rainbow walking

Hi Koy,
Here is my long awaited response as promised. Sorry it took so long. My position on this subject is still a work in progress but I appreciate, more than you’ll know, the contributions you’ve made.

For anyone who may be interested in what this is all about several months back I had submitted a FWD argument demonstrating how an omnimax god could exist alongside human misery and evil. You can find that argument in its entirety here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ainbow+walking

And the long version here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ainbow+walking



Rw: Seeing as I’ve already responded to this let’s move on.


Koy: But, more to your post, is this intervention you posit then necessarily the result of an "omnimax god?" I suppose that would be the central fallacy I find in what you posted.

In essence, on one level, you're positing some form of extra-terrestial (and, perhaps, extra-universal, to coin a phrase) being that had the power (and was limited to that power) to visit our planet centuries ago and introduce an alteration of some kind in our genetic code that gives rise to "predisposition toward righteousnes."


Rw: Well, I wasn’t thinking in terms of a genetic alteration as much as an ideological implantation on the higher plain of sentience that would give us a distinguishing edge over all other animals in the food chain.

Koy: Is that closer? I accept your operating system analogy, but the problem I see with both of our interpretations is more in the "righteousness" quality, since that's much more nebulus and strikes me as more (as you mentioned) a by-product of cult indoctrination.

Why would such a being perform such an alteration and how would it know that we needed such an alteration and what, in fact, would such an abstract alteration mean, either to us or to the being?

If I may? Implicit in your analogy is the notion that the being performing the "download:"

A. Knows how to effect such an abstract change in human behavior mechanisms

B. Desires to effect such a change, and

C. Is itself in some way effected by actively intervening; i.e., seeks some pertinant return on their intervention


In other worsds, this being has some sort of vested interest in making this intervention. Fair?


Rw: O’kay, let’s explore this. It does seem difficult to postulate such a being without eventually arriving at this point where we wonder “why”. This would appear to be the labor room of all religious cults. What would motivate such a being to endow matter with properties that would lead to a specific level of consciousness? These space suits we call bodies are, after all, nothing more than the fecal matter of dying stars, so one wonders why helium, for example, would be endowed with the curious property of transforming into carbon under pressure and super- heating. To be honest I have no good answer or an answer of any kind that would adequately suffice. I could offer a multitude of speculations based on my humanity but, obviously, such a being could not be human thus any response I may float would only lead to further un-productive questions. It could range anywhere from this being feeding on our spirits after we die and the more we suffer and deny our base natures the more nutritious we are to it, all the way up to our being its perceived progeny in a desire to replicate…shrug, who knows? I can only say that not knowing the “why” does not automatically negate the possibility of such a being’s existence.

In response to A, I would say that if we’re postulating an omniscient being then the knowledge of how to best accomplish its objectives would not be a problem.

In response to B, I would say that if we’re postulating this intervention, from a human perspective, we can only assume it was desirable. Again, what may have motivated that desire remains, for the moment, unknown. If it is in any way related to omni-benevolence then the desire may be the fulfillment of historical man’s greatest potential for his own good. That is what I am going with at the moment but it is open for discussion.

In response to C, I don’t know.

Koy: I think we both agree to throw out the fallacy of "who are you to know the mind and motive of god," yes and should concentrate instead on the substantive elements outlined above?

Let's start with "A." You had posited a longer time period for this change to fully reallize itself (similar to changing a small element of an entire species' DNA, I guess, that would, over millenia shape and mold that species into an augmented or "different" species, yes?), however, the change you are suggesting was one of an abstract nature; of morality (which, necessarily cannot be spread out over time, as I'll get to in a minute).

This, in turn, means that the "righteousness" we're discussing is actually nothing more than the being's beliefs as to what is or is not considered to be "righteous" for humans, no less, and, further, that the intervention (the software upgrade) is, in some way, established to be objectively righteous; an impossibility.

This is no doubt where your "omnimax" qualification is employed, but I don't see how it can be, without that omnimax qualification being the traditional one of cult dogma; i.e., that this being posseses absolute knowledge of what is and is not righteous (as far as humans are concerned).

How else could this being justify such an intervention and how else could we qualify the intervention as being a beneficial one in any substantive sense, if not for the assumed possession of absolute knowledge of what is and is not righteous (as far as humans are concerned)?

Your being would have to have this absolute knowledge, which in turn would mean that there actually exists an absolute "righteousness" for all human beings. Unfortunately, however, that is impossible, since morality (i.e., what is "righteous") has no objective status and, further, cannot have such an objective status, due to the nature of the abstraction.

In keeping with your analogy, it would be like upgrading an operating system to stop someone from typing the word "shit," because the augmented operating system considers such a word to be "unrighteous," yes? Or, for a more complex analogy, from stopping you from typing anti-semitic remarks or "hate" letters, since such letters (and thoughts) are, arguably, "unrighteous."

The problem of course is, "unrighteous" according to what standard? In your post, you've merely sidestepped that qualification by the omnimax standard, but, again, one cannot impose an omnimax standard that doesn't meet its own omnimax qualities (i.e., put limits on the limitless).

Am I being clear? For the being to intervene in such a way, it would have to have absolute knowledge of something that can never be established in any absolute manner, only imposed based upon subjective qualification.

In other words, we would simply be forced into living what the being has decided is a "righteous" end game for humans, either directly or indirectly, as it pertains to that being's notions of what is (or is not) "righteous" behavior for humans to achieve.

What gives this being the right to impose their interpretation of what is or is not "righteous" for human behavior?

Rw: I understand what you are saying but, what you have said shows that you have misunderstood what I mean by a “predisposition towards righteousness”. What I mean by PTR is not to favor any specific moral code or stricture. I am reaching for a level beneath the specifics. The level of morals versus none. The particulars would be up to historical man to determine and would be open to modification as man’s circumstances changed. In other words I’m not saying this being decided for us from some standard of its own what is good for us and what is evil, but that this being introduced us to the concept of good and evil, how to regulate it via laws and the consequential nature of our actions. That is all. That this introduction took the form of religious and priestly codes is unfortunate but that’s the way man interpreted it and applied it and it has stuck. We now have constitutions and laws to regulate our behavior based on our perception of good vs. evil.

It may well be the case that primitive man was at a stage where he was beginning to realize that certain actions inculcated adverse consequences and just needed guidance in establishing a standard set of behavior patterns, hence the law. As moral law developed into judicial law and then later in man’s history, when he began to notice consistent patterns of predictability in nature, it was interpreted as natural law, it’s easy now to see how theologians would jump to the conclusion that since moral and judicial law required enforcement and adjudication, then so to would natural law which only reinforced their conviction that a supreme being existed.

We can also easily follow the development of this theme throughout the bible as Genesis advocated the sovereign enforcer god and then flowed naturally to the sovereign judge/god and finally settled, in the NT, on handing the reigns of the law over to man and stipulating that if man allowed love to be the baseline arbiter in any moral or judicial setting he wouldn’t go wrong.


But my postulates have not been meant to introduce a being who is pushing man towards a specifically defined good in his quest for righteousness as this would, as you pointed out, violate man’s historical evolution as well as his freewill. I am postulating a being who intervened to assist primitive man in the revelation that there is a viable concept such as good and evil and that good ought to be the preferred status.

Koy: Take the animal kingdom that we all pretend we're no longer a part of. Carnivores maim and eat their prey while the prey is still alive, yet no one pays any attention to that in any moral sense. It only becomes relevant to us when the question is asked, "Would you consider it a righteous act for me to bludgeon you and proceed to eat you while you are still alive?"

Assuming (as we must) that the being you posit is not human and that humans are therefore comparable to any other animal in the planet's biosystem, why is it that humans are the only ones selected for this "upgrade?" Wouldn't the being see bludgeoning and eating one another alive as equally reprehensible, no matter what sub-being committed the act?

It can't be based on either intelligence or on self-perception, since there is ample evidence (and such a being would, presumably, have even more than we) that intelligence and self-perception exists in one form or another throughout the entire animal kingdom of this planet, so, what in particular would attract this being to single out man for such an upgrade?

Rw: I would say it is based on our level of intelligence and self perception as we seem to have the ability to adapt our environment to our needs as opposed to adapting to the constraints of our environment. In other words we can change ourselves by that self perception coupled with the moral factor. This is probably the one redeeming factor of religion as it appears to have the uncanny ability to assist some folks in realizing their self perceptive need to modify their behavior where other social constructs fail. I am of the opinion it has something to do with believing their lives are tied to something higher that self interest alone cannot apprehend.

Koy: This leads us to "B" (why such a being would desire such an intervention). The cultists usually answer with "we're made in God's image" or the like; i.e., the anthropomorphic god, concerned only about our righteousness, but to what end?

In cults, the end result is, of course, control and allegiance to the cult dogma, but that isn't in play here, presumably, so why would your being single us out for this intervention? We possess some sort of quality that makes it necessary that only our species be targeted for this righteousness enhancement (leading us to "C")?

Rw: I think my response above covers this to some degree.

Koy: By making us more inclined toward "righteousness," we will somehow later benefit this being in some fashion? How? If such a being existed and had the power (limited as you are stating) to effect this nebulus, moral alteration in our genetic code someway, how would it possibly benefit the being (especially considering that this change isn't automatic; it will take millenia to come to fruition and even then, each individual will have to decide to assent to the programming to uphold free will--more on that later)?

Altruism, then? The being is effecting this change because it considers it the "right" thing to do?

Again, then, according to what standard and why should we assent to that standard, assuming we actually retain the ability to assent of our own free will (which is still in question according to your parameters)?

Rw: Again, this calls for speculation on my part. If we assume this being’s attribute of omni-benevolence we may have some measure of guidance in the why, but again, that begs the question of who decides what is benevolent as opposed to malicious. Certainly the suffering and evil we endure hardly resonates with our ideas of benevolence, but then, neither does dictatorial slavery appeal to us as a benevolent gesture either.

Koy: If this being is effecting this change for its own, unstated, unknown purposes, does that mean we are to merely acquiesce to those unstated, unknown purposes and how could we, if indeed they are unstated and uknown (to us)?

If this being is effecting this change for altruistic purposes, then aren't we merely being effected and have no free will?

Rw: I suppose that judgment must be reserved for the “effect”. If we had no comprehension of a concept of good and evil what kind of effect would that have on our history? We all seem to agree that freewill has to have its limitations else we wouldn’t have government.

Koy: I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it all does go back to by-products of your cult indoctrination, since absent punishment for non-compliance and absent clear and definitive admission of motives on the part of the being effecting the change (or, better, the ability for us to change over time as a result of our software upgrade), then all that is occuring is a more powerful being than we is meddling in our affairs without due process or fair warning, and we would be, once again, robots.

Rw: Well, there is the religious aspect to consider and if we want to be pedantic we could say this is all the due process and fair warning we need…and the fact that, for the majority of humanity, religion is available as a choice rather than a forced compendium. I would say the existence of religion is an interpretational tool for this line of reasoning although, like you, I disagree with its methodology and abhor many of the results, it’s not really religion that’s on trial here.

Koy: Since "righteousness" has no absolute (absent an omnimax god mandating such a standard due entirely to its omnimax qualities; qualities already established as fallacious), the only thing left to your take on things is to merely accept that a being capable of intervening in such a manner ipso facto means that the being's motives are benign.

Rw: Well, since the only intervention I’m championing here is our being taught about the existence of good and evil as moral determinations of our actions, and pointing out the beneficial consequences of this knowledge to historical man, I think your assessment here is a bit mis-guided. I’m not championing any particular godlike being represented by any particular religion pushing any particular moral code. I’m only positing the possibility that such a being might exist and have intervened in man’s history at some point in the past to introduce man to the concept of morality. How man chose to interpret and apply that intervention is another question altogether. The point is, man’s current civilization clearly demonstrates a penchant for righteousness even if it has failed to obtain in any consistent manner…yet.

Koy: Regardless, it still boils down to a presumption of "I know what's good for you" and then the inability of any of us to change the course of events inflicted upon us, since we would, again, have no choice in the matter one way or the other.

The being has made the decision for us by altering our DNA (or whatever) and we would be simply playing out whatever our software instructed us to play out.

Rw: No, I’m NOT postulating an intervention on the genetic level. I may have engendered this misunderstanding by some of my examples but I am only postulating an intervention on an educational level, for instance, the possibility that the Garden of Eden was intentionally set up as a school.

Koy: Again, since this being presumably knows what the software will do (including the option to choose not to follow the software, a seeming contradiction), then it makes even less sense that it would effect such a change in a "primitive" state of our existence and trigger it for millenia alteration.

Why would it, if indeed our progressing toward "righteousness" is so important to the being?

Rw: For several reasons. First, if evolution is a viable discipline then clearly man’s historical evolution would demand a morality capable of evolving with him. Second, if man’s righteousness is to be attained by man and not forced by this being, such attainment would naturally take a long time to perfect. Thirdly, if man is a self aware being and you introduce him to a concept of morality, to be true to his nature as a self aware being, he must be able to recognize his own behavior as either righteous or not. This recognition absolutely requires he learn by trial and error, (the same way we learn everything else), hence any attempt to poof a righteous man into existence will produce only a simpleton with no self aware understanding of his standing as a righteous person in a community of righteous men. Finally, such intervention would have to occur at a stage in man’s history when such intervention would not, itself, be detrimental to man’s progress. In other words, while man was still simple minded enough not to be adversely affected mentally by the intervention. Such intervention today would create such havoc within civilization, due to the delicate balance achieved among man’s many institutions in relation to the supernatural, that the effect would be detrimental rather than beneficial, and it isn’t likely modern man would exist as “modern man” had he not been introduced to morality at a primitive stage.

