Right, but I would say that reason is what is innate, not morality, and that morality is an emergent property of reason.
...Nature/nurture is a red herring? Wow. There are a whole lot of people studying genomes and twins and finding out all kinds of fascinating things who will be quite surprised when you tell them that.
I agree with the first part, but you said it better.
As for the second, I just think the idea that our behavior is determined by one and therefore exclusive of the other I think is perfectly false. BTW, I'm a twin, so maybe that's why I think the dichotomy is bunk.
No. No instinct about wrong and right. Moral judgments are just that judgments. This is a specious argument but we would call them something else if they didn't involve some thought.
Right, but I would say that reason is what is innate, not morality, and that morality is an emergent property of reason.
I could almost agree with this. Not necessarily reason per se, but merely the ability to associate to fellow people. I'm not sure one can call that reason. I think our reasoning abilities aren't fully formed until after we're raised in a group.
Quote:
I'm not sure I buy the idea that there's all that much evolutionary pressure to be nice.
Being nice is just one of the many strategies for survival. Since it appears to work, we all live within a group of one type or another, we can say that there is evolutionary pressure for it. A person can be the meanest and most selfish person around, but they still must be able to associate with others to survive.
Even in the prisoner's game dilemma, I'm not even sure what that is actually, the prisoners must band together to rule the roost.
But then, these are misleading terms for a discussion that is philosophical and theological (I see no distinction between the two).
You would be better to ask, do you believe in the Fall? Do you believe in Sin? How about fallen nature? As Paul said in his letter to the Christians in Rome:
Rom 7:15-19__For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
It's not just a question of "knowing" what is right and wrong, but doing it. Believe me, I have four children--a study in fallen nature if I ever saw one. My three-year-old KNOWS he isn't supposed to jump off the couch, but he'll still do it if he thinks he can get away with it.
Here's a good description of the PD game. The basic idea is that if you cooperate with others, you can do pretty well, but if you screw them over you can do better. The problem is that they will retaliate, and you'll both be worse off in the end. So although aggressiveness seems better, with a little forethought (or experience) it's easy to see that cooperation is really better because then people won't screw you back.
That why I'm saying it takes a rational appraisal to see that situation; if you're just all "id" then you might just do what feels good or gets immediate gratification, even if it's self-destructive in the long-run.
Being nice may be one strategy to survive, but it just seems like there is so much pressure to use so many not-so-nice strategies that people should be pretty mean overall. And looked at one way, perhaps people are pretty nasty, with our rates of murder, theft, adultery, war, cheating, etc. And I would guess that it's our laws that keep it as low as it is, not our evolutionary heritage.
Why shouldn't I murder my rivals for my mate, and then cheat and steal to provide resources for my offspring? Evolutionarily, I probably should. But our laws and my rational appraisal of what would happen to me if I did prevent me from doing so.
Do you know the story of Kaspar Hauser, a boy that was raised in complete isolation?
the Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser: or, Every Man for Himself and God Against All is a great movie by the great fimmaker Werner Herzog
It's low budget and experimental but it is great
as for this couch-jumping/instinct fall story . . . that's really a very terrible example of supposed 'morality' . . . whether or not a child obeys parantal strictures?! come on . . .
Morality/Ethics . . as for Ethics: (I dare you to follow me through this!) it is a part of human-being, but, I would not reduce it to 'instincts'
To do so is to ground your description in scientific disciplines that are not themselves absolutely grounded. and who's judgements are descriptive and NOT Ontological,
whereas ethics is Ontological at its very core:
'Ontology' means that it is about the Being of beings: meaning that it is not about the particualar this-and-that of something but about its very existence at all. --you can substitute 'Philosophical' where I write Ontological though ordinarily that wouldn't hold water. . .
