

make decisions and like to think that I do them as much as possible

with rationale based the little enlightenment that I have manage to

pry from the iron grip of reality as I perceive it. In fact most of

this enlightenment is derived from a continuing consensus taken from

the people I encounter. It has come to my attention that rationale

is very highly praised and exercised or at least attempted by the

majority of people. This is my " religion " if you will. I worship

sound-logic, I pray continuously in the form of thought.

I am not and never will be finished evolving intellectually but I

cannot quit living in the meantime. I act on what, at the moment

required, I consider to be the most rational course of action.

Emotion, IMHO, is an older version of logic, it allows us to act

while the jury is still out because some times the jury gets " hung " ,

or if we do wait the result could spell disaster. Though we may, and

often do, act emotionally in one instance we shouldn't dismiss that

act as over and in the past. We must continue to reexamine it every

time we happen across evidence that sheds new light on even the

oldest decisions.

I have made, mistake after mistake in my life and I've only begun to

realize that they were what they were. Carnivory is the least of my

ill informed emotion based decisions. The worst was a willing

enlistment in the US Marines and request to be assigned the specialty

of rifleman, which put me willingly into the roll of executioner. I

was never in the position that required me to carry out my requested

duty. I am guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I know this and I

will have to live with this forever, I will probably never be brought

to justice, because my conspiracy was considered justifiable. To be

honest I wouldn't want to either. What criminal does? At the time I

made my decision I was of the mind that my actions were honorable

because I was willing to take lives and give my own in defense of

others. The latter in my mind is still an honorable act. The former

is however damnable and not in the least bit honorable.

I believe the paradigm, of which Pete spoke, is the essence of

Gandhi's version of pacifism And I believe, is THE ONLY way to bring

about what every one claims to want… True Peace. Because, to date

all of the " equations " I've run in my head have pointed to it as,

such. My understanding of this came possibly more quickly because

of my experiences as a criminal conspirator. Had I not been brain-

washed to believe something against what I now consider to

be " rational " (soundly-logical) I would never have made the emotion

based decision that I had to educate myself to recognize as " wrong " .

Wrong in my opinion is an act that defies sound-logic. Sound logic

is objective in that it considers and weighs all available

information regarding the act and its short and long term

consequences and chooses in favor of the universally best out come…

based on all available information. Right is the act that favors

sound-logic. Truth, is rather boring, IMHO, truth is little more

than reality and it is as unknowable as reality itself.

David

March 22, 2004

Carnivory is the least of my ill informed emotion based decisions.yowza. then what ELSE have you done?! nothing you've described can top the collective pain other animals face their whole lives at our hands (or forks, or wallets...). while, yeah, still not noble, as a rifleman you were in the position to kill other like-minded (or maybe criminal? [i'm not sure if you were to combat or punish. i'm ignorant to the militia and its functions!]) humans. they are willing or/and knowledgeable about their position in ways our most common victims have never been.

Wrong in my opinion is an act that defies sound-logic.

i agree in part with your definition of wrong. i see "wrong" as anything which yields (once logic has enabled me to weigh the possible effects) anything other than the minimum of pain. wrong causes hurt to the rational being. it seems to me a function of sense and suffering. "illegal" isn't synonymous with "wrong" because the logic that law is built upon is flawed in its relativity. while the two facets overlap, i think it's dangerous to define "wrong" as illogical just because logic is so subjective.

hey,....what the crud does IMHO mean? *scratches head in bafflement; is certain to pick nose*

brii

"David Brown"