Koy: Which takes us back to the notion that the being does not have "omnimax" qualities, rather the ability to effect a crapshoot change, hoping that we assent to the change and run the software accordingly.

Rw: I don’t see how our success or failure would be detrimental to this being’s attributes, since I have not listed perfection as one of his attributes.

In the first place our morals have graduated somewhat from the primitive version to the modern. In the second place any use of such attributes to force a conclusion would fail to obtain since the desired goal I’ve postulated is an historical man who is righteous by his own choice.

Koy: For that to happen, however, we are the ones who would have to have full knowledge (at every generation, not just over time) of that choice in our programming, otherwise, again, all that would have happened is an etra-terrestial being with the power to effect our moral compass would have simply implanted an automatic program that results in our evolution toward "righteousness" with or without our assent.


Rw: We do have knowledge and understanding of good and evil and it has followed historical man down thru the centuries. We establish our morals, laws and ethics and we choose to comply or not.

Koy: For it to be a choice we make, literally every single human in every single generation would have to be made fully aware of our ability to choose the being's definition of what is (or is not) "righteous," for us to assent to the "booting" of that software, thus the being could not have merely implanted a seed long ago in primitive man (if free will is a consideration, of course).

In other words, such an intervention could only be justified by the being on a generation to generation basis, arguably defeating the entire purpose of intervening initially in primitive man's "drawing board," yes?

Rw: This would be true if I were postulating an intervention that pushed a specific set of morals. That a specific set has been pushed by religious interpretation has no bearing on this being’s intervention, as it would not have been its desire to push particulars, just to establish the concept.

Koy: Again, I would argue simply that this is a holdover of your cult indoctrination, since you seem to be trying to dismiss all of the fallacies and all of the negative connotations to cult dogma, while retaining the positive notion of a deus ex machina to solve our own problems; generated by us and therefore our own responsibility.

In short, IMO, you're seeking to answer the "why" to existence by merely positing a "lesser" god; one who, unfortunately, falls prey to the same illogical construction as the "absolute" god.

Rw: I won’t argue with you that my entire feeling on this may be a residual cult effect but I’m also struck with the paradoxical nature of existence on a level that appears to transcend physicality and I do see a way to incorporate such a being into the fray with a minimum of contradiction to the suffering and evil that follows us like a dark cloud. I would also posit that your own spirituality and the form in which you’ve expressed it may also be a carry over from your own cult indoctrination as the Catholic version incorporates many spiritual beings from a divine being to his anti-thesis in satan and to the lesser beings personified as angels with each seeming to inhabit a different spiritual realm.

Koyaanisqatsi

I was actually Presbyterian .

I'll get to the rest in a moment (if need be), but I wanted to respond to this one section now, as it seems to clear up everything I misunderstood:

So, in essence, you're simply postulating "extraterrestrial teachers" (an oldie but a goodie and one I find highly plausible, btw, if question begging, since we simply transfer the mystery from a more mythological 'god' to a group of wandering, benign, omnimax ET's and ultimately suffer from the infinite regress of who created the ET's, but let's set that aside).

I have no problem speculating on the "alien astronaut" hypothesis and do, indeed, find it highly plausible that something of this nature could have been involved (I am, after all, a devotee of Kubrick ). I think the problem (or perhaps, "focus") then comes in the curricula, if you will, of "good and evil as moral derterminations of our actions."

The "eden as sunday school for the piltdown man" approach, however, seems circumvented by your assertions of an omnimax ET somehow implanting this behavioural addition, so if you're not asserting this (as I originally misunderstood you to be doing, hence the gene analogy), then you're talking about mere instructional "operant conditioning" of some nature, yes? Similar to what Goodall did with Koko, I believe (I get the monkeys and the women who love them mixed up )?

How, then, would the concept of "good and evil" be a product of instruction in primitive man? Or are you saying that the ET's came along at some point in our evolution (say around the five thousand year mark, as the Charriots of the Gods books assert) where we already had a rudimentary understanding of "good" and "evil," and the ET's just augmented it?

I guess I'm primarily unclear on this central issue, so if you are agreeable, let's focus on this (and leave the response to my last post until later, if necessary)?

I'm afraid, however, that the "hows" and "whys" are going to have to be better addressed by you than a shift to "ET's move in mysterious ways," or we'll never be able to fully "flesh" this out, since it will ultimately become nothing more than a shifted "mystery;" from a "god" to an "omnimax ET," and we'll be left with the same questions of origin and purpose.

I'm sure there is more in your post regarding this, so please do let me know if you first would rather I address your response more thoroughly.

rainbow walking

Koy: I was actually Presbyterian .

Rw: Ha! Now I understand your anti-theism. I don’t know why I thought you were Catholic?

Koy: I'll get to the rest in a moment (if need be), but I wanted to respond to this one section now, as it seems to clear up everything I misunderstood:



Koy: So, in essence, you're simply postulating "extraterrestrial teachers" (an oldie but a goodie and one I find highly plausible, btw, if question begging, since we simply transfer the mystery from a more mythological 'god' to a group of wandering, benign, omnimax ET's and ultimately suffer from the infinite regress of who created the ET's, but let's set that aside).

Rw: Now come on Koy, this is my lie, let me tell it like I want to.

Actually, no, I’m still focused on a single omnimax being. I wouldn’t use the term alien(s) because, as you say, that doesn’t rescue us from infinite regress.

Koy: I have no problem speculating on the "alien astronaut" hypothesis and do, indeed, find it highly plausible that something of this nature could have been involved (I am, after all, a devotee of Kubrick ). I think the problem (or perhaps, "focus") then comes in the curricula, if you will, of "good and evil as moral derterminations of our actions."

The "eden as sunday school for the piltdown man" approach, however, seems circumvented by your assertions of an omnimax ET somehow implanting this behavioural addition, so if you're not asserting this (as I originally misunderstood you to be doing, hence the gene analogy), then you're talking about mere instructional "operant conditioning" of some nature, yes? Similar to what Goodall did with Koko, I believe (I get the monkeys and the women who love them mixed up )?


Rw: Well, if we strain the Genesis myth thru a brain cell or two and weed out the religious hocus pocus there is a definite curricula of sorts. The first lesson seemed to revolve around establishing the concept of private property (the moral tree). Let’s consider this for a moment from the perspective of an omnimax being’s labors to educate historical man, (as opposed to individual Adam), knowing that this creatures survival would hinge on his community nature, it seems to me you’d have to approach this lesson very carefully for such a creature, who likely had only a fuzzy comprehension of right and wrong.

You could plant a tree that would explode and kill the individual immediately who touched it, but this would be self defeating. So you establish one tree as private property and a rule that it was not to be tampered with or there’d be serious consequences. Of course, you and I know, with man’s curious nature being what it is, this is like a presidential invitation to taste the forbidden fruit. But you’ve established a foundational principle for a successful community: private property, the concept that one gets to own and control the fruits of one’s own labors, (including one’s children). Down thru history this concept has been regulated by judicial law but that one underlying principle remains: “Thou shalt not steal”. And it is a cornerstone of almost every tribe and nation. But that’s only the tip of the iceburg in this curriculum.

Now consider that it was the fruit of this tree that was of primary focus. A & E, according to the myth, didn’t steal the tree, just some of the fruit. With the fruit being analogous to the consequences of the tree’s existence we now have a lead in to another crucial moral lesson: that every stipulated act inculcates either a negative or positive consequence, with negative and positive being understood in relation to man’s state of affairs, his existence, freedom and/or happiness. Now we’re guiding a creature with fuzzy comprehension towards a clearer understanding of the concept of justice. Without justice there can be no established morality. But the justice must be consistent to the moral fabric.

So we have a tree being representative of the knowledge of good and evil producing a fruit being analogous to consequences deriving from both good and evil. What happens if we tamper with the consequences, (the fruit of this alleged tree)? What if we see a person being rewarded for evil and punished for good? How long will a society of men perverting justice last? Thus we begin to understand why many feel it necessary to have their morals depicted as having come from a higher, other-than-man, source. This is the only way they feel that justice will eventually be served even if it’s being corrupted in the immediate application. And, curiously enough, there are a set of basics that, once corrupted, eventually lead to the collapse of any society or civilized community, as history has borne out time and again.

And the question arises as to what this set of basics should be that would ensure the survival of the community, hence the birth of politics. But I digress…

Our omnimax being has to be careful how he ties bad consequences and suffering to morality because not all suffering is the result of morally wrong choices. Childbirth, for instance, incurs suffering yet results in prolonging the species. Work can also seem like a choice that produces a certain degree of suffering yet often results in positive consequences. Being kicked out of the nest is another of these paradoxical aspects of community progression. This theme of suffering with an eye towards a greater benefit is one of the primary messages the cult driven religions have capitalized on for eons and it does have some basis in reality.


Koy: How, then, would the concept of "good and evil" be a product of instruction in primitive man? Or are you saying that the ET's came along at some point in our evolution (say around the five thousand year mark, as the Charriots of the Gods books assert) where we already had a rudimentary understanding of "good" and "evil," and the ET's just augmented it?

Rw: Even in the Genesis story good an evil are depicted as a form of knowledge and knowledge has always been traditionally passed on or scientifically discovered and enhanced. I don’t think it can be genetically implanted or engineered, but then, you’d think an omnimax being could, unless there are other considerations influencing moral choices besides just the knowledge of what they are. Considerations like the will to make the right choice. I don’t know how you could genetically engineer this. There are also those choices that fall into the gray area; choices that would be bad for you but good for the community or the other way around. This whole moral issue just becomes more complex as man progresses scientifically extending his knowledge of what can be done.

I think man would have to first understand that he had the capacity to make choices before you could begin to introduce the concept of their moral significance to him and to his family or community, thus man would probably already have been somewhat domesticated and agriculturally oriented. It is even possible that this omnimax being introduced man to agriculture as the second chapter of Genesis details that at some point prior to Eden there wasn’t a man to “till the soil”. Of course this doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t a man, just not a man with the knowledge of agriculture, thus possibly depicting an era of man as hunter-gatherer. It’s these little nuggets in Genesis, corresponding somewhat to our current understanding of man’s probable evolution, that cause me to give it more weight and credence, (once strained thru a brain), than say the Code of Hammurabi or the Enuma Elish and other such primitive writings depicting a beginning.

Koy: I guess I'm primarily unclear on this central issue, so if you are agreeable, let's focus on this (and leave the response to my last post until later, if necessary)?

I'm afraid, however, that the "hows" and "whys" are going to have to be better addressed by you than a shift to "ET's move in mysterious ways," or we'll never be able to fully "flesh" this out, since it will ultimately become nothing more than a shifted "mystery;" from a "god" to an "omnimax ET," and we'll be left with the same questions of origin and purpose.

I'm sure there is more in your post regarding this, so please do let me know if you first would rather I address your response more thoroughly.

Rw: Well, other than my stubborn insistence we remain focused on this being as an omnimax one rather than an ET type figure, I see no reason why we can’t focus on the “hows” and “whys” as long as we both understand that practically anything we postulate is just speculation or interpretation and the best we can hope for is some sort of logic instead of any anticipation of a definitive conclusion. Since our last flurry of communication a few months ago I’ve leveled out in my own personal feelings on this to a point where it doesn’t make any difference to me which way it’s concluded. I’m more agreeable to the possibility that there is an eternal aspect to the universe, with universe being defined loosely as matter/energy/space/time such that “beginnings” on the cosmological level aren’t a problem for me any more. I’m just toying with the idea that there may be an eternal omnimax regulator who does what he wants for his own reasons and just regulates the universe on a macrological level at his own discretion. Not quite a deistic approach but definitely not a religious one.

Like you Koy, I am unable, at this time, to fully embrace a completely materialistic worldview. To me, this leads only to a certain mechanistic narcissism. I’m of the opinion modern man needs a new spiritual infusion from a source other than the cults, up to and including New Age propaganda. I’m all for refocusing our efforts towards eradicating mankind’s oldest and greatest enemy, death, and setting our sights on the stars. I don’t think we’ll ever truly be as gods until we are able to functionally alter the basic inherent properties of matter to serve our needs.

Koyaanisqatsi

All of your conditions are, of course, accepted and agreed to. We are not searching for "conclusion." I hope you will never take my acerbic tone as a personal slight or attempt to "win," since that is never my intention, believe it or not. It often gets misconstrued that way, however, so I wanted to offer this up front, as I see myself playing the "devil's advocate" on this one, if you will. In so doing, I hope we can challenge each other to "flesh" whatever topics will unfold out.

And, as always, pardon my dyslexia.

So, hmmmm. Morality as taught by an Omnimax entity instead of naturally emergent. As speculation goes, it will be exceedingly tough for you to not necessarily justify such a thing (since speculation needs no justification), but overcome several stumbling blocks that I can see detracting from your supposition.

Let me be clear, I'm not going to say, "Hey, you have no proof of that," as this is speculation, but there are certain counter-elements (for lack of a better term) that I think need to be at least addressed by your theory and it will be to those that I primarily focus.

Yeah, I get that a lot . And I've skipped over the Omnimax stipulation as having previously granted we are postulating an Omnimax being of some nature as yet (appropriately, too) undefined.

Hmmm. Interesting. A stretch, I fear, but I'll hold off to see where you're going with this. It certainly represented, in the story, the only thing "proto humanity" (or "PH," shall we say to avoid constantly having to qualify it) was denied access to, thus representing the first "no" in "paradise," but, as I said, I'll hold off to see where you're taking it.