Ethics is ontological in that it is fundamentaly about our relations to others and even to Otherness-in-general: all that is 'Not-Us' . . .
and since we are essentially defined by what we are not (a cup, for instance, is defined by its empty space), Ethics is also about our relationship to ourselves
This is a fundamental condition: we are always in relationship to 'Not-Us' -and, at a deeper level, we ARE our relationship to that Otherness . . . our selfhood, our fundamental self-definition, is a dynamic of this relationship
Since we always and immediately are in a state of relatedness-to-Otherness we are in a Moral relationship:
I think that we come to feel this relatedness when we develop an Idea of the 'Self' -after all it is part of the process of defining selfhood to diferentiate self and Other
It is part and parcel of how a self comes to be formed: through being in relationship to Otherness
BRussel is partially right in that we are given this condition, knowing Otherness as we know ourselves, and then we extrapolate from that condition using 'Reason" --at least that is a primary method of developing a code of ethics
I agree that Reason develops different Ethical codes, via pragmatics (and the co=operation 'Game' and survival tactics etc) but I think that, fundamentally, the sense of Otherness that we feel is Prior to the Reasoning faculties . . . and develops coterminous with the coming into being of Selfhood
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
-A consequence of this radical Otherness is that, since we develop an understanding of it as we develo a 'Self' and get our self-bearings therein, we can NOT ever KNOW our self . . . because, at our core we are relatedness to an ever receding infinite Otherness . . .
at this point you can start to see where meditation on the Ontological (meaning, basic to Being) nature of Otherness can lead to theological realms . . . or rather, and more apt in my mind, to Philosophical/mystical realms of thought
Because you're a smart-ass extraordinaire ( )......one of my favorite kinds of students. (Of course, I could never tell THEM that!) They're almost always the brightest, most imaginative, most creative, most lively kid in the room - with the best sense of humor. Love'em. Teaching is a delight when those kids are around. Though for me, teaching is always a delight.
Incidentally, as by way of punishment for my smart-arse ways, I became an Educational Psychologist.
What a numbskull I is....
Ps
I ended up becoming a lecturer at university.
( See how the punishment fits the crime....)
So, you WERE a smart-ass kid. See, what'd I tell ya?
I can spot a smart-ass kid a mile away. Even when they're all grown up (like you).
I thought you said somewhere you were into art and writing?
In a million years, I would never have imagined that you were (a) an educational psychologist, or (b) a university lecturer. (You don't seem serious enough, I guess.)
I think, as punishment for your sins, YOU should spend a week teaching 7th grade, and get a taste of your own medicine. Of course, you would probably fit right in with the students, because you're still a teenager at heart, right?
the Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser: or, Every Man for Himself and God Against All is a great movie by the great fimmaker Werner Herzog
It's low budget and experimental but it is great
as for this couch-jumping/instinct fall story . . . that's really a very terrible example of supposed 'morality' . . . whether or not a child obeys parantal strictures?! come on . . .
Morality/Ethics . . as for Ethics: (I dare you to follow me through this!) it is a part of human-being, but, I would not reduce it to 'instincts'
To do so is to ground your description in scientific disciplines that are not themselves absolutely grounded. and who's judgements are descriptive and NOT Ontological,
whereas ethics is Ontological at its very core:
'Ontology' means that it is about the Being of beings: meaning that it is not about the particualar this-and-that of something but about its very existence at all. --you can substitute 'Philosophical' where I write Ontological though ordinarily that wouldn't hold water. . .
Ethics is ontological in that it is fundamentaly about our relations to others and even to Otherness-in-general: all that is 'Not-Us' . . .
and since we are essentially defined by what we are not (a cup, for instance, is defined by its empty space), Ethics is also about our relationship to ourselves
This is a fundamental condition: we are always in relationship to 'Not-Us' -and, at a deeper level, we ARE our relationship to that Otherness . . . our selfhood, our fundamental self-definition, is a dynamic of this relationship
Since we always and immediately are in a state of relatedness-to-Otherness we are in a Moral relationship:
I think that we come to feel this relatedness when we develop an Idea of the 'Self' -after all it is part of the process of defining selfhood to diferentiate self and Other
It is part and parcel of how a self comes to be formed: through being in relationship to Otherness
BRussel is partially right in that we are given this condition, knowing Otherness as we know ourselves, and then we extrapolate from that condition using 'Reason" --at least that is a primary method of developing a code of ethics
I agree that Reason develops different Ethical codes, via pragmatics (and the co=operation 'Game' and survival tactics etc) but I think that, fundamentally, the sense of Otherness that we feel is Prior to the Reasoning faculties . . . and develops coterminous with the coming into being of Selfhood
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
-A consequence of this radical Otherness is that, since we develop an understanding of it as we develo a 'Self' and get our self-bearings therein, we can NOT ever KNOW our self . . . because, at our core we are relatedness to an ever receding infinite Otherness . . .
