|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 11:55 pm||
What I mean by the use of the word moral truth is along the lines of demonstrating how life persists against all power that works to destroy life.
If life persists, in any case, then that, to me, is the measure of moral truth, as if moral truth is being demonstrated as moral truth, as life persists, the way it persists, is a demonstration of moral truth.
I can illustrate moral truth, as I see it, whereby someone (a life form) intending to destroy something, and then begins to do so with the willful employment of deception; meanwhile another life form intervenes on behalf of the targeted life form, and the intervening life form informs the targeted victim of the deception, and the moral truth is then demonstrated as an avoidance of the intended destruction intended to be follow through, or executed, by the deceiver.
I suppose I could work harder to convey the intended message with greater effect, or perhaps you get the message, but my guess is that I fail once again.
What is 'immoral truth' then?
Knowing a living being exists, and a living being is creating deception so as to cause the destruction of life, is an accurate perception of an actual fact, a demonstrable fact, and the person who is employing deception so as to cause the destruction of life is acting immorally, and the person accurately perceiving that immoral use of deception to cause the destruction of life can see immorality, in actual fact, and I suppose that could be an immoral discovery or an immoral truth?
I don't see the point of pairing the two words together, as if saying there can be a moral deception that intends to destroy life.
I've been through this before, and I can explain further, as these things, in my view, are confused when deception is invented, produced, and maintained by those who do the inventing, producing, and maintaining of deception, and of course by those who are victim to such willful use of connections in between living beings.
It is very difficult to unravel the confusion which persists because of the willful employment of deception as a means of destroying life.
Impeccable by whom?
I get the feeling as if you are on a witch hunt, and I am the suspected witch.
What I mean by impeccable morality in the context of character development within a novel is the idea of exemplifying someone who employs their power of life in such a way as to connect to other living beings and increase the quality of life for the other being connected to, and at the same time the result of the connection is a lower of the cost of life for the living being being connected to by the character being developed in the novel; a character who willfully employes their power to accomplish those goals.
And who can certainly decide whether it is actually impeccable (with 'common' sense being quite uncommon)? Maybe 'relevant' would be a better word?
If you do not share my view of morality, as is most likely since you don't even share my views on perception, and since my views on perception aid me in building my views on morality, then of course, all things are relevant, and nothing is shared between us, as far as any sense of morality, but my book is not meant to enforce my views upon anyone, my intent is to offer my views competitively for anyone to judge on their own, without me resorting to willfully deception, without me resorting to willful threats of violence, and without me resorting to willful violence upon any living beings who may be innocent of any of the same aggressive, willful, immoral, actions.
The only other way to gain access to these abilities is parasitism.
I use the word crime.
My measure of immorality is such that anyone willfully employing deceit, threats, or violence upon a targeted innocent (innocent of crime so named) is demonstrating immorality, or crime.
Crime = immorality = willful destruction of life = parasitism (I suppose)
What must be done by a parasite in order for a parasite to accomplish the goal of paraitism?
Can a parasite offer an accurate description of the goal of parasitims and then have volunteers ready and willing to become victims of parasitims, or does a parasite rely upon deception, threats, and violence as a means of gaining hosts from which to destroy the life of the hosts?