Agreed, but this also makes several possibly unwarranted assumptions that I think must be addressed (and possibly you do later; as you can see, I'm literally going through your post in "real time"--with probable edits and tweaks after ) :

1. that a "fuzzy comprehension" of right and wrong would necessarily equate with "no ability to eventually comprehend right and wrong absent an Omnimax teacher" (i.e., justifying the need for intervention)
2. that there is a "universal" (or, shall we say, "objective") quality to "rightness" and "wrongness"
3. that such an objectivity could be taught and not merely implanted
4. that "Omnimax" equates somehow with "Altruistic Intent" (i.e., no ulterior motives/gain for the teacher, in order to preserve PH's free will; assuming we both agree that's paramount)

There are probably more, but I think that should be enough to chew on for the moment.

This is, after all, the conditional environment you're presenting so I think it important to work out those "kinks." The biggest difficulty lies in number 2, however, since merely relying upon "Omnimax" as an out won't suffice.

One of the reasons why gods were created in the first place was to provide the support behind the claim of "absolute rightness" and "absolute wrongness;" the adherence to an instruction or moral code as a result of fear that even if one could "get away" with something against another PH, the great "arbiter" in the sky would still see what you did and punish you for it later, because only god knows absolutely what is "right" and what is "wrong" for humanity (presumably because "he" built us, but also due to his omnimax abilities).

Thus, an "objective" morality could be asserted and supported, due to the ever present and ever watchful judge/jurry/executioner in the sky. His "omnipresence" in other words as well as the assurance that judgement will come even if it doesn't come while alive.

That means your Omnimax must either be able to establish independently of itself that there does, in fact, exist an "objectiveness" to PH's morality (and instruct them in it), or it means that your Omnimax must simply mandate adherence to its version of what is right and what is wrong for PH and that PH must simply accept this to be true or face dire enough consequences as an incentive to accept it as true in spite of themselves.

Assuming, again, that free will is paramount, that would mean you would have to be able to adequately establish that there is such a thing as an "objective" morality independent of the Omnimax, which, in turn, would also mean that the Omnimax is subordinate to it as well.

As is all too often heard in American propaganda, "No one is above the Law."

Cult members avoid this by merely fallaciously declaring that "God is the Law," but that, of course, is pure sophistry.

See what a tough call this is? If you can establish that there actually is an "objective" quality to PH morality (and that it can be taught and not just implanted), then you've "justified" an Omnimax teacher who can act as an impartial enough judge based on his Omnimax abilities.

Merely declaring that it "knows all," however, won't cut it, since morality is not an absolute, so far as I can see; it is an agreed upon set of social conduct rules that can and does shift from culture to culture and from human to human (there's free will again).

Now, our arrogance and social conditioning traditionally account for the false "I know better than you do," quality to morality as it stands, so I think attention must be paid to whether or not it is sufficient that when the Omnimax declares "I know better than you do," it can be demonstrated and not merely asserted, regardless of its credentials.

Again, free will is the monkey wrench (and a rusty one at that ).

But, back to the "private property" lesson of Genesis.

Mmmm. I'm not sure you've adequately established your supposition, here. Telling someone there will be "consequences" to a unique action they've never experienced before, IMO, would not necessarily impart comprehension, but I see where you're going with the property rights (though I'm still not sure that the story in Genesis, necessarily, centers around this, but, again, I'll hold that thought to see what's next).

Well, it isn't the fact that they stole the fruit, remember, it's that they ate it. It was the eating of the fruit that incurred Yahweh's wrath, but I suppose the concept is still on target with what you're arguing, since the act of disobeying and trespassing, if you will, onto a "forbidden" area is also implied.

True, but we still have a scenario in which PH is merely being operantly conditioned and not necessarily instructed. After all, they could not have known what "consequences for one's actions" meant until after engaging in the trespass; nor would they necessarily understand the reason they were punished, which I think is the biggest failing of the genesis morality code.

In genesis, the morality code is, "Do as I tell you to do and do not ask questions, since you're not capable of understanding things as I do." This is a dictatorial approach--similar to a Father/Sibling relationship--and not necessarily a benevolent teacher approach.

In other words, at least so far as genesis goes, the lesson imparted is, "Do as Yahweh tells you to do, or there will be consequences," and not "Do as you think would be right (or wrong)" and a lesson imparted as to why the choice they made was wrong.

There's a big difference between teaching a dog to do something and beating a dog so that it does something and since we're still keeping free will paramount, the genesis method (or the cult method) is reprehensible; it doesn't instruct, it mandates.

Well, again, I think it would be wise to depart from genesis on this one, since genesis teaches no such thing; genesis teaches obedience and consequence for disobeying, but not necessarily why adherrence to the teachings achieves a beneficial outcome as understood fully by PH.

How can you have justice without full understanding?

True enough, which goes back to what I said earlier regarding "objective" morality. Here the problem, as I see it, is that you're imposing the Omnimax as Judge/Jurry/Executioner who mete's out justice, and straying from the notion of the Omnimax instructing the PH and having them comprehend as well as act accordingly of their own free will.

A difficult analogy at best for those of us living today, much less to PH, so, again, I'm not with you yet a hundred percent on referencing genesis at all in regard to your concept (other than as a means to try and explain what might have been as opposed to what is taught about genesis, specifically), so perhaps discarding genesis (great name for a band, btw) should be the first step. Unless that's what you want to do with your concept, of course, in which case I'm not sure it achieves yet.

Well, according to genesis, we're punished (unjustly, I should hasten to add) because of a necessarily unclear "crime" that A & E would not have been able to comprehend, which, I think, is the primary lesson to genesis; don't try to comprehend it, just do as you are told.

Another reason I fear genesis is not a very good deconstructive piece for your purposes.

Well, careful, you've asked two very important yet not necessarily mutually inclusive questions. As it stands, PH would only see a person punished for what the Omnimax has declared is "evil" and, presumably, rewarded for what the Omnimax has declared is "good."

So to see somebody being rewarded for "evil" and punished for "good," would tend to detract from the Omnimax, since it is the arbiter and meter of punishment.

Likewise with the second question, since men couldn't pervert justice if the Omnimax existed.

This is a tight tight rope, since the only way PH could be punished for doing "good" would be if the Omnimax is incapable of interferring and if the Omnimax failed in its teachings (or, in genesis' case, operant conditioning).

Sticky wicket, yes?

WE see justice being perverted all the time, but that is because morality is subjective and laws and punishment are meted out by other humans and not an Omnimax, so to posit an Omnimax teacher of morality is to also accept its failure to properly teach the course.

Well, yes, as I also alluded to earlier (great minds and all ), the "higher, other-than-man, source" is indeed a necessity given the scenario of genesis, but, again, it is a flawed system (and, IMO, deliberately so), since it merely seeks to operantly condition and not actually allow for informed self-rule based on free will.

True, but remember, that's because it's a lie that was concocted by men wishing to control the actions of other men and not necessarily impart the comprehension necessary for self-rule and self-regulation.

It's the "boogey man" will kill you if you don't do as you are told approach to operant conditioning; to behavior modification and that's a scenario for which no Omnimax entitiy is required.

Indeed, it tends to contradict the possibility that an Omnimax creature did exist and did instill in us morality of any nature.

If, for example, the Omnimax did exist and was able to sufficiently demonstrate its ability to know "right" from "wrong" and then taught PH, but some among the PH were just not capable of understanding it correctly and ended up perverting it, then who is at fault? The teacher or the student?

Factor in the omnimax abilities of the Omnimax and the answer becomes clear; it would be entirely the fault of the Omnimax to have not foreseen or augmented its teachings appropriately so that the lessons "took."

I fear you're falling into the same trap as the theists in thinking that "evil" is somehow more "corrosive" than "good;" more "enticing," shall we say and therefore, somehow, not under the control of the Omnimax, which would also contradict its omnimax nature, so I shall raise another caveat on this one .

Set of "basics?" You mean, "don't steal," "don't murder," "love your neighbor," that kind of thing?

I find it hard to imagine that an Omnimx entitiy intent on teaching us those basics would fail as miserably as it apparently has in regard to humanity, if indeed, it was it that taught us about morality to begin with.

Perhaps it's because the above mentioned acts are not acts that fall under morality at all and are more under the auspices of "general guidelines."

After all, there are many scenarios in which stealing something (such as food) is a biological necessity, overriding any moral conflict as being trivial in comparison to the need. The same can be said of murder, such as in times of war (itself a contradiction of Omnimax teachings, no doubt) and, to a lesser degree, loving one's neighbor. If one's neighbor turns out to be Jeffrey Dahmer, for an extreme example.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to maintain that an Omnimax of any nature had anything to do with PH morality, considering, as we must, the supposed outcome of that hypothetical existence (i.e., our status quo), so perhaps knowledge of "right" and "wrong" is not what morality is all about?

That what is "right" and what is "wrong" is more intuitive than merely a mandated "set of basics?" After all, one can make judgements of what is "right" morality and what is "wrong" morality, but again, this goes back to evidence of subjectivity and contradicts objective morality.

And even stickier wicket, yes?

No, actually, I think you clarified it nicely there. I think "right" and "wrong" do not actually have anything to do with morality; that morality is merely another word for "Law," which as we both know does not always concern matters of "rightness" and "wrongness," so I'd say you salvaged that one, but now the question becomes, to what end? What does this now mean in reagard to the Omnimax's responsibilities and teachings?

It is firmly rooted in reality, which, again, to me suggests only further evidence to detract from your supposition, since addending consequences (i.e., punishment) to our actions does not, IMO, establish anything at all regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action in any objective sense; it merely becomes operant conditioning.

There's the rub!

Agreed, so we've narrowed the Omnimax down a bit (necessarily so) to being a teacher, not a geneticist (an "implanter"), which, axiomatically means that if it did exist in our past, it failed.

Or, perhaps not. I'll leave that up to you, since we've also separated out "right" and "wrong," necessarily, from morality, so the question would now become, did/can the Omnimax fail at teaching "right" and "wrong" to PH and if so/if not, what does that mean?

Agreed, which is further evidence, IMO, that morality has had and can have nothing to do with the Omnimax; it is entirely a human creation to regulate the behavior of humans within a given community. In that regard, it is somewhat arbitrary and responsive primarily to the will of that community and not to any actual Omnimax arbiter/meter (is that spelled right? as in "one who metes out justice"? it looks wrong to me and I don't have my dictionary handy, but then, with dyslexia, it all looks wrong to me )

Ok, then this harkens back to number 1 (and number 4) on my list way up top there (the necessity for intervention and I'll reiterate 4 in a minute). If PH first understood that they had the capacity to make choices, doesn't this also necessarily imply that they already had at least a rudimentary understanding of consequence as well as "right" and "wrong?" And if so, why the need for the intervention of the Omnimax (number 4)?

What are the motives for the Omnimax to intervene and not just let well enough alone, seeing as there is already present evidence of a burgeoning (if sophomoric) sense of "right" and "wrong" as well as morality (consequences for choice of action)? And, of course, don't forget to factor in free will.

The motives would have to be significantly high, don't you agree, to violate free will by intervening in this manner. In other words, what would be the imperative for intervention and augmentation of an already pubescent, rudimentary understanding of the issues involved? Is there some sort of clock ticking and consequence for failure at some point, either to the PH or to the Omnimax?

Yes, well, again, I'm not convinced that genesis is serving your purposes.

A mandate to till the soil could also be described as slave mentality of a cult or simply survival necessity of the cult's members (and, by extension, of course, it all ultimately just serves the needs of the cult leaders in the furtherance of the cult).

Hey! There we go, right back to great minds thinking a like. This is why I called it all the PH.

You may want to rethink that .

Agreed. That's why I'm for true Anarchy; education that leads one to the ability to self-rule and self-regulate (an often misunderstood concept, btw) that necessarily entails a generative view toward fellow Anarchists.

Perhaps this is what we're both getting at through different channels?

Well, if by "death" you mean fear of death, that is actually quite easy to "conquer," but not through religion; merely through open and honest discourse and discussing it as it should be discussed; the only inevitable element to life.

I hope this has given you something to think about (as it has me) and on a side note, I'm enjoying this interchange immensely and hope you are too.

rainbow walking

Koy: All of your conditions are, of course, accepted and agreed to. We are not searching for "conclusion." I hope you will never take my acerbic tone as a personal slight or attempt to "win," since that is never my intention, believe it or not. It often gets misconstrued that way, however, so I wanted to offer this up front, as I see myself playing the "devil's advocate" on this one, if you will. In so doing, I hope can challenge each other to "flesh" whatever topics will unfold out.

And, as always, pardon my dyslexia.

Rw: Well, my friend, our history of discussion in this forum has engendered, for me, a fondness for you that precludes taking offense at anything you say. Looking back over the past year or so of various arguments and discussions we’ve had, from the competitive standpoint, I have to conclude that we are both winners. Me especially, though my de-conversion was a painful process, the benefits of that process far out distance any residual complaints, and, were it not for your forth right honesty and hard line approach, who knows, I may have skipped gingerly over the meat of your message for years and remained intellectually bound. As far as pardoning your dyslexia goes, I swear I have never seen any evidence of it in any of your posts and if you hadn’t mentioned it, no one would ever know, or at least I wouldn’t. If it is a handicap you struggle with, the struggle doesn’t appear in the final result. Just another shining example of your brilliance.