at this point you can start to see where meditation on the Ontological (meaning, basic to Being) nature of Otherness can lead to theological realms . . . or rather, and more apt in my mind, to Philosophical/mystical realms of thought
pfflam this is right on the money. We are who we are based on what we learn from others. When we give to others they in turn give to us. By being selfless we find what self is all about.
Very intellignet words you bring forward.. Bravo Bravo
Very funny, but you pointed out something very important : the dog teached something to the boy, the dog code of life wich has is own values in order to live in the dog's society.
Man society is different, but will share some points (sniffing bottoms for example ).
There is no instinct of right or wrong in any living being, but any living being have the instinct of love/hate. If people are seeking love, they will try to act the right way to reach it (they will try to do good), if they seek hate, they will do everything in order to gain it.
but right and wrong, is a human code, varying between societies. You have to learn this code.
Think about a tribe that considers cannibalism as normal. You can call them backward or whatever, but their perception of right and wrong is different from yours.
There is no natural instinct about 'right' or 'wrong'.
Very funny, but you pointed out something very important : the dog teached something to the boy, the dog code of life wich has is own values in order to live in the dog's society.
I would add, that sniffing bottoms is a very nice social activity..up there with picking nits out of one's hair.
Shame that we lost something of our doggy ways..
As for me. I trot through life like a dog with two tails.
( which makes me twice as happy and twice as confused. )
Ps Carol,
Yes I am into art & writing as well.
I have been lucky enough to be rendered unemployed at various times in my life, so like a smart arse kid that I've been at heart, I decided to take up writing as well as painting rather than watching boring old TeeVee...
I won't reveal what has been published of mine, but rest assured you could probably buy a copy or three ( make me rich pleeeze ) at your local childrens' bookstore.
PS if your curious just PM me.
Only one or two other people on these boards know who I really am....
I would add, that sniffing bottoms is a very nice social activity..up there with picking nits out of one's hair.
Shame that we lost something of our doggy ways..
As for me. I trot through life like a dog with two tails.
( which makes me twice as happy and twice as confused. )
Ps Carol,
Yes I am into art & writing as well.
I have been lucky enough to be rendered unemployed at various times in my life, so like a smart arse kid that I've been at heart, I decided to take up writing as well as painting rather than watching boring old TeeVee...
I won't reveal what has been published of mine, but rest assured you could probably buy a copy or three ( make me rich pleeeze ) at your local childrens' bookstore.
PS if your curious just PM me.
Only one or two other people on these boards know who I really am....
And I trust them as regards my private persona.
PPS...Never judge a look by its laughter...
( think about it )
Aqua
Don't be silly, Aqua, tell everypeople or keep it for you. " i am a edited author, but i won't give you my name "
PS : you'd better not translate your sentance " I trot though like a dog with two tails (wich makes me twice happy and twice confused)" in french. In french slang tails means cock . In a way the french version makes a lot of sense.
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
Mommy! Pfflam is trying to foreclose the radically open nature of my Otherness! Make him stop!
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
That gives a whole new meaning to the words...
" Eat the rich "
Recent genetic evidence links them to modern Lawyers, Politicians & Used Car dealers.
Aqua
I bet you were HELL for your teachers in 7th grade!!!!!
C'mon......tell the truth; you were, weren't you.
Originally posted by BRussell
Right, but I would say that reason is what is innate, not morality, and that morality is an emergent property of reason.
...Nature/nurture is a red herring? Wow. There are a whole lot of people studying genomes and twins and finding out all kinds of fascinating things who will be quite surprised when you tell them that.
I agree with the first part, but you said it better.
