[Buddha-l] Views of morality, culture, and religion

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Malcolm wrote:

MD>    1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
MD>          1. some other group, such as a religion, or
MD>          2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
MD>    2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
MD> conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."
MD> In practice, the first definition is more than descriptive, it is
MD> proscriptive.

Precisely. We know about the existence of some Moral because she is
expressed like a code of conduct. There is an effort in the individual
to connect the behavior with his religious goal. So proscriptive
characteristic becomes more important to know  Religion.
In fact, if when we don't see a moral code, hardly we can talk about
the existence of Religion in agreement with that same definition.

Developing a moral conduct it doesn't mean only the acceptance of
group rules. Sometimes it's the contrary thing. In example, some
authors talks about a Naturalistic Buddhism, and they are forced to
use a new word precisely when they see specific differences in the
moral behavior to pursue the same religious goals.

MD> For example, I cheered at Reuters report (August 23,
MD> 2006) that before losing their culture and accumulated wealth to
MD> rapacious Conquistadors, the Aztecs performed a highly moral and
MD> religious act when they "captured, ritually sacrificed and partially
MD> ate several hundred people traveling with invading Spanish forces in
MD> 1520AD." At least they got their licks in.

also these rituals implies a moral meaning. Maybe to satisfy some gods


MD> So there is no escaping the nature of knowledge, or more
MD> fundamentally, the nature of Information. If you choose either
MD> definition of morality, you are left with demonstrably imprecise and
MD> fallible processes which will deviate from a lawful understanding of
MD> the Universe.

yes, I know well that you and many other people says that information
is knowledge. Also that there is a lot of stuff in many areas to mix
both meanings, its importance in psychology theories, etc, etc...
However, despite that scientific hypothesis, the reality shows another
thing. We have tons of information but not knowledge.

I fear that notion of the nature of knowledge is part of this
contemporary world. These tons of information are just entertainment.
They are useless to get knowledge about what we do here, therefore to
get a moral meaning.

I think to understand the role of that notion of what is knowledge,
one can read something about the actual design for our world:

"The word tittytainment is a diffused neologism built up from titties
(or tits) and entertainment. It was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He
first used the word in late September 1995 during a discussion with
several world leaders gathered at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco
at the invitation of Mikhael Gorbachev, the Father of Glasnost and
Perestroika. The discussion concerned 'the future of work.' They
sketched out a new social order and everybody there seemed to agree
that in the society of the 21st century, 20% of the people will have
work and 80% will be kept docile, as if in a state of semi-hypnosis,
by means of what Zbigniew Brzezinski called tittytainment: a
deadeningly predictlable, lowest common denominator entertainment for
the soul, and nourishment for the body. The word tittytainment is akin
to mothers nursing and conditioning children with a plug-in drug; a
sort of Huxley-esque soma for the masses as in Brave New World."
http://www.answers.com/topic/tittytainment

then we must situate in this context that mixture of knowledge and
information; and in the middle of the actual coarse fascination for
technology. In this way, the CNN becomes knowledge instead
information, and Internet a device to know the health of this future 
garden of silly beings ready to consume unnecessary things.
In this panorama, asking for a moral meaning of that circus can
be a little disturbing, because this question should be satisfied
with knowledge, not with information. Across years, this question
become more strange and religion more uncomfortable.

So one can understand the rejection to Moral as the goal of religion
when knowledge and information can be the same thing.
However, I think it is nor right. Note that "know" comes directly from
cognoscere (knowing) while "information" comes from "to give form".
And that's closer to our reality that those bizarre
techno-quantum-mystic theories to fagocite the religion impulse of
human beings inside Tittytainment.


MD> In this way, calling Buddhism a "moral goal" is to diminish it.

I think the opposite thing. And in these times even it's needed.


best regards


"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom."
Confucius