Koy:So, hmmmm. Morality as taught by an Omnimax entity instead of naturally emergent. As speculation goes, it will be exceedingly tough for you to not necessarily justify such a thing (since speculation needs no justification), but overcome several stumbling blocks that I can see detracting from your supposition.
Let me be clear, I'm not going to say, "Hey, you have no proof of that," as this is speculation, but there are certain counter-elements (for lack of a better term) that I think need to be at least addressed by your theory and it will be to those that I primarily focus.


rw:As I see it I basically face three major obstacles that comprise the chasm I must cross to arrive at any logical and or plausible argumentation for my hypothesis.

A. Justification for external implantation as opposed to human intuition.

B. The establishment of an objective pattern of morality as opposed to the subjective nature of morality in application.

C. How X can implant any basis for morality as a concept from a neutral position that doesn’t champion any specific moral stricture.

So I have a number of obstacles to over-come immediately. However, I hope to bridge the chasm with a series of stepping stones that, though admittedly hang on precarious reasoning, may afford me some basis for my claims.

But, before I go any further, I think it advantageous to define what I mean by morality and morals. If you disagree we can discuss this aspect of my argument further. To me, morality is a much broader ideology than laws. Laws deal with specific actions under specific situations, (most of the time). But morality seems to be the under girding ideology upon which laws are founded. For instance, much of man’s history has been under girded by a morality with religious overtures. That morality says that man ought to live his life in service to god, country and fellow man…in that order. But that code has failed to deliver on its promises. Hence we have a better, (in my opinion), modern morality upon which American values have been vested. This morality declares that man’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ought to be the guiding principles upon which he bases his life. The moral ideology of any community can be inferred from its cultural norms if not explicitly stated.

But I contend that most men, down thru history, have lived out their lives in obedience to the latter code explicitly stated by Americans, even while pledging their allegiance to another. I maintain that all men, everywhere, cannot help but desire to live according to the latter because the latter is consistent to man’s nature as man. That this is the very reason dedicating ones life to the service of god, country or one’s fellow man is depicted always and everywhere as a sacrifice. That it is depicted as a noble sacrifice is immaterial. That it is a sacrifice is evidence of its contrariness to man’s nature. This does not render man’s nature evil. It renders the moral code that makes a man believe his only road to greatness is to sacrifice his nature as man, evil.
Thus I will use this as a basis for my contention that historical man has developed a better morality consistent to his nature that will bring him closer to righteousness than primitive man, under primitive religious morality, could ever hope to achieve. And I will develop this theme on the basis that man required a jump-start from X and had to pass thru the valley of shadows to get here. That it was unfortunate but inevitable.





Koy:Yeah, I get that a lot . And I've skipped over the Omnimax stipulation as having previously granted we are postulating an Omnimax being of some nature as yet (appropriately, too) undefined.

rw: It is, for the time being, more judicious for me to keep the roulette wheel spinning as long as possible before I drop the marble into play…yes?



Koy:Hmmm. Interesting. A stretch, I fear, but I'll hold off to see where you're going with this. It certainly represented, in the story, the only thing "proto humanity" (or "PH," shall we say to avoid constantly having to qualify it) was denied access to, thus representing the first "no" in "paradise," but, as I said, I'll hold off to see where you're taking it.

rw: Establishing control of property is the one in-escapable fundamental attribute of any civilization and ultimately determines the success or failure of that community. Because community revolves around the acquisition and distribution of community resources, the duration of that community will depend, in large part, on how this is regulated. Since primitive communities were based primarily on agriculture and animal husbandry, the acquisition of food, this would have been one of the first examples of a moral challenge faced by primitive man. Ought man’s actions be guided by an equitable sense of fairness in relation to community resources? Earlier man, as hunter/gatherer, would have resolved the issue of resources by brute force such that the most ferocious man would have had first rights to any resources gathered by such a loosely knit group. But obviously, once men settled down to farming they could not countenance loosing the benefits of their labors to the brute.

This particular moral stricture represents my best attempt to keep X as neutral as possible in the specifics. This one stricture is axiomatic to any community and further represents a humanly specific moral pattern rendering it as objective as it gets in regards to historical man. Thus, mankind making the transition from a loosely knit band of hunter/gatherers to an organized agricultural community, without any historical moral precedent for guidance, is more of a challenge for you to justify, sans X, than for me. X need only establish the concept of property rights and leave historical man to work out the details. A&E couldn’t have missed the significance of X granting them rights to all the trees but that one yet they needn’t have fully apprehended the concept either, only that the circumstances surrounding its implantation be passed on to future generations until it took root. That its initial sprout was shrouded in religious dogma is also immaterial. It’s the fruit a fully mature tree produces that is of primary importance.



Koy:Agreed, but this also makes several possibly unwarranted assumptions that I think must be addressed (and possibly you do later; as you can see, I'm literally going through your post in "real time"--with probable edits and tweaks after ) :
1. that a "fuzzy comprehension" of right and wrong would necessarily equate with "no ability to eventually comprehend right and wrong absent an Omnimax teacher" (i.e., justifying the need for intervention)
2. that there is a "universal" (or, shall we say, "objective") quality to "rightness" and "wrongness"
3. that such an objectivity could be taught and not merely implanted
4. that "Omnimax" equates somehow with "Altruistic Intent" (i.e., no ulterior motives/gain for the teacher, in order to preserve PH's free will; assuming we both agree that's paramount)


There are probably more, but I think that should be enough to chew on for the moment.

This is, after all, the conditional environment you're presenting so I think it important to work out those "kinks." The biggest difficulty lies in number 2, however, since merely relying upon "Omnimax" as an out won't suffice.

rw:O’kay, let’s address number 2. I’ve dealt somewhat with number 1 in my reply above, (and will likely get into that one in more detail later), so it is crucial that I address this aspect of morality as it represents one of my stepping stones across the chasm.

The viability of my address hinges on how we define “universal” in determining objective. If, by “universal”, we mean a morality that exists independent of man and is universally applicable to any species anywhere in the universe then I have no basis for my postulates. However, if we limit “universal” to mean that which is apropos to man’s specific circumstances in this little corner of the universe then we have a basis for a contention that “yes, there is a pattern of morality specific to historical man that can be justifiably declared objective”. To support this claim I refer you to my example above concerning property rights and I further posit additional specifics like moral strictures on murder, theft, rape and false witnessing under specific circumstances. Though these specifics are applied as legalities they historically represent an underlying moral ideology that emerge as basic attributes of any community and appear endemic to the emergence of any culture.
Now the ramifications of this, relative to X, is that since X is not human, nor community oriented, he is not bound by them, but if he is omniscient he would know of their necessity and strive to impart their necessity to man, if man’s continued survival and evolution were part of his reason for intervention.
If it can be reasonably argued that these basics represent a pattern through-out man’s history then we have a logical basis for concluding that some type or form of a moral fabric is absolutely necessary to the initiation and survival of any human community, thus they exist in an objective sense relative to man’s state of affairs across the board.

Additionally it can be shown that any individual or groups attempt to circumvent them always require a certain degree of rationalization prior to circumvention. Subsequently, while the circumvention of any one of these basic strictures may not necessarily disrupt the community, it can be shown that their circumvention always entails a victim or group of victims and, furthermore, if said circumvention is allowed to continue un-checked, will result in the de-construction of the community.
So, from this standpoint, I maintain that there does exist, relative to man’s state of affairs, a basic moral pattern that emerges whenever man attempts to co-exist with other men as a community. Therefore I hold forth these postulates as evidence for an objective pattern of morality endemic to historical man’s survival and evolution.

Koy:One of the reasons why gods were created in the first place was to provide the support behind the claim of "absolute rightness" and "absolute wrongness;" the adherence to an instruction or moral code as a result of fear that even if one could "get away" with something against another PH, the great "arbiter" in the sky would still see what you did and punish you for it later, because only god knows absolutely what is "right" and what is "wrong" for humanity (presumably because "he" built us, but also due to his omnimax abilities).

Thus, an "objective" morality could be asserted and supported, due to the ever present and ever watchful judge/jurry/executioner in the sky. His "omnipresence" in other words as well as the assurance that judgement will come even if it doesn't come while alive.

rw:Yabut this is contingent on people accepting the religious connotations. In reality it only shifts the subjective aspect of it from man as enforcer to X, whose impartation is equally suspect as being arbitrary if he’s also represented as an enforcer. That is why I have labored to present an X whose intervention is one of impartation alone, liberating him from the religiously connotated claims that he is also an enforcer. In reality, if these basic moral patterns are objective, that means the consequences for their observance and or circumvention remain constant across the board and are just as much a brute fact of natural law reality as gravity…needing no additional enforcement. And that does appear to be the case when we introduce historical precedent.

Koy:That means your Omnimax must either be able to establish independently of itself that there does, in fact, exist an "objectiveness" to PH's morality (and instruct them in it), or it means that your Omnimax must simply mandate adherence to its version of what is right and what is wrong for PH and that PH must simply accept this to be true or face dire enough consequences as an incentive to accept it as true in spite of themselves.

rw:As I’ve outlined above, if “objective” is allowed to be specific to man’s state of affairs, then we have fulfilled this requirement, since X is not a man, any knowledge it imparts unique to man would necessarily be independent of X. X needn’t be bound by these objectives. Mandates aren’t necessary, and religious dogma to the contrary notwithstanding, would not need to be employed from the perspective of my argument. Although specifics were used to impart the basics, it was a long time before the basics emerged from the rubble of religious obfuscation…but they did emerge, and that is why I’ve focused my argument on historical man as opposed to individual men or cultures.

Koy:Assuming, again, that free will is paramount, that would mean you would have to be able to adequately establish that there is such a thing as an "objective" morality independent of the Omnimax, which, in turn, would also mean that the Omnimax is subordinate to it as well.

As is all too often heard in American propaganda, "No one is above the Law."

Cult members avoid this by merely fallaciously declaring that "God is the Law," but that, of course, is pure sophistry.

See what a tough call this is? If you can establish that there actually is an "objective" quality to PH morality (and that it can be taught and not just implanted), then you've "justified" an Omnimax teacher who can act as an impartial enough judge based on his Omnimax abilities.


rw:I hope I have addressed this to your satisfaction. If “objective” is endemic to man, and man alone, and not applicable to all of the universe, stars, asteroids and quarks, then I have established an objective moral pattern that determines the outcome of any civilized community. A “natural law”, if you will, for human communities.



Koy:Merely declaring that it "knows all," however, won't cut it, since morality is not an absolute, so far as I can see; it is an agreed upon set of social conduct rules that can and does shift from culture to culture and from human to human (there's free will again).

rw:Yabut, why do we seem to agree historically on some of the basics across the board? Is it because a failure to do so absolutely destroys any community that fails to do so? I agree that there are many moral and ethical standards that change and there are many ways to employ those that do not, but I also submit that there are some basics that are absolutely necessary to the continued existence of any and all communities. That our freewill is limited by our own natures in this respect and not as a result of any X mandated regulation or enforcement. Shit happens when we get together for any length of time sufficient enough to call us a community.

Koy:Now, our arrogance and social conditioning traditionally account for the false "I know better than you do," quality to morality as it stands, so I think attention must be paid to whether or not it is sufficient that when the Omnimax declares "I know better than you do," it can be demonstrated and not merely asserted, regardless of its credentials.

Again, free will is the monkey wrench (and a rusty one at that ).

But, back to the "private property" lesson of Genesis.

rw:And that too is why I’ve specified historical man instead of individual men. One can only determine the success or failure of anything by the effects it produces. Thus I have historical precedent to support my stance. History has effectively demonstrated all of what I’ve stated thusfar to be true.



Koy:Mmmm. I'm not sure you've adequately established your supposition, here. Telling someone there will be "consequences" to a unique action they've never experienced before, IMO, would not necessarily impart comprehension, but I see where you're going with the property rights (though I'm still not sure that the story in Genesis, necessarily, centers around this, but, again, I'll hold that thought to see what's next).

rw:And you’re right, in one respect. This myth doesn’t center around property rights per se, but that is the emergent quality of it after we weed out the religious interpretations. The center of the story is obedience or compliance versus dis-obedience or circumvention. But we have to ask ourselves why the lesson was set up to unfold this particular way? We have X planting this garden, including the forbidden tree, conferring upon A & E the right to partake of every other fruit but this one, thus clearly establishing X’s sole proprietorship of this one tree. Why a lesson in obedience in this fashion? There are an infinite number of avenues to approach obedience. Why not just draw a line in the sand? As I said earlier, to find the application of this for historical man we have to strain the myth through healthy brain cells and weed out the religious connotations. We also have to look at the historicity of man’s evolution and see how property rights affects his community and where they originated.
Now, clearly if X is going to establish some basic moral operatives, along with the accompanying concept of justice, he must use a specific in order to get at the general idea. And this idea of obedience is the launch pad of man’s will. As I stated in my argument, it appears to be X’s desire that man acquire a preference towards righteousness, (PTR), hence as a preference, this would mean man must, of his own will and volition, prefer righteousness above evil. Thus we arrive at the consequences of their actions. Clearly they were set up to fail. And if we focus on their consequences as a form of punishment, we set ourselves up to fail also. We fail to see the deeper significance of these events and how they ultimately have played out in history for mankind.
Does this make X unjust? Oh immensely so, iff we focus on A&E’s immediate circumstances, (and let’s not even bother to consider the religious dogma of original sin and man’s inherent evil nature), but it also hurts when the dentist uses a needle in our gums to apply an anesthetic prior to extracting a rotten tooth, yet it would hurt even more were he to extract that tooth without the anesthetic…yes?

