Morality: Introducing the silver rule for discussion

[beaverpr]

I could not have imagined a forum as attractive as this one, and may dedicate lots of time to it. However, in my first fifteen minutes, I found a statement I do not think is correct: most religions support the golden rule. Not only do I think this is not a true statement, I think supporting the golden rule weakens humankind. Most people want privacy--want to live in peace according to their own opinions and harmless traditions.

I think the golden rule (ca. 70) is responsible for a great deal of the animosity and violence that occurs in the world. The golden rule contains two aggressive/offensive elements: first, it directs the doer to act on the life of the other party; second, it does not advocate considering the opinions of the other party.

The silver rule (ca. 560 B.C.E.) is preferred, because it cautions the doer not to practice hypocrisy in relationships with the other party and encourages respect for privacy.

The silver rule is easily found by googling "silver rule" + Confucius, to find, for example, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/confucius.html. Quoting the text, "In the Analects, Confucius summarizes the principle of Jen in this statement, often called The Silver Rule: 'Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Analects 15:23) Li provides the structure for social interaction. Jen makes it a moral system."

The site, http://www.truthbook.com/worldreligioustexts.htm, lists rules from thirteen institutions, only two of which assert the golden rule: Christianity and Jainism. Perhaps authors of the cite are not aware of the label, “silver rule.” The iron rule, “never do for another what he/she can do for self,” I understand completes the “metal rules” of societies. I have not researched the source of the iron rule.

I speculate authors of the book of Matthew, well aware of Judaic and Zoroastrian silver rules, perceived conflict between the sliver rule and the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20) and therefore modified the cautionary silver rule to the aggressive golden rule (Matt 7:12).

I share this information and my opinions about it to happily learn the opinions of other thoughtful people.

[haselhurst]

Hello Beaverpr,

Thanks for writing to us and then posting here. Greatly appreciated.

You have made me more aware of an important distinction between the;

Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.

Silver Rule - Do NOT unto others as you would NOT have done to yourself.

A few comments (need to think more about this).

1. The Silver rule is deduced from the Golden rule - so Golden rule is more comprehensive. Your point is that this further positive aspect (of doing to others) leads to problems (imposing your point of view on others, instead of leaving them alone).

2. The reason why I like the Golden Rule is that 'Do unto others' relates very much to the foundations of metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality) thus the 'other' is really a part of the 'self' (we are universal structures, the discrete body of 'self' is an illusion). Thus it is impossible to just limit actions to yourself, everything we think and do has some effect (however tiny, and perhaps at times substantial though unintended).
So to me the Golden rule is more consistent with physical reality.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-dynamic-unity-reality.htm

I also tend to agree with your point, that where possible it is often best to leave others alone, to live freely without imposing your thoughts and actions on others. But truth and reality do come into play here.

e.g. If someone was ignorant of the truth (that you knew the truth) and thus was acting in a way that was harmful to themselves (or others, inadvertently due to ignorance), the silver rule would say not to act, the golden rule would say to act.
This relates to Burke quote;
"For evil to succeed the good must simply do nothing."
To me this is the problem with the silver rule.

My 'solution' is to abide by the golden rule, but it must be founded on the truth. Thus truth and reality become central aspects of morality (rather than past beliefs / myths / customs).

Anyway, just my early thoughts to a very important concept - human morality!
Look forward to your further thoughts.
Sincerely,
Geoff

PS - A few quotes from the Dynamic Unity of reality page;

'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.'
(Erwin Schrodinger)

'In Indian philosophy, the main terms used by Hindus and Buddhists have dynamic connotations. The word Brahman is derived from the Sanskrit root brih - to grow- and thus suggests a reality which is dynamic and alive. The Upanishads refer to Brahman as 'this unformed, immortal, moving', thus associating it with motion even though it transcends all forms.' The Rig Veda uses another term to express the dynamic character of the universe, the term Rita. This word comes from the root ri- to move. In its phenomenal aspect, the cosmic One is thus intrinsically dynamic, and the apprehension of its dynamic nature is basic to all schools of Eastern mysticism. They all emphasize that the universe has to be grasped dynamically, as it moves, vibrates and dances. ... The Eastern mystics see the universe as an inseparable web, whose interconnections are dynamic and not static. The cosmic web is alive; it moves and grows and changes continually.' (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, 1972)

'The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it.' (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980)

[karene]

Hi there,

Nice to hear from you!
For now I am just posting the quotes I collected yesterday for others to read.