As for the second, I just think the idea that our behavior is determined by one and therefore exclusive of the other I think is perfectly false. BTW, I'm a twin, so maybe that's why I think the dichotomy is bunk.
Originally posted by BRussell
Right, but I would say that reason is what is innate, not morality, and that morality is an emergent property of reason.
I could almost agree with this. Not necessarily reason per se, but merely the ability to associate to fellow people. I'm not sure one can call that reason. I think our reasoning abilities aren't fully formed until after we're raised in a group.
I'm not sure I buy the idea that there's all that much evolutionary pressure to be nice.
Being nice is just one of the many strategies for survival. Since it appears to work, we all live within a group of one type or another, we can say that there is evolutionary pressure for it. A person can be the meanest and most selfish person around, but they still must be able to associate with others to survive.
Even in the prisoner's game dilemma, I'm not even sure what that is actually, the prisoners must band together to rule the roost.
But then, these are misleading terms for a discussion that is philosophical and theological (I see no distinction between the two).
You would be better to ask, do you believe in the Fall? Do you believe in Sin? How about fallen nature? As Paul said in his letter to the Christians in Rome:
Rom 7:15-19__For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that [it is] good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
It's not just a question of "knowing" what is right and wrong, but doing it. Believe me, I have four children--a study in fallen nature if I ever saw one. My three-year-old KNOWS he isn't supposed to jump off the couch, but he'll still do it if he thinks he can get away with it.
Rom 19:4332 "He who hath smelt it most certainly hath dealt it."
Here's a good description of the PD game. The basic idea is that if you cooperate with others, you can do pretty well, but if you screw them over you can do better. The problem is that they will retaliate, and you'll both be worse off in the end. So although aggressiveness seems better, with a little forethought (or experience) it's easy to see that cooperation is really better because then people won't screw you back.
That why I'm saying it takes a rational appraisal to see that situation; if you're just all "id" then you might just do what feels good or gets immediate gratification, even if it's self-destructive in the long-run.
Being nice may be one strategy to survive, but it just seems like there is so much pressure to use so many not-so-nice strategies that people should be pretty mean overall. And looked at one way, perhaps people are pretty nasty, with our rates of murder, theft, adultery, war, cheating, etc. And I would guess that it's our laws that keep it as low as it is, not our evolutionary heritage.
Why shouldn't I murder my rivals for my mate, and then cheat and steal to provide resources for my offspring? Evolutionarily, I probably should. But our laws and my rational appraisal of what would happen to me if I did prevent me from doing so.
Originally posted by GSpotter
Do you know the story of Kaspar Hauser, a boy that was raised in complete isolation?
the Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser: or, Every Man for Himself and God Against All is a great movie by the great fimmaker Werner Herzog
It's low budget and experimental but it is great
as for this couch-jumping/instinct fall story . . . that's really a very terrible example of supposed 'morality' . . . whether or not a child obeys parantal strictures?! come on . . .
Morality/Ethics . . as for Ethics: (I dare you to follow me through this!) it is a part of human-being, but, I would not reduce it to 'instincts'
To do so is to ground your description in scientific disciplines that are not themselves absolutely grounded. and who's judgements are descriptive and NOT Ontological,
whereas ethics is Ontological at its very core:
'Ontology' means that it is about the Being of beings: meaning that it is not about the particualar this-and-that of something but about its very existence at all. --you can substitute 'Philosophical' where I write Ontological though ordinarily that wouldn't hold water. . .
Ethics is ontological in that it is fundamentaly about our relations to others and even to Otherness-in-general: all that is 'Not-Us' . . .