The point is, somebody’s freewill had to be abrogated and somebody had to suffer for the benefit of mankind. But I digress…



Koy:Well, it isn't the fact that they stole the fruit, remember, it's that they ate it. It was the eating of the fruit that incurred Yahweh's wrath, but I suppose the concept is still on target with what you're arguing, since the act of disobeying and trespassing, if you will, onto a "forbidden" area is also implied.

rw: Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.



Koy:True, but we still have a scenario in which PH is merely being operantly conditioned and not necessarily instructed. After all, they could not have known what "consequences for one's actions" meant until after engaging in the trespass; nor would they necessarily understand the reason they were punished, which I think is the biggest failing of the genesis morality code.

In genesis, the morality code is, "Do as I tell you to do and do not ask questions, since you're not capable of understanding things as I do." This is a dictatorial approach--similar to a Father/Sibling relationship--and not necessarily a benevolent teacher approach.

In other words, at least so far as genesis goes, the lesson imparted is, "Do as Yahweh tells you to do, or there will be consequences," and not "Do as you think would be right (or wrong)" and a lesson imparted as to why the choice they made was wrong.

rw:Granted, but if the operant conditioning is based on facts of reality pertinent to mankind’s historical evolution, and A&E have no basis to comprehend community, then the operant condition would have to be sufficient to get the ball rolling, so to speak. The conditioning wouldn’t have to mature immediately into a full blown comprehension of modern man’s morality, just be enough to ensure man would eventually get the message. Man encapsulating the implantation in religious dogma was a way of securing the basics until man could enhance his comprehension enough to realize their full effects. If there’s one thing religion is good at it’s preserving the status quo.

Koy:There's a big difference between teaching a dog to do something and beating a dog so that it does something and since we're still keeping free will paramount, the genesis method (or the cult method) is reprehensible; it doesn't instruct, it mandates.

rw: Again this hinges on a particular interpretation of these texts. When we examine these “punishments” or “beatings” incurred we find they are nothing more, (barring the serpent’s sentence), than man’s natural state of affairs anyway. They were sentenced to work, bear children and kicked out of the nest. These were an affirmation of individual man’s fate anyway. But were they really imposed as punishments? What did X say, “because you have done this…” you will have to work, procreate and make your own way in the world. It’s the religious connotation that interprets these as pronouncements of judgment. I say they are a clever means of disclosing more basic facts of man’s reality and tying them to his thirst and acquisition of knowledge. Like saying, “O’kay, partaking of knowledge got you to this point so go back and partake of more to progress even further”.

To better understand this let’s consider X’s next, far less obtrusive, implantation in the myth of Cain and Abel. Cain produced a crop in spite of X’s curse on the ground. Cain worked much harder than Abel, who chose animal husbandry, clearly a new method of mining a natural resource, and one much easier than farming. Yet X favored Abel’s labors more than Cain’s. Why? What is the implantation here? Perhaps that one needn’t struggle against nature but should use one’s imagination to create new and innovative methods of taming it? And does this reinforce the concept that man must live by the acquisition of knowledge? Now what did Cain do? He committed murder and murdered his own brother. If anything should engender a just response you’d think X would really lower the boom on Cain, right? Yet all he does is drive Cain away from his family/community to start another community. Isolation.



Koy:Well, again, I think it would be wise to depart from genesis on this one, since genesis teaches no such thing; genesis teaches obedience and consequence for disobeying, but not necessarily why adherrence to the teachings achieves a beneficial outcome as understood fully by PH.

How can you have justice without full understanding?

rw:Ah, my friend, but you are forgetting that disobedience was the intended entrapment. A&E were set up to disobey X for just this purpose. Up to this point they had no experience of negative consequences, thus their compliance wasn’t willful. The beneficial outcome doesn’t benefit A&E at all, but historical man.



Koy:True enough, which goes back to what I said earlier regarding "objective" morality. Here the problem, as I see it, is that you're imposing the Omnimax as Judge/Jurry/Executioner who mete's out justice, and straying from the notion of the Omnimax instructing the PH and having them comprehend as well as act accordingly of their own free will.

rw:In the immediate sense you are right, but in the historical sense man has gotten the message. We mustn’t lose sight of historical man’s progress from this point.



Koy:A difficult analogy at best for those of us living today, much less to PH, so, again, I'm not with you yet a hundred percent on referencing genesis at all in regard to your concept (other than as a means to try and explain what might have been as opposed to what is taught about genesis, specifically), so perhaps discarding genesis (great name for a band, btw) should be the first step. Unless that's what you want to do with your concept, of course, in which case I'm not sure it achieves yet.

rw:Again you are right, from an immediate sense. But, as you say, a difficult enough analogy for modern man yet not impossible. Modern man has progressed to the point where this is comprehensible as we shall see below. Remember the analogy I gave about dropping a stone into the pond? The shoreline of that pond doesn’t react to the stone being dropped until the first ripple arrives. If our sun were extinguished it would be a full 8 minutes before we knew it. A lot has transpired between A&E and modern man. Once the stone has dropped you can’t stop the ripples.



Koy:Well, according to genesis, we're punished (unjustly, I should hasten to add) because of a necessarily unclear "crime" that A & E would not have been able to comprehend, which, I think, is the primary lesson to genesis; don't try to comprehend it, just do as you are told.

Another reason I fear genesis is not a very good deconstructive piece for your purposes.

rw:That is the primary lesson religion has asserted but does that mean modern man must accept it as such? Yes it was unjust for A&E, but a boon for historical man. It would be impossible for A&E to garner from this lesson what you and I can. They didn’t have the historical precedent to do so.



Koy:Well, careful, you've asked two very important yet not necessarily mutually inclusive questions. As it stands, PH would only see a person punished for what the Omnimax has declared is "evil" and, presumably, rewarded for what the Omnimax has declared is "good."

So to see somebody being rewarded for "evil" and punished for "good," would tend to detract from the Omnimax, since it is the arbiter and meter of punishment.

Likewise with the second question, since men couldn't pervert justice if the Omnimax existed.

This is a tight tight rope, since the only way PH could be punished for doing "good" would be if the Omnimax is incapable of interferring and if the Omnimax failed in its teachings (or, in genesis' case, operant conditioning).

Sticky wicket, yes?

WE see justice being perverted all the time, but that is because morality is subjective and laws and punishment are meted out by other humans and not an Omnimax, so to posit an Omnimax teacher of morality is to also accept its failure to properly teach the course.


rw:Yabut, this wasn’t a lesson intended for A&E, but for historical man. Only historical man would be able to garner these nuggets from this myth. A&E might have been helplessly puzzled but they were still on their own and had to face a big wide world every day just like you and I. And the myth survived…somewhat. And historical man continues into history in spite of his many failures so we can’t necessarily declare X having failed just yet, can we? The fact that man has progressed and his communities have become far more complex shows that, if anything, X has hit the nail on the head. It also goes towards demonstrating that man indeed has a PTR in play somewhere in his collective consciousness.




Koy:Well, yes, as I also alluded to earlier (great minds and all ), the "higher, other-than-man, source" is indeed a necessity given the scenario of genesis, but, again, it is a flawed system (and, IMO, deliberately so), since it merely seeks to operantly condition and not actually allow for informed self-rule based on free will.

rw:Or it preserved the integrity of the operant conditioning until such time as historical man was able to take the reigns in full knowledge of his responsibilities…yes? And we are living in just such a time. Remember the preservationist qualities of religion? It’s just a ripple in the pond and will reach the shore soon enough and dissipate.



Koy:True, but remember, that's because it's a lie that was concocted by men wishing to control the actions of other men and not necessarily impart the comprehension necessary for self-rule and self-regulation.

It's the "boogey man" will kill you if you don't do as you are told approach to operant conditioning; to behavior modification and that's a scenario for which no Omnimax entitiy is required.

Indeed, it tends to contradict the possibility that an Omnimax creature did exist and did instill in us morality of any nature.



rw:If I am correct and these concepts came from X that would make it only partially false with the implantation being true but the enforcement being a false extrapolation, something occurring naturally that gets attributed to X.

Koy:If, for example, the Omnimax did exist and was able to sufficiently demonstrate its ability to know "right" from "wrong" and then taught PH, but some among the PH were just not capable of understanding it correctly and ended up perverting it, then who is at fault? The teacher or the student?

rw:Except that the implantation only covered the basics that nature and man’s nature in particular, would absolutely enforce, thus preventing any possibility of failure. If there is an objective moral pattern, and I think I’ve shown there is, just because specific men or cultures fail to abide by them doesn’t mean X has failed at all. In fact, every failure just reinforces the implantation.

Koy:Factor in the omnimax abilities of the Omnimax and the answer becomes clear; it would be entirely the fault of the Omnimax to have not foreseen or augmented its teachings appropriately so that the lessons "took."

rw:The only problem with this caveat is that historical man is still alive and well and maybe even progressing somewhat towards a greater degree of righteousness, so any claim that X failed is a bit premature.

Koy:I fear you're falling into the same trap as the theists in thinking that "evil" is somehow more "corrosive" than "good;" more "enticing," shall we say and therefore, somehow, not under the control of the Omnimax, which would also contradict its omnimax nature, so I shall raise another caveat on this one .

rw:I don’t understand this at all. Could you expand on it please? At any rate, this is all I have time for now. Heading out tonight for W Virginia so I’ll have to get back with you on this later. But I am enjoying this immensely and look forward to our next chance to engage these topics. Maybe sometime this summer I’ll be back in NYC and will have the time to look you up. It would be a pleasure to meet you in person.

rainbow walking

Hi Koy,
Circumstances have arisen that prevented me from leaving for W Virginia last night so I’m going to attempt to finish this and get it posted before I leave tonight.



Koy:Set of "basics?" You mean, "don't steal," "don't murder," "love your neighbor," that kind of thing?

I find it hard to imagine that an Omnimx entitiy intent on teaching us those basics would fail as miserably as it apparently has in regard to humanity, if indeed, it was it that taught us about morality to begin with.

rw:Now it seems you are basing your claim of “failure” on the observable fact that men do not comply with these strictures in any consistent manner. However, since my argument incorporates freewill as the one limiting factor prohibiting X from interfering in man’s choices, this inconsistency cannot be attached to X. That man is aware of these choices and practically every civilized community through-out history has legitimized them judicially to some degree or another demonstrates that perhaps X has actually succeeded in the implantation and that the judgment call of failure or success from that point forward rests upon the shoulders of historical man. Remember I’m not advocating an X who enforces these strictures such that any violation would be a failure on his part.

Koy:Perhaps it's because the above mentioned acts are not acts that fall under morality at all and are more under the auspices of "general guidelines."

rw:I think my qualifying remarks on the definition of morality, in my opening statement, should be adequate as a response.

Koy:After all, there are many scenarios in which stealing something (such as food) is a biological necessity, overriding any moral conflict as being trivial in comparison to the need. The same can be said of murder, such as in times of war (itself a contradiction of Omnimax teachings, no doubt) and, to a lesser degree, loving one's neighbor. If one's neighbor turns out to be Jeffrey Dahmer, for an extreme example.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to maintain that an Omnimax of any nature had anything to do with PH morality, considering, as we must, the supposed outcome of that hypothetical existence (i.e., our status quo), so perhaps knowledge of "right" and "wrong" is not what morality is all about?

That what is "right" and what is "wrong" is more intuitive than merely a mandated "set of basics?" After all, one can make judgements of what is "right" morality and what is "wrong" morality, but again, this goes back to evidence of subjectivity and contradicts objective morality.

And even stickier wicket, yes?

rw:The stickier wicket defense? I’m not going to deny the situational aspect of man’s choices and how that often conflicts with his “oughts”. Again, as I am floating only an X who implants the basics and leaves the application to man, I fail to see how this responds to my argument. If historical man does seem to always incorporate these basic moral patterns into the formulation of his communities there is justifiable cause to claim an objectiveness to them. This, however, is no guarantee that man’s application of them is, or could be, objective. This too seems to be a brute natural fact associated with the concept of morality. I guess a good test of my hypothesis concerning “objectivity” would be if you could describe a community’s behavior and survival without these basics. How would such a community be formed and continue to allow for personal inter-action between its constituents in such a way as to facilitate growth of the community without resorting to dictatorial control? In other words, describe a community with no legal restrictions against murder, rape, theft and false witness.



Koy:No, actually, I think you clarified it nicely there. I think "right" and "wrong" do not actually have anything to do with morality; that morality is merely another word for "Law," which as we both know does not always concern matters of "rightness" and "wrongness," so I'd say you salvaged that one, but now the question becomes, to what end? What does this now mean in reagard to the Omnimax's responsibilities and teachings?

rw:Uh…I don’t know Koy, I don’t see how one can establish a law without recourse to justifying its establishment on some moral basis or another. Perhaps if you could give me an example of a completely amoral law that was crucial to a communities survival? I don’t want to quibble over insignificant regulations like pet leash laws or smoking in public bans and such. I think we’re dealing on a level that addresses the more crucial community survival aspect of morality in this discussion, don’t you?



Koy:It is firmly rooted in reality, which, again, to me suggests only further evidence to detract from your supposition, since addending consequences (i.e., punishment) to our actions does not, IMO, establish anything at all regarding the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action in any objective sense; it merely becomes operant conditioning.

rw:I don’t know Koy, I thought operant conditioning was an extension of teaching right and wrong. Operant conditioning doesn’t come into play until after a wrong has been committed. I don’t see them as being mutually exclusive. You can do everything in your power to teach your children that stealing, for instance, is wrong and why it’s wrong. But if they encounter a situation that your teaching didn’t cover and steal something and get caught, then the law comes into play to prosecute the operant conditioning aspect of rightness and wrongness. This is the situational aspect of morality in application. But it says nothing as to the rightness and wrongness of the morality under girding the laws upon which rightness and wrongness are established. The only thing that establishes the rightness and wrongness of morality is the effect it has of promoting historical man’s consequences in a positive way. There is, and likely will always be, a certain degree of tension between individual rights and community health. But historical man has developed the concept of adjudication in these cases, a concept that I maintain comprises part of X’s implantation. It is an objective attribute of the “enforcement” aspect of morality and an affirmation that no law can be devised that is all inclusive in scope. When I say objective I mean in relation to historical man and his nature as a community creature. It is not X that enforces this objectivity but nature and, in particular, man’s nature, that renders it objective 100% of the time. Thus it is a natural law unto itself exclusive to man’s state of affairs. When men ignore or circumvent it, bad things happen to them and their communities. When they comply and affirm it, good things happen and the health of the community is maintained. Not because X is enforcing it, but because nature is and X’s impartation is simply a matter of affirming the inescapability of it.



Koy:There's the rub!




Koy: Agreed, so we've narrowed the Omnimax down a bit (necessarily so) to being a teacher, not a geneticist (an "implanter"), which, axiomatically means that if it did exist in our past, it failed.

Or, perhaps not. I'll leave that up to you, since we've also separated out "right" and "wrong," necessarily, from morality, so the question would now become, did/can the Omnimax fail at teaching "right" and "wrong" to PH and if so/if not, what does that mean?

rw:Well, again, I think it too soon to declare failure. In fact I would posit just the opposite based on historical man’s arrival at the current conclusion of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” morality. And I don’t know where we’ve separated right and wrong from morality? If X has only imparted the concept of right/wrong without enforcement, (except in those particular cases needed to impart the concept), leaving man free to apply it or not, any failure to apply it rests with man. But as long as man has laws he has demonstrated that he has some grasp of right and wrong. Whether his comprehension fails or succeeds is up to him and contingent on his willingness to comply with his own established particulars.



Koy:Agreed, which is further evidence, IMO, that morality has had and can have nothing to do with the Omnimax; it is entirely a human creation to regulate the behavior of humans within a given community. In that regard, it is somewhat arbitrary and responsive primarily to the will of that community and not to any actual Omnimax arbiter/meter (is that spelled right? as in "one who metes out justice"? it looks wrong to me and I don't have my dictionary handy, but then, with dyslexia, it all looks wrong to me )

rw: No, I think you’ve spelled it “right”. I have postulated an X who leaves the regulation and the particulars to be regulated up to man and nature. The fact that humans are responsible for defining the particulars and regulating their application in no way detracts from my postulates. If you re-read my original argument against PoE you’ll find that I’ve posited an X who does only the minimum required at a specific time in man’s historical development and then steps out of the miracle working business to allow man’s autonomous nature free reign to make of it what he will.



Koy:Ok, then this harkens back to number 1 (and number 4) on my list way up top there (the necessity for intervention and I'll reiterate 4 in a minute). If PH first understood that they had the capacity to make choices, doesn't this also necessarily imply that they already had at least a rudimentary understanding of consequence as well as "right" and "wrong?" And if so, why the need for the intervention of the Omnimax (number 4)?

What are the motives for the Omnimax to intervene and not just let well enough alone, seeing as there is already present evidence of a burgeoning (if sophomoric) sense of "right" and "wrong" as well as morality (consequences for choice of action)? And, of course, don't forget to factor in free will.

The motives would have to be significantly high, don't you agree, to violate free will by intervening in this manner. In other words, what would be the imperative for intervention and augmentation of an already pubescent, rudimentary understanding of the issues involved? Is there some sort of clock ticking and consequence for failure at some point, either to the PH or to the Omnimax?

rw: O’kay Koy, fair enough, and a damn good question. Since we’ve both agreed that we are speculating I shall do just that, (while incorporating my meager knowledge of anthropology and evolution). This is where I get to invoke one of X’s omni’s; the attribute of omniscience. I would posit that X was privy to some knowledge that compelled him to make a choice to intervene and impart the necessities to promote historical man from hunter/gatherer to domestic agriculturalist.
I will posit that PH had achieved an equilibrium with his ecosystem to such a degree that evolutionary forces would have taken a much longer time to get him motivated towards domestication than man actually had. That X knew a certain cataclysmic event was coming that the HG’s who survived would not be able to cope with and extinction would occur, whereas domesticated man would be able to survive. The event of which I speak being the flood, (let’s dispense with all the religious bullshit attached to this and just go with the basics, o’kay?). Now, if true, then X would have to make a choice either to allow events to unfold and watch mankind perish or intervene and push man in a direction that would prepare him to survive. Taking from the biblical text of Genesis on the subject of the flood, it’s of interest to note that the first thing Noah did, after the flood, was plant a crop, (never mind the crap about it being grapes for wine), the interesting thing to note is that domesticated man emerged from this event and began to repopulate the area, (BTW, I don’t ascribe to a world wide flood theory here, just a regional one). To support this contention I point to the fact that historical man’s current level of progress has not been hampered by any cataclysmic event since the flood, (assuming the flood actually occurred.) No bombardment of comets or asteroids, no major shift in weather patterns or orbital patterns of the earth etc. So I am postulating that X’s omniscience allowed him to see events that, without his intervention, would have conspired to eradicate PH before he had time to evolve his own concept of morality. Thus it is a matter of timing, not of man’s capacity to intuit the necessity for morality.



Koy:Yes, well, again, I'm not convinced that genesis is serving your purposes.

A mandate to till the soil could also be described as slave mentality of a cult or simply survival necessity of the cult's members (and, by extension, of course, it all ultimately just serves the needs of the cult leaders in the furtherance of the cult).


rw:But I thought we’d agreed to dispense with the cult mentality in this discussion? If X, as Genesis declares, planted a garden this could be construed as a teaching by example for PH. If he further brought a man into the garden to show him the benefits of agriculture, this would further support my postulates.



Koy: Hey! There we go, right back to great minds thinking a like. This is why I called it all the PH.

rw:Hah!



[b]Koy:/b]You may want to rethink that .

rw:Again?



Koy:Agreed. That's why I'm for true Anarchy; education that leads one to the ability to self-rule and self-regulate (an often misunderstood concept, btw) that necessarily entails a generative view toward fellow Anarchists.

Perhaps this is what we're both getting at through different channels?

rw:I don’t know enough about anarchy to make a comment here, other than I’ve always heard anarchy presented in negative connotations.



Koy:Well, if by "death" you mean fear of death, that is actually quite easy to "conquer," but not through religion; merely through open and honest discourse and discussing it as it should be discussed; the only inevitable element to life.

rw: No, I specifically mean the indefinite extension of human life. Maybe not doable in our lifetime but definitely doable.

Koy:I hope this has given you something to think about (as it has me) and on a side note, I'm enjoying this interchange immensely and hope you are too.

rw: You always give me something to think about Koy and I, too, have enjoyed this discourse immensely.

Koyaanisqatsi

In the interests of brevity (or at least, manageably short responses, something neither of us is very disciplined at ), I'm going to try to do a little "hunter/gathering" of my own by taking certain sections that I think represent a certain concept and giving them more detailed deconstruction. If you feel this misses too many things, by all means just post something I've missed in response that you feel already addresses or needs to be addressed (or you would like addressed), and then maybe at the "end" of this (if there is one ) we can piece everything back together into a more clarified "whole?"

To whit, my call to jusfitying the need for intervention:

Ok, but that's a bit too "mysterious ways" for my taste and one of the problems I've always fround with cult dogma that relies on the "special knowledge" clause, since invoking it is usually a "get out of jail free" card, so to speak. I would prefer, if you're amenable, to try to detail exactly what that "special knowledge" could be, granting as I am that we are not omniscient and that we are speculating on a being that is. You do so to some extent next so I'll elaborate on this with your post.

In other words, they were "one" with nature; subordinate to it and relying on it to provide, instead of actively seeking to manipulate it (i.e., plant crops, rather than wait for the crops to grow on their on).

Now that's going to be tough to detail, since it is traditionally the HG's who survive cataclysm, precisely because they are so adept at finding sustenance, rather than growing it.

Ok. We'll get to the flood part later, but for now, to reiterate, X knows that PH will be extinct if intervention does not happen. So, it isn't necessarily that PH wouldn't have evolved on its own to the "domesticated" status, it's that a clock is ticking and X knows that they won't be able to evolve in time to save themselves from extinction.

Why is this important to X that one earth species (PH) be saved in this manner?

Ok, but there are problems with this as well that I think you need to account for, number one of which (going back to the text) is that vegetation already existed (remember the olive branch that is a sign that the flood is over and they have found land?). Granted we're not taking a literal reading of genesis, but if genesis is some sort of retelling or aggrandizement of something that actually did occur, this event might be significant.

The second is, if it were not a global flood, then X is, in essence, playing "favorites" with a particular group of PH (a more general problem with the whole, since to avoid this, we'd have to somehow go all the way back to the very first tribe of PH, assuming there is one particular tribe that is, who had first evolved enough to show up on X's radar, if you will).

This is, after all, the message imparted in genesis, but erroneously, IMO. Since the story details the history of Judaism and asserts that Noah and his family was the only group chosen for survival by Yahweh out of the entirety of mankind up to that point.

So, I suppose the speculation would have to be that all of mankind would be destroyed and X, due to his omnimax qualities, could tell which select tribe had the best ability to survive, so X focused all of its attention on that one group?

Again, though, that means we're really limiting X's omnimax status and raising more questions than answering. It means that its "special knowledge" could only be imparted to a select group of PH that had already evolved close to domestication to begin with, or, to preserve free will, had the "best chances" of being able to learn the "special knowledge," yes?

Well, there have been global epidemics and World Wars and the like. No they didn't represent necessarily global cataclysm (though the plague wiped out like a third of the world's population, or something like that), but since you're positing a local flood, I raise this caveat.

Concept of morality or concept of domestication. I know you're linking the two, but I'm not convinced this attains in the scenario you're presenting, since there is a clock ticking and survival of PH is paramount for some as yet unknown reason.

How does teaching PH about "right" and "wrong" necessarily equate with PH's ability to become farmers? (I think you did touch on this and I'll review to find it, or if you'd just direct me to it or expand upon it in your response, I'd appreciate it).

Ok, but why is X limited to man's linear timing? Can X only foresee ten years into PH's future? Twenty? A hundred? A million? See what I'm getting at? If X has the ability to both know of an impending cataclysmic event (let's assume it was global and represented the extinction of the entire race so as to avoid questions of "playing favorites" for the minute) and has the ability to intervene in order to insure PH's survival of that future cataclysmic event, wouldn't it instruct all of PH millenia before the event to allow for it to "take" sufficiently over time?

And, again, why does it care about PH's survival and not say, the dinosaurs or any number of the trillions of other sentient creatures roaming the earth? After all, we're essentially saying that PH was just like any other animal prior to X's intervention. If X has omnimax capabilities to impart "special knowledge" to PH, wouldn't it also have omnimax capabilities to impart it to any number of other animal species on the planet?

If it's just a question of capacity, couldn't the X gauge each animal's capacity to learn and/or evolve and augment its teachings to impart to all the world's species in the same manner?

The picture you are painting is not necessarily consistent yet, since it appears that you're positing a PH in dire consequence absent X's seemingly immediate intervention; i.e., there's a bad storm coming "soon" that X has to prepare them for or they will be extinct. Yet, the intervention is merely one of teaching them a morality that you contend leads to domestication instead of hunter/gathering, so long as that morality "takes" of PH's own free will.

Also, you're necessarily positing an event that is already survivable in and of itself; the question of extinction coming not necessarily from the event, but from the circumstances PH will find themsleves in after the event (ie., if domestication can attain). What if the cataclysmic event were something like an asteroid? Then nothing the X teaches them about morality is going to save them, right?

So, the problems I see here are primarily twofold:

1. positing a cataclysmic event, the aftermath of which that could only be survived due to X's instruction in morality, that somehow gives rise to domestication (of man's own free will) in enough time for it to work and thereby save them after the event
2. the justification of why PH is given such preferential treatment (i.e., why does X care whether or not this particular species survives?)

Good enough for now, and, as always, if there are points you have previsouly raised that you wish me to specifically address that I do not, please point them out and I will.

rainbow walking

Koy: In the interests of brevity (or at least, manageably short responses, something neither of us is very disciplined at ), I'm going to try to do a little "hunter/gathering" of my own by taking certain sections that I think represent a certain concept and giving them more detailed deconstruction. If you feel this misses too many things, by all means just post something I've missed in response that you feel already addresses or needs to be addressed (or you would like addressed), and then maybe at the "end" of this (if there is one ) we can piece everything back together into a more clarified "whole?"

rw:O’kay

Koy: To whit, my call to jusfitying the need for intervention:



Koy: Ok, but that's a bit too "mysterious ways" for my taste and one of the problems I've always found with cult dogma that relies on the "special knowledge" clause, since invoking it is usually a "get out of jail free" card, so to speak. I would prefer, if you're amenable, to try to detail exactly what that "special knowledge" could be, granting as I am that we are not omniscient and that we are speculating on a being that is. You do so to some extent next so I'll elaborate on this with your post.

rw:In this case I’m referring to the knowledge that a cataclysmic flood was imminent and that man, as hunter/gatherer, would not be able to recover, thus intervention was necessary.