The Golden Rule:
'Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.' (All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1)

The Silver Rule:
'Do not do to others what you would not like yourself.' (Confucius, Analects 12:2)

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. ( Udana-Varga 5,1)

Islam: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Mahabharata 5,1517)

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 3id)

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5)

[beaverpr]

Hello, Karene and Geoff,
Our dialogue is rich. Let me summarize, refine, and organize.
The site states most religions support the golden rule (GR), and I called attention to the silver rule (SR). My underlying thesis is: “Most people want privacy--want to live in peace according to their own opinions and harmless traditions.”

Phil’s points:
GR facts
Created in about 70 by New Testament authors, not Jesus
Advocated by minority; only Christian religion and Jainism philosophy
GR effects – aggression:
Encourages a believer to intervene in the life of a non-believer
Ignores the opinions of the non-believer
GR speculation
Derived from silver rule to accommodate Christianity’s Great Commission
SR facts
Created earlier than ca. 560 B.C.E. (Confucius’ records)
Advocated by several religions/philosophies preceding Christianity
Now advocated by the majority of religious/philosophical institutions
SR effects – peace
Encourages all people to refrain from mistreating other people
Encourages all people to grant other people their rights to opinion
Goals implied in my thesis:
Grant people the right to live in peace according to personal opinion
Harmful behavior is handled by the rule of law
Grant humans the right to preserve harmless traditions.
Geoff’s points as I perceive them:
The SR is deduced from the GR.
The GR supports the metaphysics of physical reality.
Truth and reality support the GR.
Citing Burke, rule of law is not sufficient to combat evil: we must apply the GR.
Truth and reality should rise above beliefs, myths, and customs.
The important concept here is human morality:
Humans struggle with perceptions and allusions of division of unity.
The universe is dynamic.
The notion of preserving traditions leads to conflict, waste, and despair.
Karene kindly quoted some of the ancient statements of the SR.

Phil responds:
Agreements on definitions are needed.
Deduced: derived as a conclusion from something known or assumed.
Truth: true or real state of a matter.
Reality: the state or quality of being real.
Real: true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
Physical: of or pertaining to the body or that which is material.
Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is always intimately connected with epistemology.
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
Virtue: moral excellence.
Believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. [It seems that commitment is implied in the above definition, and some definitions include it.]
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty.

Phil’s comments on these bases:
Quoting John M. Barry (Rising Tide, Simon & Schuster, 1997, p. 90), “One can reach truth no more than one can reach infinity.” It seems humankind thinks we have evolved over about seven million years, and we advance knowledge and understanding exponentially (my statement of the growth rate seems staggeringly inadequate, since the bulk of the advancement occurred in decades if not years). (Knowledge and understanding devour doctrine.) Nevertheless, we cannot today imagine what we, as surviving individuals, may know in only ten years.
To adopt beliefs in the face of humankind’s expanding understanding seems like folly, to say the least, and aggression against truth and thereby humankind, to say the most. Thus, for one human to presume to impose his/her opinions on another human seems intellectually aggressive. The historical evidence seems to indicate that the quickest way to invite violence is to belittle another person’s opinion, inspiration, or sources of inspiration. Therefore, by social contract, humankind chooses the rule of law to address behavior, but declines to judge members’ opinions or inspiration; it is up to the individual to either accommodate the rule of law or suffer enforcement.
To cite a currently vital illustration of these principles, I longed (during the negotiations with Iraquis for support for the invasion to oust Saddam Hussain) to be a negotiator representing President Bush, because I perceived no one in the administration respected the opinions of the Iraquis. The Protestant administration under President Bush is guided by the golden rule, which holds no respect for the other party’s opinions. Even today, America’s greatest tyranny may be freedom of religion: people need freedom of thought. Non-believers have the right to live in peace, and America denies that right.
The SR does not advocate ignoring people’s requests for help or obvious needs for help, such as offering instruction on how to float when two of you are naked in the ocean with not hope to swim to shore. However, in no case would SR allow one to impose personal opinion on the other: GR advocates imposing opinion.
Thank you, Karene and Geoff, for such quick, inviting responses to my input. I look forward to your additional opinions and apologize if I have erred in understanding your prior feedback.
Regards,
Phil

[haselhurst]

Hi Phil,
Don't give up on us! A reply is coming - just busy at moment catching up on emails and getting back into work after having some time off (and we are just starting to employ 2 people to help with work / promotion of our website / WSM, so I need time to organise things for them).
But morality is interesting and important - will try and reply in detail over next week.
Thanks for your patience!
Cheers,
Geoff

PS - Perhaps you can think a bit about the following divisions (which I do not think you have fully considered).

Morality founded on;
i) Golden rule founded on myth / customs (which you do not like).
ii) Golden rule founded on truth and reality (only now possible IMO).
iii) Silver rule founded on myth / customs (your preference).
iv) Silver rule founded on truth and reality (also only now possible IMO).

[beaverpr]

Geoff, Thank you for the update. Let me say I am in no hurry when it comes to such an important subject. As you continue, please consider that I see no way to apply thoughts of mythology and convention to the silver rule. IMO, it is a practice based on truth. Take, for example, approaching someone to inquire as to whether or not they are a Christian. No human feels compelled to respond to another human in such an inquisition: there's a tendancy to respond bluntly, for example, saying, "My religion is not your affair." To take the case a step further, no one would want to respond to the statement, "Well, putting your religion aside, may I ask if you are saved by the precious blood of Jesus?" I focus on the Great Commission because of my assumption it is the inspiration for the aggressive golden rule.

Turning to a physical example, two men went for a swim in the ocean with only their bathing suits and the boat driver, thinking they could swim to shore, left them. After swimming for twenty minutes, they both realized they were drifing out to sea and too tired for more swimming. One of the two knew the art of floating: you reverse the normal breathing pattern, so that you take in air and hold it then exhale quickly and quickly inhale to full capacity. The technique maintains maximum body bouency. The trainee tries it a few times and the three foot waves sometimes break over his head during the inhalation. He becomes frantic and considers giving up. But he considers what would happen if his friend became incapacitated: he imagines drowning trying to save his friend. His determination is renewed, and he struggles to learn to float and does so for forty-five minutes. Thus, he did not place the trainer in jeopordy by not learning to float, and in the process saved both their lives. In a further consideration, if he had given up, he would have placed the trainer in the position of having to decide whether to save himself or not.

Last, but not least, is the question of strong people enslaving weak people. The golden rule allows such enslavement (as evidenced by the Bible's approval of slavery), but the silver rule does not.

It is difficult for me to apply mythology to the silver rule; perhaps you could give me an example to work with.

Best regards,
Phil

[Chris Wright]

I don't see that either the GR or the SR could be founded on 'truth' in the sense of metaphysical reality.
Your reasoning for this (correct me if I'm wrong) is that individuality is an illusion, since there is no fundamental distinction between two apparently separate people, threfore 'do unto others' becomes equivalent 'do unto yourself', so the GR is tautological, true by definition.
But this rule, by nature, is a command form, and a command presupposes a separation between individuals ('you do this'). To work with the idea that I = you just doesn't make sense: morality is all about individual responsibility! What does 'what I want' mean if 'I' is meaningless?
So, for instance, although Schopenhauer would say that individuality is illusory - that is because the whole phenomenal world is illusory, for him. Morality would be on that same level - part of the phenonmenal world, so it would operate via individuality, just as, say, pay-packets or communication do!
If you respond that you disagree with me, then - implicity - you are admitting a distinction between us, surely?

[beaverpr]

I assume Chris's post is not addressed to me--Phil.

However, I would like to comment that "mataphysical reality" seems to me contradictory. I can understand metaphysical entity. For example, pluto cow is a metaphsical entity, because I thought of it. However, it is not a metaphysical reality, because it's existence beyond my thought cannot be proven.

Maybe an example of a metaphysical reality would help me understand the phrase.

[haselhurst]

Hi Phil,
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I wrote to Chris and told him about your post on morality.
We have had past discussions where Chris objected to my metaphysics of Space / Wave Structure of Matter (physical reality) argument for morality which says that the many things (as separate bodies) is an illusion, that we are all interconnected by one thing (waves in space) and thus the 'other' is really part of the 'self'. Thus Do unto others as to self is really a tautology (self = other) thus true.

I am still not satisfied with either my position or Chris's or yours. I want to think about this more (though I am completely convinced that the wave structure of matter in space is correct). I do think a simple sensible logical morality is critical for humanity. I think Chris believes morality is purely a human emotional construction, thus subjective and arbitrary (he can clarify this).

Chris is young, very smart, and difficult. But I respect his mind, hope that we can discuss this nicely.

As I wrote before, I am busy for a couple weeks getting organised for 2 guys who are helping work on website. But this conversation can meander for a while - it is good to think on things over time, let the mind adjust to new ideas.