and since we are essentially defined by what we are not (a cup, for instance, is defined by its empty space), Ethics is also about our relationship to ourselves
This is a fundamental condition: we are always in relationship to 'Not-Us' -and, at a deeper level, we ARE our relationship to that Otherness . . . our selfhood, our fundamental self-definition, is a dynamic of this relationship
Since we always and immediately are in a state of relatedness-to-Otherness we are in a Moral relationship:
I think that we come to feel this relatedness when we develop an Idea of the 'Self' -after all it is part of the process of defining selfhood to diferentiate self and Other
It is part and parcel of how a self comes to be formed: through being in relationship to Otherness
BRussel is partially right in that we are given this condition, knowing Otherness as we know ourselves, and then we extrapolate from that condition using 'Reason" --at least that is a primary method of developing a code of ethics
I agree that Reason develops different Ethical codes, via pragmatics (and the co=operation 'Game' and survival tactics etc) but I think that, fundamentally, the sense of Otherness that we feel is Prior to the Reasoning faculties . . . and develops coterminous with the coming into being of Selfhood
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
-A consequence of this radical Otherness is that, since we develop an understanding of it as we develo a 'Self' and get our self-bearings therein, we can NOT ever KNOW our self . . . because, at our core we are relatedness to an ever receding infinite Otherness . . .
at this point you can start to see where meditation on the Ontological (meaning, basic to Being) nature of Otherness can lead to theological realms . . . or rather, and more apt in my mind, to Philosophical/mystical realms of thought
Originally posted by Carol A
I bet you were HELL for your teachers in 7th grade!!!!!
C'mon......tell the truth; you were, weren't you.
Now why would you think that Carol.....?
Originally posted by Aquafire
Now why would you think that Carol.....?
Because you're a smart-ass extraordinaire (
I can't help it if I am brite...derrrr
Incidentally, as by way of punishment for my smart-arse ways, I became an Educational Psychologist.
What a numbskull I is....
Ps
I ended up becoming a lecturer at university.
( See how the punishment fits the crime....)
Originally posted by Aquafire
Haha,
I can't help it if I am brite...derrrr
Incidentally, as by way of punishment for my smart-arse ways, I became an Educational Psychologist.
What a numbskull I is....
Ps
I ended up becoming a lecturer at university.
( See how the punishment fits the crime....)
So, you WERE a smart-ass kid. See, what'd I tell ya?
I can spot a smart-ass kid a mile away. Even when they're all grown up (like you).
I thought you said somewhere you were into art and writing?
In a million years, I would never have imagined that you were (a) an educational psychologist, or (b) a university lecturer. (You don't seem serious enough, I guess.)
I think, as punishment for your sins, YOU should spend a week teaching 7th grade, and get a taste of your own medicine.
(I can say that because I am too. It helps.
Originally posted by pfflam
the Enigma Of Kaspar Hauser: or, Every Man for Himself and God Against All is a great movie by the great fimmaker Werner Herzog
It's low budget and experimental but it is great
as for this couch-jumping/instinct fall story . . . that's really a very terrible example of supposed 'morality' . . . whether or not a child obeys parantal strictures?! come on . . .
Morality/Ethics . . as for Ethics: (I dare you to follow me through this!) it is a part of human-being, but, I would not reduce it to 'instincts'
To do so is to ground your description in scientific disciplines that are not themselves absolutely grounded. and who's judgements are descriptive and NOT Ontological,
whereas ethics is Ontological at its very core:
'Ontology' means that it is about the Being of beings: meaning that it is not about the particualar this-and-that of something but about its very existence at all. --you can substitute 'Philosophical' where I write Ontological though ordinarily that wouldn't hold water. . .
Ethics is ontological in that it is fundamentaly about our relations to others and even to Otherness-in-general: all that is 'Not-Us' . . .
and since we are essentially defined by what we are not (a cup, for instance, is defined by its empty space), Ethics is also about our relationship to ourselves
This is a fundamental condition: we are always in relationship to 'Not-Us' -and, at a deeper level, we ARE our relationship to that Otherness . . . our selfhood, our fundamental self-definition, is a dynamic of this relationship
Since we always and immediately are in a state of relatedness-to-Otherness we are in a Moral relationship:
I think that we come to feel this relatedness when we develop an Idea of the 'Self' -after all it is part of the process of defining selfhood to diferentiate self and Other
It is part and parcel of how a self comes to be formed: through being in relationship to Otherness
BRussel is partially right in that we are given this condition, knowing Otherness as we know ourselves, and then we extrapolate from that condition using 'Reason" --at least that is a primary method of developing a code of ethics
I agree that Reason develops different Ethical codes, via pragmatics (and the co=operation 'Game' and survival tactics etc) but I think that, fundamentally, the sense of Otherness that we feel is Prior to the Reasoning faculties . . . and develops coterminous with the coming into being of Selfhood
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
-A consequence of this radical Otherness is that, since we develop an understanding of it as we develo a 'Self' and get our self-bearings therein, we can NOT ever KNOW our self . . . because, at our core we are relatedness to an ever receding infinite Otherness . . .