Koy: In other words, they were "one" with nature; subordinate to it and relying on it to provide, instead of actively seeking to manipulate it (i.e., plant crops, rather than wait for the crops to grow on their on).

rw: Exactly.



Koy:Now that's going to be tough to detail, since it is traditionally the HG's who survive cataclysm, precisely because they are so adept at finding sustenance, rather than growing it.

rw:Yes, but remember, in this particular instance Noah was given instructions on how to weather the storm , building a boat and supplying it with the necessities for an extended camping venture and all that. Such a project could never have been undertaken by a group of hunter/gatherers wandering about living off the land but would require a group of people sufficiently domesticated to remain in one spot long enough to prepare for the storm.



Koy:Ok. We'll get to the flood part later, but for now, to reiterate, X knows that PH will be extinct if intervention does not happen. So, it isn't necessarily that PH wouldn't have evolved on its own to the "domesticated" status, it's that a clock is ticking and X knows that they won't be able to evolve in time to save themselves from extinction.

rw: Exactly.



Koy:Why is this important to X that one earth species (PH) be saved in this manner?

rw:For the benefit of historical man.



Koy:Ok, but there are problems with this as well that I think you need to account for, number one of which (going back to the text) is that vegetation already existed (remember the olive branch that is a sign that the flood is over and they have found land?). Granted we're not taking a literal reading of genesis, but if genesis is some sort of retelling or aggrandizement of something that actually did occur, this event might be significant.

rw:Yes, I think it demonstrates the regional aspect of this flood.

Koy:The second is, if it were not a global flood, then X is, in essence, playing "favorites" with a particular group of PH (a more general problem with the whole, since to avoid this, we'd have to somehow go all the way back to the very first tribe of PH, assuming there is one particular tribe that is, who had first evolved enough to show up on X's radar, if you will).

This is, after all, the message imparted in genesis, but erroneously, IMO. Since the story details the history of Judaism and asserts that Noah and his family was the only group chosen for survival by Yahweh out of the entirety of mankind up to that point.

rw:You are correct. One tribe of “chosen” to disseminate the ideology into the world of historical man. Remember the diaspora that occurred later when ten tribes of Israel disappeared, taken captive by the Assyrians, and later when Judah was taken captive by the Babylonians? Through out history, until recently, the Jews have been driven from nation to nation and suffered unspeakable horrors…why? Isn’t it peculiar that the world’s three most prolific religions all trace their roots back to these Canaanites?

Koy:So, I suppose the speculation would have to be that all of mankind would be destroyed and X, due to his omnimax qualities, could tell which select tribe had the best ability to survive, so X focused all of its attention on that one group?

rw:Smacks of Calvinism…yes? But that is the best non-religious interpretation I can offer. Some “chosen” few had to bear the responsibility for historical man’s benefit.



Koy:Again, though, that means we're really limiting X's omnimax status and raising more questions than answering. It means that its "special knowledge" could only be imparted to a select group of PH that had already evolved close to domestication to begin with, or, to preserve free will, had the "best chances" of being able to learn the "special knowledge," yes?

rw:Or it means that the “special knowledge” could be most economically dispersed in this fashion, with an eye on historical man.



Koy:Well, there have been global epidemics and World Wars and the like. No they didn't represent necessarily global cataclysm (though the plague wiped out like a third of the world's population, or something like that), but since you're positing a local flood, I raise this caveat.

rw:Yes, this is true, but they all occurred long after man had progressed beyond the hunter/gatherer stage of his history.



Koy:Concept of morality or concept of domestication. I know you're linking the two, but I'm not convinced this attains in the scenario you're presenting, since there is a clock ticking and survival of PH is paramount for some as yet unknown reason.

How does teaching PH about "right" and "wrong" necessarily equate with PH's ability to become farmers? (I think you did touch on this and I'll review to find it, or if you'd just direct me to it or expand upon it in your response, I'd appreciate it).

rw:Yes, the two are intricately woven and necessary to one another in order to facilitate evolutionary human progress. I am of the opinion the domestication process, along with the moral implantation, began thousands of years prior to the flood. I also think the genealogies in Genesis are based on a different, more economical system of accounting to facilitate memorization as they were passed from generation to generation by word of mouth. For instance, rather than Adam actually living 969 years, what is portrayed is that Adam’s family name survived this length of time before being transferred to Seth and so on. It’s evident throughout the bible as major players emerge from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Jesus. It’s likely that hundreds of un-named generations were weeded out to facilitate ease of memorization and this would have been understood among the early Hebrews but lost upon later redactions. So men didn’t actually live this long but their family dynasties did until a son worthy to carry the torch was born and had this conferred upon him. The Jews were adamant about conferring these blessings in a ritualistic fashion signifying the passing of responsibilities on to the next generation.



Koy:Ok, but why is X limited to man's linear timing? Can X only foresee ten years into PH's future? Twenty? A hundred? A million? See what I'm getting at? If X has the ability to both know of an impending cataclysmic event (let's assume it was global and represented the extinction of the entire race so as to avoid questions of "playing favorites" for the minute) and has the ability to intervene in order to insure PH's survival of that future cataclysmic event, wouldn't it instruct all of PH millenia before the event to allow for it to "take" sufficiently over time?

rw:See my response above. Such a being isn’t limited by linear timing but historical man is.

Koy:And, again, why does it care about PH's survival and not say, the dinosaurs or any number of the trillions of other sentient creatures roaming the earth? After all, we're essentially saying that PH was just like any other animal prior to X's intervention. If X has omnimax capabilities to impart "special knowledge" to PH, wouldn't it also have omnimax capabilities to impart it to any number of other animal species on the planet?

rw:I’ve heard this line of argumentation before. Why man rather than some other species? I’m not sure there’s a definitive answer to that except to point you to the results. Would it be possible to domesticate dinosaurs or coyotes or whales such that they would eventually evolve a predisposition towards righteousness? Perhaps man, at the hunter/gatherer stage, had already bootstrapped himself to the top of the food chain and thus, stood out as the most likely candidate.

Koy:If it's just a question of capacity, couldn't the X gauge each animal's capacity to learn and/or evolve and augment its teachings to impart to all the world's species in the same manner?

rw: I suppose, or he could confer upon man this responsibility, if economy of intervention were among his priorities.

Koy: The picture you are painting is not necessarily consistent yet, since it appears that you're positing a PH in dire consequence absent X's seemingly immediate intervention; i.e., there's a bad storm coming "soon" that X has to prepare them for or they will be extinct. Yet, the intervention is merely one of teaching them a morality that you contend leads to domestication instead of hunter/gathering, so long as that morality "takes" of PH's own free will.

Also, you're necessarily positing an event that is already survivable in and of itself; the question of extinction coming not necessarily from the event, but from the circumstances PH will find themsleves in after the event (ie., if domestication can attain). What if the cataclysmic event were something like an asteroid? Then nothing the X teaches them about morality is going to save them, right?

rw: This calls for speculation. It would be difficult to say what the outcome might have been were the catastrophe something other than what it was. It may even be that this being intentionally orchestrated the catastrophe in order to eliminate competition long enough for his “chosen” implantation subjects to take root and grow strong enough to survive. If he were more interested in historical man than immediate individual men this would certainly not be unthinkable nor inconsistent with omni-benevolence, though you may argue this point, and not without good reason.

Koy:So, the problems I see here are primarily twofold:

1. positing a cataclysmic event, the aftermath of which that could only be survived due to X's instruction in morality, that somehow gives rise to domestication (of man's own free will) in enough time for it to work and thereby save them after the event

2. the justification of why PH is given such preferential treatment (i.e., why does X care whether or not this particular species survives?)


Good enough for now, and, as always, if there are points you have previsouly raised that you wish me to specifically address that I do not, please point them out and I will.

rw:The only additional thoughts I have revolve around number one and the focus on freewill. It needn’t be the case that the immediate “chosen” test subjects freewill be of any significance during the implantation, in fact, it would almost be necessary, IMV, to absolutely violate their freewill until the implantation has transpired. Only after the implantation has taken and been passed on would freewill become an inviolate issue in regard to historical man. It is the case that almost every one of the major biblical players saw themselves as having been “chosen” to such a degree that they felt they had no choice but to obey their “calling”. But the ratio of such men and women in proportion to the sheer numbers of humanity is infintismal in comparison, so the violation is contained with the “chosen”. The story of Jonah is a good case in point. This also relieves the pressure between the opposing Calvinistic and Armenian doctrinal dispute that has plagued Christianity for centuries. Both are relevant and acceptable within that worldview. Such a being, with economy of intervention in mind, would choose select individuals to implant and then leave the rest of historical humanity free to make of that implantation what they will. So the “many are called but few are chosen” text would take on an entirely different meaning in this context…yes?

In conclusion I do value your opinion and would like to know what you thought of my defense of the objective moral pattern line of reasoning I advanced in this discussion. I felt it could have been articulated in a more coherent fashion but I was pressed for time when I prepared it and went away feeling unsatisfied with it.

Koyaanisqatsi

Same thing about brevity applies here, so, again, what I miss please point out (and sorry I'm not giving this my usual point-by-point, but we'd be making historically long posts with each other .

The "special knowledge" of domestication, which you link with morality later (and I'll get to that). I'm just keeping everything together.

Ok, at this point, it is possible to completely remove any "mystical" (supernatural) omnimax qualities from X. X could simply be a being similar to us now, on a colonizing mission, so to speak, whose purpose is to travel to planetary systems likely to contain carbon-based life, analyze the planet for any signs of likely future cataclysmic events (with instruments so attuned that they could predict within a reasonable degree of certainty a global flood in the planet's future, for direct example, much like we can now accurately predict solar eclipses a thousand years hence).

X is a teacher/astronaut and would likely be considered "god-like" (if you will) by PH; a "cover" story X would probably not object to, since it masks its trail thereby re-establishing free will after its one-time intervention.

Presumably, its intentions would be the same any of our own astronauts might have in a similar mission; to seek out PH wherever they may have evolved and act as benevolent overseers to their evolution (prime directive be damned ).

It also means that the same diversity of life forms found on Earth and the same evolutionary process of nature is therefore universal and happening right now throughout the universe.

While certainly all plausible to speculate, this does, of course raise the question to simply another level; where did X originally come from?

True, but again, I think relying on Noah is specious, since Noah and his people, as you put it, were already sufficiently domesticated as well as already living by a moral code. The only thing Noah did not know about was the impending flood, so the only thing X would need to provide Noah is the knowledge of the coming flood.

Well, yes, but that doesn't answer the question from X's standpoint. Why is it important to X that historical man be saved (if not the scenario I posited about a mission to cultivate like creatures throughout the universe, thereby relegating X to little more than someone like one of our own astronauts)?

But, again to point out why reliance on Noah is specious, a regional flood would only effect the region and would not effect, say, Asia or North America, where similar tribes with more advanced domestication historically existed at the same time of Noah; domestication (and moral codes) that would therefore have nothing to do with X's intervention, thereby demonstrating no need for X's intervention.

For your theory to "work," we would have to be talking about PH some fifty to sixty thousand years ago (if memory serves), when the PH were small in number and, presumably, all grouped in an area that could be threatened with extinction by a regional flood. I'm not an anthropologist, so I can say with any certainty that mankind all came from one such spot, but if so, it is to that historically accurate time period that we would have to posit X's intervention, yes?

There's also the question of why just "proto-Noah's" tribe being given this special knowledge. Why weren't all heads of tribes given this special knowledge?

The implication here is that X somehow determined that only proto-Noah had the intelligence to process the information, which, again, reduces X's omnimax abilities to little more than the same kinds of abilities humans have today (though slightly advanced; say some five hundred years or so from today).

This is, again, why I think relying on the Old Testament mythology as a 1% true account of PH is misleading and raises more questions than it answers.

We would have to be positing a relatively small group of PH--the very first PH--who all live in a relatively small region that could be threatened by a local flood and have not yet learned the "special knowledge" (and won't be able to learn it on their own because of the future flood cutting their natural, evolutionary abilities short). They could be "on the cusp" of domestication, but they couldn't actually have developed it to a point where it would insure their survival, due to the flood (hence the need for X's intervention).

By narrowing it all down to specifics like this, we see that X is need not be anything more than an possible astronaut/scientist-interventionist, whose only contribution to earth-humanity was to give them "advanced" information on how to build a strong enough boat to wheather the flood and how to reseed the region they are in (and not the rest of the world, since it's just a regional flood) once the flood waters abate.

I think we can both discard, of course, the notion that proto-Noah took two (or seven) of every animal, and more likely saved his own flock for food and regional replenishment of the flock.

So, boiled down, in essence all we're positing is a "do-good" astronaut who was passing by our planet on some sort of typical overseeing mission, who read its instruments and saw that the only region where like-creatures to itself (in a pre-historic stasis) was about to be wiped out by a regional flood. So it decides to intevene by instructing the smartest one of the group on how to build a boat and reseed the region once the waters abate.

The problem being, of course, is that, to go back that far in PH history (if, indeed, there ever was a centrallized origin of man that fits these criteria) is to go back to a time when likely no one would have the ability to comprehend what is being told to them and the lack of such knowledge subsequent to fifty or sixty thousand years of evolutionary excelleration, shall we say?

Now, before you counter (as you do later) with a proto-Noah of the Gaps, remember that the "special knowledge" X is alleged to have provided is supposed to be responsible for mankind's excellerated evolution. So, if what you posit were true, then why is it recorded human civilization is relatively short (i.e., some five or six thousand years)? Why wouldn't we have fifty to sixty thousand years of human civilization after the excelleration of PH evolution?