> > > A contineuing introduction... >Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:29:16 -0000 > >Obviously, I have little reservation speaking-up, here. Some people >prefer to lurk in the shadows, I've been that someone for along time >on some lists, quietly judging the relevance of the list to my >outlook on life. This one just begged me to add my two cents, >immediately. Please accept this and my enthusiastic participation as >my "ultimate complement". I must set the record straight, I try to >be (academically) "the ultimate cynic". When I argue I do it from >that perspective, even with myself (I try to). > >Considering that I'm utterly-ignorant by my own judgment. IRL I must >make decisions and like to think that I do them as much as possible >with rationale based the little enlightenment that I have manage to >pry from the iron grip of reality as I perceive it. In fact most of >this enlightenment is derived from a continuing consensus taken from >the people I encounter. It has come to my attention that rationale >is very highly praised and exercised or at least attempted by the >majority of people. This is my "religion" if you will. I worship >sound-logic, I pray continuously in the form of thought. > >I am not and never will be finished evolving intellectually but I >cannot quit living in the meantime. I act on what, at the moment >required, I consider to be the most rational course of action. >Emotion, IMHO, is an older version of logic, it allows us to act >while the jury is still out because some times the jury gets "hung", >or if we do wait the result could spell disaster. Though we may, and >often do, act emotionally in one instance we shouldn't dismiss that >act as over and in the past. We must continue to reexamine it every >time we happen across evidence that sheds new light on even the >oldest decisions. > >I have made, mistake after mistake in my life and I've only begun to >realize that they were what they were. Carnivory is the least of my >ill informed emotion based decisions. The worst was a willing >enlistment in the US Marines and request to be assigned the specialty >of rifleman, which put me willingly into the roll of executioner. I >was never in the position that required me to carry out my requested >duty. I am guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. I know this and I >will have to live with this forever, I will probably never be brought >to justice, because my conspiracy was considered justifiable. To be >honest I wouldn't want to either. What criminal does? At the time I >made my decision I was of the mind that my actions were honorable >because I was willing to take lives and give my own in defense of >others. The latter in my mind is still an honorable act. The former >is however damnable and not in the least bit honorable. > >I believe the paradigm, of which Pete spoke, is the essence of >Gandhi's version of pacifism And I believe, is THE ONLY way to bring >about what every one claims to want… True Peace. Because, to date >all of the "equations" I've run in my head have pointed to it as, >such. My understanding of this came possibly more quickly because >of my experiences as a criminal conspirator. Had I not been brain- >washed to believe something against what I now consider to >be "rational" (soundly-logical) I would never have made the emotion >based decision that I had to educate myself to recognize as "wrong". > >Wrong in my opinion is an act that defies sound-logic. Sound logic >is objective in that it considers and weighs all available >information regarding the act and its short and long term >consequences and chooses in favor of the universally best out come… >based on all available information. Right is the act that favors >sound-logic. Truth, is rather boring, IMHO, truth is little more >than reality and it is as unknowable as reality itself. > >David > > > MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download!

March 24, 2004

Your sumation of my choices make me feel marginally better about one

and even worse about the other. But it is true and that is a burdon

I must bare. By eating animals I have commisioned murder, by being a

Marine I only conspired. None the less both are examples of ill

intent and a " Sin " is a " Sin " period.

Sound Logic isn't entirly subjective, in so far as a logical

statement isn't necessarily " Sound " logic.

Sound logic is rather finite and determinant, in my humble opinion

(IMHO), as in " to eat an animal I must kill it, to kill an animal

causes pain, pain and suffering are negative effects, there for

eating an animal has a negative effect " , is " Sound " logic. We know by

experiance that eac of these individually are true and that each

progressive corelative is also true therefore the corelation between

the first and last are true. a=b b=c c=d therefore a=d all true

statments, yes? Sound logic. As oposed to, " for me to eat an animal

some one else must kill it, to kill an animal cuases pain, pain is

negative, therefore me eating an animal isn't negative " a=b b=c c=d

but (a) doesn't equal (d). Logical statment? Yes. Sound? HELL NO!

(I)n (M)y (H)umble (O)pinion

David

March 26, 2004

another acronym knocked off my "to spill thought over" list! thanks!

>"David Brown" <quickformgreen > > > Re: A contineuing introduction... >Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:39:06 -0000 > >Your sumation of my choices make me feel marginally better about one >and even worse about the other. But it is true and that is a burdon >I must bare. By eating animals I have commisioned murder, by being a >Marine I only conspired. None the less both are examples of ill >intent and a "Sin" is a "Sin" period. > >Sound Logic isn't entirly subjective, in so far as a logical >statement isn't necessarily "Sound" logic. > >Sound logic is rather finite and determinant, in my humble opinion >(IMHO), as in "to eat an animal I must kill it, to kill an animal >causes pain, pain and suffering are negative effects, there for >eating an animal has a negative effect", is "Sound" logic. We know by >experiance that eac of these individually are true and that each >progressive corelative is also true therefore the corelation between >the first and last are true. a=b b=c c=d therefore a=d all true >statments, yes? Sound logic. As oposed to, "for me to eat an animal >some one else must kill it, to kill an animal cuases pain, pain is >negative, therefore me eating an animal isn't negative" a=b b=c c=d >but (a) doesn't equal (d). Logical statment? Yes. Sound? HELL NO! > >(I)n (M)y (H)umble (O)pinion >David > > Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE!