[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I should have been clearer as to my contention with your use of the word "philosophy". The drift of what I was saying is that a "thought" is a "fact" and it is scientifically "hard". If I call a tree a apple then my thoughts and speech appear to be disordered relative to the tree as seen by our senses. But in any case you and I cannot enter into this conversation unless we energize our thinking otherwise all we could do is stare out into space without thinking or thoughts.

Nonetheless our thoughts are "hard facts" and the study of "thoughts" and "thinking" untethered to the "tree" but correspondingly connected to the tree is relevant. This is another way of saying that only tying our thinking to our senses as if the sense bound world is all that is, is fatuous for the very world of our thoughts and thinking are a world of their own which can indeed connect the percepts of the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

while i agree that philosophical thought is a better tool than science for many things, i do not agree that a thought is a "fact" - at least by my definition of fact. a thought is not part of the material world (unless you get into brain science and start talking about synapses and receptors etc, which [i assume and hope] is not what you meant). that it isn't material does not diminish its value in any way - why would you want it to be "fact"? it's beyond fact. but it's not fact.

[ QUOTE ]
By studying 'thinking" and "thoughts" one can and does come to a reality which is connected to the tree and in fact brings the earth bound senses into understanding. This world is the home of "philosophy" and in fact also "religion" and "art". Not definitions, but activities which climb the tonalities of Man in cosmic relation

[/ QUOTE ]

i do appreciate your philosophy on this, sincerely. i think it's valid, but only equally valid to any other reasonable way of thinking about the same things. you might say, 'climbing the tonalities of man in cosmic relation.' another might say - 'being part of biology.' yet another might say - 'creating reality.' all could describe the same things and still all be valid. they are different ways of thinking about the same things. philosophies, not facts. i understand that you will counter with - "no, you don't understand me. _____ ____ ______." yes i do understand you, and you are right, but that does not exclude other, seemingly contradictory philosophies from also being right - precisely because reality isn't factual, its perceptual. (perception>fact)

[ QUOTE ]
As to "karma" and "morality" many if not almost all relate morality to a given set of commandments but find that their individual moral tone is far more expansive than for example the ten commandments. Is not the "thou shall not kill" commandment an obvious moral concept(even though there are some who kill anyway)? If I exercise tact in relationship with my neighbor who may be facing a legal matter of severe humiliation am I not in the sphere of morality? Have I not lessened his burden or at least not added to the same by greeting him with compassion? I could have done otherwise and not been tactful and this again can lead to a moral tone, all of which may(maybe not) lead to a karmic response but not necessarily in this life. Yes, each man may have his own moral sphere and appear differently for in fact the history of Man can be seen as the history of Morality and Morals objectified.

In freedom, each man acts in moral activity, not a matter of "choice" but a matter of 'knowing" his activity. If Moses says"thou shalt not kill" and I put my head down and follow instructions then this moral activity is "not free". But if I do not kill because of my thinking and thoughtful activity buoyed by feeling and through the will then I am a "knowing doer" and am acting freely. What one sees when looking into nature is "wisdom" and Man through his work in the moral sphere lives within "Love" and transforms the earth. Karma and Love, within the sphere of Morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think killing or not killing is a moral issue. it's ruled by social norm, which is a biological mechanism. i used to believe fervently in the morality of respecting individual rights. i still think respecting individual rights is important, but for practical reasons rather than moral. it would take me a very long time to write why. i'll try to do it sometime.

basically, i think it's mathematically impossible to respect the "rights" of all individuals at the same time - because all life is competitive and interactive.