What about X's teachings of how to build a boat and reseed the region would have been so long delayed that it would account for such an incredibly long time to arrive at "modern" man (i.e., the five to six thousand years of recorded civilization)?

Ok, but that still doesn't explain the fifty to sixty thousand year gap.

Nor does it explain what necessarily was so remarkable about what X revealed. In essence, all it would have done was to provide knowledge of nautical seamanship (that is then forgotten for tens of thousands of years) and agriculture to reseed the region.

I don't see any "ideology" involved in any of that. The flood was a naturally occuring event (not a plague from a god) and X's instructions were merely the same information we now have today; i.e., information that came as the result of experience over time (presumably the same way in which X garnered its own information; from its own evolutionary process on its home planet).

Other than the already known notion of banding together being a means to survive (hence the "tribe"), what ideology is X necessarily (note the qualification) imparting and, more importantly, why don't we see evidence of it much sooner than our historical record betrays (and lets expand the five thousand years to say, ten thousand years of civilization, just not recorded civilization)?

Well, correct that, since we certainly see evidence of domestication over that time period, but what about the advanced nautical information and, again, what ideology is present as a direct result of X that wasn't already present?

Not really. You're, again, discussing relatively recent human history (far removed from PH), where domestication already existed and travel to foreign lands was a regular occurrence. You're also unduly focusing on Jewish mythology, forgetting that Buddhism predates it (as do many other deity mythologies). Judaism did not spring up out of the ground all on its own; as with all mythologies it is dynamic and ever changing (or, at least, was during the time you allude to).

There are many reasons why people who followed Judaism were driven from nation to nation, one of which is likely because their religion posited mono-theism, which contradicted other religions in that region. They were also largely a nomadic, dessert people in the earliest days. The fact that they worshipped in the manner that they did is secondary to their social status as slaves, however.

In other words, "they" didn't exist back then. Back then, "they" were just nomadic slaves indigenous to the region, who, as a result of their long-born oppression, developed their own mythology; a mythology that grew and allowed them (if Jewish history is correct) to band even tighter together and grow out of their bondage as a united group.

People often forget that Judaism isn't a race or species; there are just people who follow Judaism. Because the early Jews were of regional tribes, however, and because they were forced to bond together as a group due to their slave status (and likely inbreeding, as was de rigueur for all humanity at that time, as evidenced by the instructions in the OT to not sleep with one's sister), there is a common misnomer to equate a religion with a regional group of similar genetic lines.

In other words, "they" were first regional tribes who were enslaved and then their mythology was created (or further augmented by their oppressed status, which); the same mythology that gave birth to Christians, who, likewise (if Christian history is correct) bonded together against oppression and emerged as one group (that, as with Judaism, subsequently splintered into thousands of variations).

To trace this all the way back to when X must have intervened in PH's history, we're talking about sun gods and lightning gods and fire gods, etc.; all of which are arguably the genesis of later mythologies, including Judaism; a span of some tens of thousands of years, so the question has nothing to do with "modern" religions at all (unless you can account for an idealogy as yet unnamed that was imparted some forty to fifty thousand years ago that was this time-delayed morality code that resulted in modern religions).

Possibly, but, again, all we're so far talking about is the "special knowledge" of seamanship and how to reseed a once flooded region. Hardly religious or even a "morality code," yes? At least, not a new morality code, since the "do unto others" maxim would already be known by shear experience of a tribe surviving by relying upon the combined strength of its people.

If anything, it would have been the flood itself (and not necessarily X's intervention) that accounted for the reallization that such a calamity could befall PH (presumably the first time something that huge ever happened), so the lesson learned would have been learned axiomatically and the idea of a "benefactor in the sky" implanted as post facto retrospective.

So, at best, the ideology that I can see was formed by man after the rather benign intervention of a wayfaring astronaut, but more as a result of being saved from a cataclysm as yet not-experienced by PH. This is far more plausible to me than attributing any "mystical" (even if by implication) omnimax qualities to a travelling astronaut; more akin to you being deified by an anthill for scooping it up and putting it out of reach of your sprinklers.

What you are positing, however, is the far more complicated notion that you had somehow found the most intelligent ant and instructed it on how to build a ship that would allow a select group of ants to escape your sprinklers and that through this action, a new "ant" consciousness was born.

Well, again, if you keep relying on the OT, we're talking about the same thing. By the time of Noah, mankind had likewise progressed beyond the hunter/gatherer stage.

How? And keep in mind that PH tribes would already know of the benefit of banding together and relying upon special skill sets for the survival of the whole, so the concept of the golden rule would have already been in practice, if not actually stated as an ideology of the tribe.

Again, I can see how an early act of extreme altruism (though, again, I'm troubled by the idea that X "chose" who lived and who, ultimately, perished) as a basis for a retroactive projection of an ideal already in practice within the tribe, but this would be purely a human concoction and not necessarily anything to do with X's teachings on how to navigate a flood and reseed the region once the waters abated.

In other words, I can see how PH may have created a mythology based on a possible real-life event, but I don't see any necessarily "miraculous" quality to the event (X's intervention) itself.

Deconstruct it all down to specifics and we're still left with the question of X's ultimate existence. All this theory points to is a possible explanation for how the anthropomorphic god concept may have come into being, in a particular region and how that benevolent act (in the eyes of the survivors, of course) resulted in their mythologizing it all.

Except, that means the ability to build a boat and the seamnship teachings to navigate a flood lay dormant for thousands of years (as well as the domestication process).

As to the "moral implantation," I still don't see that attaining in anything X did, especially if the implantation (as you erroneously put it, IMO) occurred thousands of years prior to any cataclysmic event.

Again, you seem to now be saying that X implanted something (and not merely taught them something); implying some form of mind reading/manipulation ability. This would mean X implanted something in Noah's genetic line that would only be "activated" by Noah at the right time just prior to the flood that is to occur thousands of years after the implantation in Noah's genetic line.

How does implanting a concept of "right" and "wrong" result in Noah, thousands of years later, knowing how to build a boat and wheather the flood?

I'm afraid you keep going back and forth on certain things that tend to contradict each other, which is why I keep trying to deconstruct to the specifics.

Ok, but, again, deconstructing down to the specifcs, this means that Noah's ancestor (some forty to fifty thousand years prior) was merely passing along a moral code to live by. How does this translate into, "Build a boat 30 cubits by 40 cubits..." etc. and that only you and your tribe will survive?

Building a boat to survive a regional flood predicted some forty thousand years prior and passed along down Noah's line is not just implausible, but illogical. Why wouldn't X simply instruct all of PH to move away from the region to be flooded thousands of years in the future?

And, again, how does teaching PH "right" and "wrong" forty thousand some odd years ago (more so than they already practiced, btw) result in Noah, thousands of years hence, knowing it is time to build a boat?

Wouldn't the "right" and "wrong" that is taught Noah's line also mandate that Noah's family seek to move everybody from the region and save everybody and reject the notion of a "chosen" few as being "wrong?"

Wouldn't the idea that only Noah's line was given special knowledge also equate to an ultimate "wrongness" in proto-Noah's lineage?

Well, but, beside the fact that this is not necessarily the case when deconstructing down to the specifics, you didn't address the question of X's morality of choosing one genetic line to be spared, when it clearly has the ability to spare them all (by, among other things, simply instructing--or "implanting"--the PH tribes to move from that region hundreds of years before the flood).

Again, your theory implies necessarily that only Noah's genetic line would be capable of transferring the knowledge of "imminent flood" and "nautical seamanship to wheather it" and (although we can dispense with this one) "how to reseed the region after the waters abate."

None of which has anything to do with implanting "right" and "wrong" that I can see. Indeed, it contradicts it, since it is arguably "wrong" for Noah's genetic line to have kept this critical knowledge such a secret for so many hundreds or thousands of years.

Well, now, hold on there. This is your theory. There are no results since it hasn't been proved. You can't posit a theory and then say, "see, we survived therefore we must have been given special instructions,so my theory has been proved correct!"

Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc kills .

You keep slipping that in without justifying it. The "predispostion towards righteousness" is a meaningless phrase and implies that X is more concerned with moral terpitude in PH. But what moral terpitude was there in PH? PH knew only survival (both of the fittest, to some degree, but, more importantly of the tribe, which is why it banded together in the first place).

How was PH "unrighteous" and what do you mean by "righteousness?"

This implies, also, a standard of righteousness that was not being attained by PH. Who mandates this righteousness standard? Who is the judge? X? To what end? To appease X?

And why couldn't other animals attain righteousness, especially when positing an X with omnimax abilities?

This is what I mean by you going back and forth and contradicting yourself. If X implanted a change in man "towards righteousness" (whatever that means), then there's no reason to assume X couldn't implant a similar change in any other species. We are, for example, 99.6% identical to chimpanzees so far as genetics is concerned. Why wouldn't X be concerned with chimpanzee moral terpitude? Or scorpion moral terpitude? Or any of the other animals that were likewise motivated by instinct as PH was?

Why couldn't an X with omnimax abilities change that .4% in chimps just as easily as it could change whatever it is it changed in us?

If X were truly moral, wouldn't its own morality necessitate that it make such a change in every creature? If moral terpitude in creatures on an alien planet concerned X so, then why only select one tribe of one species?

Again, why man?

Candidate for what? For achieving a standard of "righteousness?" To what end? Why would X care about one species achieving "righteousness?" To serve X? To serve X's god?

And, again, exactly what do you mean by "righteousness?" Arguably with no intervention at all, PH had already established a standard of righteousness (the golden rule) as a necessity of survival. By and large, they had to do what was good for the tribe as a whole or the tribe would not survive.

That individuals within the tribe contravened this from time to time, thereby wiping out tribes and causing all sorts of short-term, non-beneficial "crimes" against the tribe does not cancel out the fact that a "meta" understanding (whether directly stated or simply extant as a result of experience) was not already in place within the tribal hierarchy.

I'm fairly certain that everything of your theory hinges on this aspect; the standard of righteousness, so I'd ask you to get as detailed as possible as to what this means to man, other animals excluded (and why) and, of course, to X.

Wouldn't such a priority be unwarranted, given both the time span involved as well as X's omnimax abilities (not to mention presumed moral absolutism)?

X has already decided, apparently, that the moral course of action is to intervene in order to save humanity from a future cataclysmic event. This means that animals are not important to X's morality, thereby rendering X's morality less than absolute. It is selective and specific only to man.

But why would this be so, if indeed X has omnimax abilities and, again, to what end? What does (specifically) mankind's "righteousness" have to do with X?

Again, it won't do to just wave this off with, "X moves in mysterious ways." This is your theory, so these questions must be sufficiently accounted for (if not directly answered), due to all of the contradictary and mutually exclusive elements.

Indeed, we've gone from a plausible scenario of a humanoid astronaut from another, more technologically advanced planet wishing to make sure like-ancestral creatures on this planet survive their first cataclysmic event, to an implantation of "standards of righteousness" that amount to little more than the golden rule, which, arguably, would already be in place on direct, pragmatic levels, if not indirectly in ideological musings.

The only motivation I can see for X teaching (not implanting, mind you, but teaching) anything along these lines would be akin to teaching our children proper table manners so that they integrate better in society once they grow up and join the larger human society, in which case, we're positing a vast human community out in the rest of the galaxy (at least) that X is simply preparing us for thousands of years later when we finally evolve to a similar state of technological advancement.

While plausible for speculation's sake, I still don't see anything miraculous or even "omnimax" about any of this, other than as a mistaken perception of PH as to what actually happened, nor, again, do I see how this provides any additional knowledge to the ultimate human condition or existential crisis.

This only accounts for what might have saved a local tribe from extinction (and the subsequent mythology they created after the fact).

Indeed .

You mean, other than what you a positing may have happened.

Then that axiomatically rules out X's superior morality.

I certainly would and do .

No, since we're necessarily not discussing biblical history as any kind of specific talisman. What had to have happened, according to your theory, is that X (contrary to its own presumed moral code) selectively chose a tribe thousands of years prior to anything written about in biblical accounts (when no such "economy of intervention" was necessary), and, as it stands, randomly decided that only this tribe of animals from a specific species (out of the many billions of others) shall receive special implantation of certain table manners relevant only to X's apparently future concerns, not already in formation within the tribe's natural sense of "golden rule."

Further, any "standard of righteousness" does not appear to have been "implanted" necessarily, as it would come naturally as a result of man's reflection and interpretation of any possible intervention by X in regard to helping PH survive the regional flood.

It's the specifics that are required and the specifics don't seem to attain in the more general assumptions you're making, primarily because, as I see it, you are trying to justify (or answer for) a biblical historical record; trying to make your theory coincide with biblical mythology (and not just god-concept mythology in general; re: sun gods and water gods, etc., but with the specific Judeo-Christian mythology).

While plausible that such an intervention as the one I deconstructed (humanoid astronaut X saves a regional tribe from extinction forty to fifty thousand years ago) would eventually result in god-concept mythologies (such as the mono-theism of Judaism and even the pantheism of Chistianity) being projected back onto that one alleged event, I don't see how the "implantation" of "righteousness" standards necessarily attains in any of that.

It seems much more plausible (and likely) that the hypothetical event merely triggered the mythology; that the event itself was nothing more miraculous than you teaching your son or daughter not to touch a burning stove (for example) and that any post mythologizing was entirely the construct of mankind in trying to reconcile what had occurred.

I'll have to review it. Was that presented in this post or in one of the others I redacted for brevity? I didn't see any objective moral pattern line of reasoning in this particular post.