Hi, folks!

Sorry I've been away. I did other stuff and then got lost in videogame land for awhile. You'll be happy to note that the Umbrella Corporation still can't make a zombie that I can't put down.

Then I started hatin' on my blog. I always wanted it to be readable more like a book than a blog, so I moved it and did stuff to it. Here's where it is now.

I added a brief introduction to FDR for people who are trying to figure it out for the first time.

But most important, I've started this fun series. It could be three- or four-part. I haven't decided yet. I just wanted to capture for posterity the development, birth, and aftermath of UPB.

Here's Part 1--At war with the academics

Part 2--The rise and fall of Danny Shahar

Part 3--When Good Men Do Nothing.

Part 4--Other Voices.

Part 5--What's a god to do?


As always--any suggestions for improvement on the site, et. al, will be greatly appreciated.

You are certainly a breath of fresh air. Welcome back!

So, where's part 2?

that's a great analysis QuestEon (and excellent quote-digging as well), and very nice to hear from you again.
Will likely comment more later

Very interesting and enlightening. Does seem that a UPB on ethics is an oxymoran. Ethics and morality in its purest form is one of those things that should be common to the religious, non religious and the atheist. The more complicated the belief structure (such as religion) the more convoluted moral and ethical issues can seem and the greater the liklihood ofconflicts, arrogance and contradictions. There is nothing wrong for any individual (and it usually starts and ends there with individuals) or group to aspire to a higher ethicall code as long as it is not made Universal. In the atheist context, ethics unencumbered by dogma and other baggage (for the record I'm a Christian) should be simpler and relatively straightforward. Indeed secular morality should be a foundation in practice if not origin for both religious and non religious and not be a source of conflict. Such ethics and morality almost falls out of a combination of reason and natural justice. As such a treatsie as UPB should be unnecessary unless you are going to impose it on others. In which case Molyneux is recreating, without the benefit of history, shared knowledge, basic social structures and compassion a new religion that is shorn of all the positive aspects of religion and weighed down by all the bigotry, contradictions, hypocrisy and arrogance of religion. So Molyneux in denouncing religion has come full circle, creating a joyless arrogant dogma that has no tolerance for wider or other truths or dissenters and no foundation for looking to the future.

I was reminded by QuestEon's post btw that one of the first things Stefan said to Christina was a typical Molyneux-lie. At volleyball practice she asked him how his day had been and he said that he was very excited because he was just told that his book would be published!

of course he did not say that the publisher in question was PublishAmerica, a known vanity publisher that will publish pretty much anything.

Anyway, they started dating after that talk.

I don't know that this is the appropriate place for this, but I'm putting it here, so...

Quote:

As the Hopi have said, "From this one commandment, to respect and revere life, come all the other commandments: to tell the truth, to share with others, to life together in mutual support, to take care of our children and old people, the sick and strangers, friends and enemies, to abstain from intoxicants and adultery, not to cheat, steal, or covet."

from an article by Jeff Knaebels at Lew's Place. I find it reflects the essence of what I believe in when I say I support the idea of U.P.B. and of morality. In saying this I am not saying I support whatever Stef may or may not have twisted out of the concept, I'm only saying that there is a basic premise wherein we all can understand, if we CHOOSE to do so, that we should not do to others something that we would not care for them to do to us. THAT, to me, seems a simple and clear truth. The fly does not want to get hit with the swatter. Even if he can't vocalize it, it's universal. Therefore we should not hit the fly with the swatter absent some really good reason wherein the fly is threatening us and we are therefore acting in the only form of defense we can figure out at the time.

- NonE

I had a bath just last month!

- NonE

I look forward to part two.

Thanks for mentioning me (anonymously).

Sorta kinda related:

You know, the discussion of morality - does it exist or not - is a central part of this U.P.B. thing. I just had a thought which may be helpful. Rationality. Does it exist? (Or maybe I should use the word "logic" instead... either way.) I suggest that rationality is something which CAN exist. We can choose to use rational/logical thought, or we can choose to just be emotional. I would say that the same idea applies to morality. It is a mental construct which is coherent. It is something that we can choose to apply.

So as to the universality of it, that also applies. Let me phrase it this way. We all can choose to apply morality to the choices in our lives. That ability to choose is universal, as are the rules of morality (at least as I've broken them down in a post above). That does NOT mean that they ARE applied. Only that there is a universal ability to apply them and that the priciples are universal.

Does that help anyone with this? (or do I need to go and smoke some more weed to get more coherent?)

- NonE