So please be patient!
Cheers,
Geoff

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics-dynamic-unity-reality.htm

[beaverpr]

Geoff,
Thanks for the clarification. Everyone can expect decades of patience and goodwill from me (I am in my seventh, though). Thus, my willingness to offer Chris my thought about "metaphysical reality."
Furthermore, I do not think I know the answers and am very happy to find thoughtful people with enough concern to fully explore the value of my objection to the GR.
Best regards to all,
Phil

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Phil,

I think how we visualise, on a personal level, is unique to us, and we will all therefore use different 'methods' to arrive at (hopefully) the same place!

As I see it, within the framework of the WSM, the all important bit (for me) is the 'illusion' of the particle. This is significant in MY thinking because it helps me visualise all my other 'metaphysical' thoughts. I see it as a kind of 'bridge', or the illusion of 'balance' (recently encountered elsewhere in the forum!). When I try to visualise 'Infinity' in this way, the 'illusion' of 'Balance' cannot exist, as there is no beginning, nor end, and thus no 'central point', just the 'illusion' of one.

Likewise, I 'see metaphysics' as this same element; this illusory 'bridge' between our Unconscious (which I visualise as connecting us to our Infinite state) and our waking consciousness (our 3D reality - Finite Universe). This 'bridge' connects the 'many' (our 3D reality) with the 'One' (Infinity), and thus completes a 'circle' of understanding (of ourselves) which is again compatible with the Infinite reality of all things.

The BIG stumbling block, for me, was the idea that something could be both 'illusory' AND 'apparent' at the same time!
I'm not sure how, or if, there is a singular 'way' of viewing/understanding this, but like I say, I think we all use different methods of interpretation (whatever 'works' for us, personally), but are all ultimately trying to connect to the 'One'.

This is MY attempt at some kind of 'visualisation', and maybe if we all share our experiences, we can all use each others' 'attempts' to gain more insight?

(With this thinking, MY answer to your question of "Maybe an example of a metaphysical reality would help me understand the phrase." would be for you to look in a mirror, as you ARE metaphysical 'reality' - The 'illusion' of particles, made 'apparent'!)

I think this is in keeping with the WSM. I'm sure someone will put me right if not, but must stress this is just MY method of 'visualisation'.

Hope it helps!

All the best,
Steve.

[Chris Wright]

Hi Steve, Phil, Geoff.
Sorry - my last post was a bit terse: I should have introduced myself, but I was in a rush.
That would also explain the unsatisfactory phrase 'metaphysical reality' - and I share your (Phil's) method in questioning the vagueness of terms and concepts in this strange field of metaphysics. I just meant 'reality': to my mind, you can't found 'should'-statements on statements of fact. As my Edinburghian friend, Hume, would say : you cannae get an ought from an is.
I'm not sure about Geoff's claim that I am 'difficult', but I'll take that as a compliment! As to the other claim - that my stance on morality is unsatisfactory, since it lacks certainty and objectivity, I would strongly contest.
There is this idea that we need certainty in ethics in ordre for society to move forward in a sensible fashion - but that's not a good reason to believe in moral objectivity: you can't say that something is true just because it is useful to believe in it, or else where do we stop? People might behave better if they believe in God, but that doesn't mean God exists! Besides, immorality is not born out of amorality: suicide bombers are no doubt ethical objectivists! This idea that it is safer for us to have strong concepts of morality just doesn't wash: Hitler had a pretty strong concept of morality, too. Let's cast of the shackles of certainty where certainty doesn't exist, and leads to fanaticism. As Nietzsche says: "Everyhting unconditional belongs to pathology."
Regards,
Chris.

[beaverpr]

Hello, Chris, Geoff, Karene, and Steve,
I want to respond to some recent, wonderful contributions, even though other demands are pressing me. As Geoff might say, I want to keep the meandering vital.
In the dialogue between Chris and Geoff, I think illumination can come from the definitions of morality and virtue (see Feb 26 post). We speak of morals because religions taught us to (religions cannot brook virtue). However, it is well known that within humankind, morality is relative. For example, while it would upset me for a friend to propose swapping wives and I would not like having to be cool toward his wife, there are societies within which not swapping wives would be aberrant behavior. Thus, societies have differing morals. However, in the world as the power behind reality (perhaps god, wherein the word’s singularity indicates one and lower case avoids limitation of the power to some doctrine such as worship and praise or divinity) would have it, there is a better choice in the monogamy debate, and that choice is virtuous, not moral. Thus, IMO, morality is subjective and virtue is objective. Our discussion might be enhanced by focus on these two words and reaching consensus if not agreement.
I think both the GR and the SR are commands, but the GR is unlimited in its authorization of the doer to ignore the opinions of the receiver, whereas the SR limits the doer’s authorization to ignore the opinions of the receiver; the SR cautions the doer. Note that people need opinions only in cases wherein the facts are not known, and when the facts are not known, no one knows them (forgive the redundancy).
I do not think my original list of definitions was enough and wish to add “metaphysical”: concerned with abstract thought or subjects, for examples, existence, causality, truth, etc. “Abstract” means conceived apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances. For example, Bertrand Russell (Human Knowledge, Rutledge, London, 1992, p. 87), defines a metaphysical entity when he states, “’Men whose heads do grow from their shoulders’ is a perfectly good class name, although there are no instances of it.” (One of my goals in life is to convince the majority of humankind “God” could be a perfectly good proper name, even though there is no instance of it.)
In this light, I will strive to understand Geoff’s phrase, “metaphysics of Space.” Presently, I do not understand how metaphysics of Space could be more than speculation. One thought about which I may have pathological tendencies is the assertion that I do not know.
In my thesis posted on Feb 26, the word “privacy” implies independence, not seclusion or exclusion from public disclosure (a clarification generated by conversation with my dear wife). Steve’s focus on path and understanding is empathetic to the notion of personal independence in a dynamic world wherein many truths are only approachable, but no more attainable than infinity. (Later, I want to bring into the discussion the concept of liberty/justice, two mutually inclusive terms, in an effort to elaborate on the attainability of truth, an achievement that would be binding.)
Steve’s notion of me looking into a mirror to understand metaphysical reality didn’t help me, because both the mirror and the reflection of Phil Beaver seem physical. Russell, in Human Knowledge convinces me that the Phil Beaver I would see is only a temporary physical existence, and my dear wife will tell you quite bluntly that intellectually I am not the Phil Beaver she married (doxe to theo, she’ll keep on loving me more), yet I do not get the metaphysical vision Steve perceives. Please elaborate.
However, Steve’s focus and Geoff’s idea of self and other being the same made me think of Jesus applying the GR on himself. I cannot imagine Jesus questioning his source of inspiration and proposing to change it. However, I can imagine Jesus using the SR to decide not to try to impose his opinions onto his path to understanding. Note that I am convinced the New Testament writers were ancient Dan Rathers: folks who had an agenda and did not mind changing the facts to fit the agenda.
I am inspired to find such an imaginative, creative forum! Please keep the thoughts going until we sort out the difficult, vital issue of GR versus SR.
To help the group stay focused on GR versus SR yet keep track of the branches of discussion being generated, I may occasionally up-date my Feb 26 summary, if there are no objections.

Regards,
Phil

[haselhurst]

Hi Everyone,
I think that this discussion will bring up a number of different paths that are related / need exploring.
Hopefully we can discuss them in this post (which will get rather large over time I suspect), and then we can go back over things and see if we can concisely summarise things.
I don't really just like to discuss things and have it meander forever without resolution (where possible). And I plan on using the best of this on our spaceandmotion website (so it is useful to others).

To Chris. Well I could say that 'you are difficult' is neither compliment nor insult, merely truth. But then we humans are complex / diverse, so it would be a very incomplete truth. I meant it kindly! Glad you are in this discussion.

And I plan on going back to earlier posts and adding in a few comments too - it is good to re-write things over time, always seeking simplicity / clarity of expression.
I have a lot on my mind related to other work for website - so my timescale for this discussion is in terms of weeks / months. But I do find it very interesting.

My personal morality is largely covered by two principles.
Do unto others, and informed consent. The truth / reality element is covered by the word 'informed'.

Perhaps we should have a different thread just on metaphysics.
My thoughts relating to seeing oneself in mirror. To do this requires some connection between body and mirror and mind. The Wave Structure of Matter in Space explains connection of body and mirror, mind is still a problem.
Another example is dropping a ball. We do not see any obvious connection between ball and earth, yet clearly there is. Metaphysics is the study of this hidden connection between things we sense (as 'apparently' separate objects).
So the world we sense is an illusion, but an illusion constructed from physical reality, thus there is still a causal connection (not complete illusion).
Just a few thoughts for now.
Cheers,
Geoff
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm

PS - Metaphysics of Space simply means that Space is the one thing that physically exists (as a wave medium). If this is true, then it must be impossible for anyone to prove that this is wrong, that space does not exist. So look around you and think about it (we all experience existing in space - I wonder why!!).
It is easy to say that all our ideas are different from reality itself - thus space is only an idea. But I would need proof of this, rather than people's opinions. Given that WSM deduces fundamentals of physics with mathematical / logical precision (Milo Wolff) I just find it impossible to believe that it is only a human construction, that reality is different. So yes, I am the odd one who believes we can correctly imagine reality / what exists! This opens up important moral question - how does (true) knowledge of physical reality affect our morality?

[Glenn Walsh]

Hello All,
Fascinating discussion all around. I don't have much to add except that, perhaps, both could be combined, since both the positive and negative, or opposites, of everything, when combined , are greater than either by themselves.
Glenn

[beaverpr]

Hi, Glenn,
Thanks for the comment. It would help me understand your comment if you would tell me what you mean by "both". I will assume you mean both rules: the SR and the GR.
Very hepful: you prompt the question, "Does one of the rules exclude the other, or are they mutually exclusive?"
I think in my earlier posts there is the salient opinion that the two rules are mutually exclusive. Thus, the GR would have you try to convert a non-Christian to Christianity, even if you only represent yourself to be a Christian when in fact you neither obey nor want to obey Jesus. In other words, the GR would prompt you to urge someone to follow Christian morals that you do not subscribe to--do unto others as you would not have them do to you.
In this same example, the SR would emplore you to not try to convert someone to believe a relgion you neither believe nor practice.
These two arguments take on a further wrinkle when you consider the case of one sect of Christian trying to convert a non-sectarian Christian. For example, a Catholic priest trying to persuade me, then a Southern Baptist, to believe in transubstantiation. When I said to him, "That would place you between me and God: you have never been there before, and I do not plan to place you there."
He kindly responded, "Then, we no longer have reason to talk."
I have no problem with his religion for him, but would never accept it for me, without input that so far has not been available to me.

Thanks,
Phil

[beaverpr]

Hi, Geoff,

No problem with your schedule. However, I wanted to share a response to one of your statements: "Another example is dropping a ball. We do not see any obvious connection between ball and earth, yet clearly there is. Metaphysics is the study of this hidden connection between things we sense (as 'apparently' separate objects)."

I do not perceive gravity as unseen. We are able to measure magnetic fields. Further, we are able to measure the forces and speeds related to accelleration due to gravity: a cannonball dropped from your shoelace will hurt, but if dropped from a flag pole, it'll kill you. So, IMO, your example is from the physical realm.

Geoff - The physical realm and the metaphysical realm are the same thing - there is only one physical reality. And what I wrote is true, we do not see the CAUSE of the connection between things, we see the EFFECT (the ball falls).
Here is a Feynam quote to lighten things from my abruptness.

"The next question was - what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward." (Richard Feynman, Character Of Physical Law)

To sufficiently consider metaphysics, the metaphysician must be capable of labeling metaphysics the study of speculation. To put it another way, the metaphysician must be able to not only admit but declare, "Concerning the validity of the present hypothesis, I do not know."

Geoff - I think that is complete nonsense, and relates to modern view of metaphysics (which is wrong).
Please refer to my metaphysics page and its quotes on metaphysics if you wish to discuss this, but having the modern fanciful notion of metaphysics is pointless - leads nowhere!

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm

A wonderful illustration of this principle is in Plato's "Euthyphro," wherein Socrates in his usual fashion makes a fool of Athens' (self evaluated) greatest theologian over the question, "What is the holy?" In the course of his arguments, Socrates says, to the effect, "Some people call me the wisest man, but I do not agree with them and therefore should not be held responsible for the claim. However, there is one boast I will admit to, and that is that I know I do not know." We know the results: the religious forum forced a guilty conclusion by the court and Socrates chose not to escape the hemlock to defend the rule of law, even when it errs.
Looking forward to more discussion.
Phil
:D

Geoff - Socrates did not know what reality was, thus he had no foundation for truth, thus he could show that this is true for others - they also do not know the truth.
This is different from saying we cannot know the truth about reality (the current paradigm, which is also wrong). Sorry to be abrupt - but if you are saying that metaphysics is nonsense, and we cannot know the truth about reality, then you must give reasons for this, and explain why the wave structure of matter in space is wrong, that space does not exist. I think you will find this impossible.

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

My perceptions are always changing! I'm not sure if it's just me, or whether all of us adjust our powers of perception to suit the 'moment', but i'm hoping it's the latter! This tells me that many, if not an infinite amount of, forms of 'perception' exist, at the same time as each other. This also leads me to believe that 'perception is infinite', and that we just 'choose' one, that suits us, as it become necessary. Here, 'Infiniteness' becomes the 'link' between Perception and Space. And so...
Metaphysics. For myself, all I can say is that "I often perceive a connection between two apparently unconnected things." I see the search for this 'connection' as the 'art of metaphysics'. (Someone, tell me i'm dreaming!! )

Phil, I am veering away from your original posts on morality, (GR, SR, and their links to the WSM). I am aware that this causes confusion, so, sorry for that!
I will start another thread, that attempts to cover the metaphysical aspect (hopefully) without getting too side-tracked!

I think it is important that everything discussed should be related to the WSM, not only because, ultimately, everything is! ...but also Geoff and Karene have worked (and still are) so hard to give us all this opportunity for greater understanding (and, hopefully, more Unity!). All 'rules' aside, this is a selfless act, motivated by genuinely good intentions (at no small expense to themselves!) and we would all do well to adopt a 'moral code' based upon such actions.
The point being, that somewhere along the line, someone has to start the 'giving' in a world where 'taking' is the rule.
In my opinion, to avoid hypocracy, we necessarily need a solid foundation of Truth and Honesty, before 'rules' are even discussed! (Does this not beg the question WHY we need these rules in the first place?)


Cheers,
Steve.

[beaverpr]

Hello, Steve,
Not complaining, but I should I feel reprimanded?
Not alibying, but my original point was that the site's existing statement that all religions support the golden rule (thus, I did not introduce the use of rules) is not supported by the data and further that IMO, the golden rule causes aggression.
Not defending, but I feel I have supported branches of this discussion and that I have with alacrity pursued mutual understanding of "metaphysics" and "metaphysical."
Again, not defending, but perhaps it seems unfriendly that I cite only the Christian relgion to support my arguments against the golden rule: in so doing, I am respecting the fact that Christianity is the only religion that supports the golden rule.
I agree the site is great and haven't received anything but encouragement from Geoff and Karene, so I say, hang in there, Steve. Express yourself plainly.
Best regards,
Phil

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Phil,

So sorry, if that came across as personal, it truely wasn't intended that way!

I got hung up on the metaphysical side of things, whilst failing to understand fully your original point for posting. Once again, I apologise.

I have nothing personal for/against christianity, neither 'religion', so it appears neither friendly, or unfriendly, from my perspective.

I hope you will be able to see that I try to adopt a more 'worldly' perspective to issues that I consider of 'worldly' importance. Of course, I can only observe these 'issues' with the 'tools' I have available to me, but rather than put myself in 'someone else's shoes', I now attempt to put myself in 'everybodies shoes', in order to perceive of this 'worldly' level. Hopefully, this avoids getting 'personal', and merely offers another perspective.
I'm not saying that you DON'T do that either, but the internet is a rather impersonal place, which seems to require volumes of explaination, where 'body language' is absent.

(If we were in the pub chatting, i'd buy you a drink, and crack some silly joke, so that you would know I were 'friendly'!)

Best wishes, sincerely,
Steve.

[beaverpr]

Hello, Steve,
Thank you very much for the reassurance. I look forward to that beer. My wife, Cynthia, and I just returned (Feb 23) from a 12 day vacation in Punta Del Este, Uruguay. Maybe all of us can meet there some day and have great conversations.

What I find interesting about this forum is that every post has a small element that fascinates me. Your explanation of "worldly" view invokes my faith: I have faith in truth, much of which is unknown yet perhaps knowable.

Here's a sip of Miller lite for the future.

Phil

[Steve Anthony]

Kippis! (Cheers! - In Finnish!)

I'm envious of your trip to Uruguay, Phil. You are a lucky man!
Very near the top of my 'to do list' is a spot of wildlife watching, somewhere near the Amazon!

(Here's that joke(?)...)

- Call me Gurdjieff D'artagnian if you must, but I feel there could be a 'fourth way'; that of the 'Mercury rule', which is ever so much more fluid!

More kippis!
Steve.

[haselhurst]

Hi Guys,
Firstly an apology - this is an abrupt post - I am tired and have been at computer all day but i want to get some things off my mind!!

I have added some comments above in bold to Phil's post.

This discussion has meandered badly from initial topic, and people are writing things that are not true which is confusing and leads nowhere.
e.g. Phil writes;

"Thus, the GR would have you try to convert a non-Christian to Christianity, even if you only represent yourself to be a Christian when in fact you neither obey nor want to obey Jesus. In other words, the GR would prompt you to urge someone to follow Christian morals that you do not subscribe to--do unto others as you would not have them do to you.
In this same example, the SR would implore you to not try to convert someone to believe a religion you neither believe nor practice."

I wrote in an earlier post that you must distinguish between;

Morality founded on;
i) Golden rule founded on myth / customs (which you do not like).
ii) Golden rule founded on truth and reality (only now possible IMO).
iii) Silver rule founded on myth / customs (your current preference).
iv) Silver rule founded on truth and reality (also only now possible IMO).

Your reply has completely ignored this. To be correct it would have to state that the Golden rule (founded on myth) would advocate Christians trying to convert others, the Golden rule (founded on truth and reality) would not. (It would try to educate them to truth and reality based on the accepted rules of science (philosophy physics metaphysics) because wisdom comes from truth).

Please everyone, don't just write things as true when they are only partly true (or wrong). Please be precise and careful - otherwise discussions are just a waste of time and go nowhere.

Again, sorry to be abrupt, i mean no harm, just busy / stressed by overwork!
Sincerely,
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Everyone,
I went for a walk in the sun, looked at the trees and the clouds, the world around me, and thought about metaphysics, truth, reality, mind and matter and morality. It is an interesting mix.
These are some of my early thoughts, but i find that I am very stupid, and i really need to think on things for years to slowly connect the parts together, find the right arguments that make things more simple and clear.

We really should define our words more precisely.

I am going to consider two, metaphysics and morality.

Metaphysics
My Definition: The study of the One thing that exists (substance and its properties).
The need for this study is because Science is founded on our incomplete senses, we do not see the hidden cause and connection between things, we must use a combination of reason and imagination to work it out.
And reason tells us that all things are interconnected. i.e. The necessary connection between the one thing that exists (space) and the many things it causes and connects (matter as spherical standing waves in space). It is this (wave) connection between things (in space) that explains how we can sense the world around us (waves in space) and how we can have logic and reason (waves behave logically due to Properties of Space, we can store knowledge using interconnected repeating wave patterns / molecules with different shapes).
I am going to write some of this into the web page at;
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm

(So this section will change / improve in a few weeks - metaphysics is very important, and badly misrepresented by the modern world. If you comment on this, please reply with relevant quotes from page, why Heraclitus, Aristotle, Leibniz, Hume, Einstein, etc. are wrong (metaphysics relates to unity / necessary connection / cause of our senses).
Please don't just quote a modern definition (beyond our senses, thus we can imagine anything and it is 'metaphysical', a higher 'realm' or 'dimension'.) This is complete / typical nonsense of the masses, has nothing to do with metaphysics and its historical relationship to knowledge and reality.

Morality

Morality - What principles should we base our behaviour on where our behaviour affects others?

And in particular we were discussing these 4 possibilities relating to Golden Rule Vs. Silver Rule.

Morality founded on;
i) Golden rule founded on myth / customs (which you do not like).
ii) Golden rule founded on truth and reality (only now possible IMO).
iii) Silver rule founded on myth / customs (your current preference).
iv) Silver rule founded on truth and reality (also only now possible IMO).

So we are limiting morality to this question of how our actions affect others.
However, we are forced here to make a further division;
As we do not know connection between mind and matter, we must divide this action / affect on others in terms of both the mind, and in terms of matter interactions / the body.
So there are two cases;
1. How our actions affect their body
2. How our actions affect their mind.

And then this leads to a further complexities;

1. At times the same action on their body could cause completely different affects on their minds (put your arm around a person and give them a small hug - you will get a variety of responses from different people, in differing circumstances). Thus it is hard for one person to always know how their actions will psychologically / emotionally affect another person. (I am sure a lot of people will get angry if i try to tell them what truth and reality are! Why a lot of philosopher's were miserable?)

2. There are also further complexities when we consider matter interactions, as it is clear, both in terms of WSM and in modern physics, that matter is subtly interconnected to all other matter in the universe. Thus it is physically impossible to have no affect on others. We are interconnected things whether we like it or not.
Thus (perhaps disturbingly) even our apparently private actions that we think have no affect on others must also come under scrutiny of this universal moral law of interconnection.

So it is very complex, and i certainly need to think this through more.

My gut feeling is this.
While you do not know reality and absolute truth about things then Silver Rule seems better (due to the complexity of interactions - the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

When you do know reality, thus absolute truths, then the Golden rule is better because;
1. It is founded on the truth that we are all subtly interconnected, all affecting one another. It requires us to think carefully about our thoughts and actions as they always have some affect on others.
2. That the system as a whole functions more intelligently when the individuals actions are founded on the truth about their existence and how they physically interact with one another.

I am immersing my mind in other work for a few weeks. So I will be hiding away from internet most of the time. As always, th