at this point you can start to see where meditation on the Ontological (meaning, basic to Being) nature of Otherness can lead to theological realms . . . or rather, and more apt in my mind, to Philosophical/mystical realms of thought
pfflam this is right on the money. We are who we are based on what we learn from others. When we give to others they in turn give to us. By being selfless we find what self is all about.
Very intellignet words you bring forward.. Bravo Bravo
Fellows
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Get a room.
Take your medication, DC.
Originally posted by Aquafire
Golden rules for humans raised by Doggy Wog.
No fighting over bones.
No biting the paw that feeds you.
All noses to be kept wet.
Sniffing bottoms is vital for friendship sake.
Very funny, but you pointed out something very important : the dog teached something to the boy, the dog code of life wich has is own values in order to live in the dog's society.
Man society is different, but will share some points (sniffing bottoms for example
There is no instinct of right or wrong in any living being, but any living being have the instinct of love/hate. If people are seeking love, they will try to act the right way to reach it (they will try to do good), if they seek hate, they will do everything in order to gain it.
but right and wrong, is a human code, varying between societies. You have to learn this code.
As an example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3409859.stm
Think about a tribe that considers cannibalism as normal. You can call them backward or whatever, but their perception of right and wrong is different from yours.
There is no natural instinct about 'right' or 'wrong'.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Very funny, but you pointed out something very important : the dog teached something to the boy, the dog code of life wich has is own values in order to live in the dog's society.
I would add, that sniffing bottoms is a very nice social activity..up there with picking nits out of one's hair.
Shame that we lost something of our doggy ways..
As for me. I trot through life like a dog with two tails.
( which makes me twice as happy and twice as confused.
Ps Carol,
Yes I am into art & writing as well.
I have been lucky enough to be rendered unemployed at various times in my life, so like a smart arse kid that I've been at heart, I decided to take up writing as well as painting rather than watching boring old TeeVee...
I won't reveal what has been published of mine, but rest assured you could probably buy a copy or three ( make me rich pleeeze ) at your local childrens' bookstore.
PS if your curious just PM me.
Only one or two other people on these boards know who I really am....
And I trust them as regards my private persona.
PPS...Never judge a look by its laughter...
( think about it )
Aqua
Originally posted by Aquafire
I would add, that sniffing bottoms is a very nice social activity..up there with picking nits out of one's hair.
Shame that we lost something of our doggy ways..
As for me. I trot through life like a dog with two tails.
( which makes me twice as happy and twice as confused.
Ps Carol,
Yes I am into art & writing as well.
I have been lucky enough to be rendered unemployed at various times in my life, so like a smart arse kid that I've been at heart, I decided to take up writing as well as painting rather than watching boring old TeeVee...
I won't reveal what has been published of mine, but rest assured you could probably buy a copy or three ( make me rich pleeeze ) at your local childrens' bookstore.
PS if your curious just PM me.
Only one or two other people on these boards know who I really am....
And I trust them as regards my private persona.
PPS...Never judge a look by its laughter...
( think about it )
Aqua
Don't be silly, Aqua, tell everypeople or keep it for you. " i am a edited author, but i won't give you my name
PS : you'd better not translate your sentance " I trot though like a dog with two tails (wich makes me twice happy and twice confused)" in french. In french slang tails means cock
Originally posted by pfflam
I also think that this sense of Otherness that is coterminous with 'Self' is not reducible to Reason in the same way that it is not reducible to 'instinct' . . . such a reduction forecloses the radically Open nature of Otherness: ie; It is always beyond this-and-that in other words it is one further than whatever otherness you can point to . .
Mommy! Pfflam is trying to foreclose the radically open nature of my Otherness! Make him stop!