Posted by Kazper at 7:02pm Jan 24 '07Let us agree that it makes much sense to treat others how we desire others to treat us if how we treat others will result in how others will treat us. So, we need not prove a "natural" perpetuation and eventual return of one's actions to one's self to have... the... [foundation/reference...] for the establishment of laws.
When one tries to harm an other it is natural for the other to respond with the same intent and try to harm the one, since the other does not desire to be harmed. So, perhaps, one who naturally (instinctually) responds to mocking, for example, with mocking is doing so to try and stop the mocking...
I either want a nice relationship with one or nice relationships with many. The kind of relationships that have benefits -_^... I don't know yet. I think it best to get emotionally and psychologically and physically better first.
You may not desire to be attacked by one you did not attack (so they have no cause, at least no direct cause) but if you attack an other without cause you are basically saying, according to the Way, that you desire to be attacked without cause...
If the [Whole] went to the rescue of a culture that was under attack by an other culture that had no "legitimate" (the attacking culture was attacking in a way contrary to their own ways but even if they weren't) the [Whole] too would be attacking in a way contrary to [Its] Way and so would basically be inviting yet another culture to attack [It]. A way to get around this, if the [Whole] were so inclined to defend this attacked culture, would be to become one with them so that the attacking culture would then be attacking the [Whole] with, what the [Whole] deems, no legitimate cause...
I think it ends up being irrelevant what another culture considers a legitimate cause because they could just make up shit they don't honestly believe in. It would come down to what the [Whole], in this case, considers legitimate and if [It] found the attacked culture in line with [It] or capable of becoming in line with [It] and felt an alliance was worth the risks, [It] would ally with the attacked.
Find others who share at least most of your desires. The less you have to compromise the happier you should be. (This is why in relationships compatibility should be key.)
The morals of a sociey are its laws.
Because one may not desire an act does not mean that the act is undesirable to all.
Picture someone smothering an other to death (with much hate for the other) with the other's consent and then picture without this other's consent... Everything is the same in both except the desire of the smothered and this difference means there's a contrast between the two. The first we'll call murder 1 and the second we'll call murder 2. Murder 2 cannot be desired by anyone to have done to them... since it is an undesired act. Therefore, according to the Way, one is not justified to do murder 2 because they can never desire murder 2 being done to them. The closest they can get to desiring murder 2 is desiring murder 1.
People can most definitely desire to do undesirable acts to others but they can not truly desire undesirable acts being done to them by others.
I think that honest contemplation, by one, of the Way should eventually result with the realization by one that no one can truly desire something done to them without their unmanipulated consent.
One consents to something because they see some pleasure in doing so.
So, I think, for one to always be acting according to the Way one must never do something to another without the other's unmanipulated consent. So, honest contemplation of the Way reveals the [Foundation Law], which is: Do not violate which is anything done to a [sentient] without their unmanipulated consent.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
When one tries to harm an other it is natural for the other to respond with the same intent and try to harm the one, since the other does not desire to be harmed. So, perhaps, one who naturally (instinctually) responds to mocking, for example, with mocking is doing so to try and stop the mocking...
I either want a nice relationship with one or nice relationships with many. The kind of relationships that have benefits -_^... I don't know yet. I think it best to get emotionally and psychologically and physically better first.
You may not desire to be attacked by one you did not attack (so they have no cause, at least no direct cause) but if you attack an other without cause you are basically saying, according to the Way, that you desire to be attacked without cause...
If the [Whole] went to the rescue of a culture that was under attack by an other culture that had no "legitimate" (the attacking culture was attacking in a way contrary to their own ways but even if they weren't) the [Whole] too would be attacking in a way contrary to [Its] Way and so would basically be inviting yet another culture to attack [It]. A way to get around this, if the [Whole] were so inclined to defend this attacked culture, would be to become one with them so that the attacking culture would then be attacking the [Whole] with, what the [Whole] deems, no legitimate cause...
I think it ends up being irrelevant what another culture considers a legitimate cause because they could just make up shit they don't honestly believe in. It would come down to what the [Whole], in this case, considers legitimate and if [It] found the attacked culture in line with [It] or capable of becoming in line with [It] and felt an alliance was worth the risks, [It] would ally with the attacked.
Find others who share at least most of your desires. The less you have to compromise the happier you should be. (This is why in relationships compatibility should be key.)
The morals of a sociey are its laws.
Because one may not desire an act does not mean that the act is undesirable to all.
Picture someone smothering an other to death (with much hate for the other) with the other's consent and then picture without this other's consent... Everything is the same in both except the desire of the smothered and this difference means there's a contrast between the two. The first we'll call murder 1 and the second we'll call murder 2. Murder 2 cannot be desired by anyone to have done to them... since it is an undesired act. Therefore, according to the Way, one is not justified to do murder 2 because they can never desire murder 2 being done to them. The closest they can get to desiring murder 2 is desiring murder 1.
People can most definitely desire to do undesirable acts to others but they can not truly desire undesirable acts being done to them by others.
I think that honest contemplation, by one, of the Way should eventually result with the realization by one that no one can truly desire something done to them without their unmanipulated consent.
One consents to something because they see some pleasure in doing so.
So, I think, for one to always be acting according to the Way one must never do something to another without the other's unmanipulated consent. So, honest contemplation of the Way reveals the [Foundation Law], which is: Do not violate which is anything done to a [sentient] without their unmanipulated consent.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Re: Ruminations. - Kazper