From: owner-monkey@valinor.eldar.org (Monkey Digest) To: monkey-digest@valinor.eldar.org Subject: Monkey Digest V1 #47 Reply-To: monkey@valinor.eldar.org Sender: owner-monkey@valinor.eldar.org Errors-To: owner-monkey@valinor.eldar.org Precedence: bulk Monkey Digest Tuesday, July 1 1997 Volume 01 : Number 047 In this issue: Re: [monkey] This evil argument (again..!) Hooray! Re: [monkey] evil -monkey definitely mentioned here! [monkey] UK video release - latest "news". Re: [monkey] evil -monkey definitely mentioned here! [monkey] evil etc etc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:43:28 +0000 From: "Semprini" Subject: Re: [monkey] This evil argument (again..!) Hooray! > > Nah....it's all relative. Many people would consider Hitler evil say. But > > I'm sure that he would have felt that anyone that didn't support him was > > evil. > > That is the reason that I don't beleive in evil or good. I think it is > conceited for someone like me to say my beliefs (mainly pacifist) are any > more valid than Hitler's (kill all the Jews etc.). Well, erm.. I can see your point to some extent in that evil IS of course entirely a personal definition, but surely there must be a line drawn somewhere. It is your choice what you do to yourself and society, but surely if you actively seek to detriment the spiritual growth of another for purely selfish and ultimately pointless reasons then this must be evil. Or if not evil then another negative term must be used. But if this isn't evil, what is? And why have a word "evil"? Evil describes behaviour, mental state, intention etc. but surely it DOES exist. Not necessarily in "pure evil" like the devil or anything like that. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in the existence of perfection. I suppose there's also going to be a distinction between someone who is evil and someone who does evil things. I don't believe evil should be used in a kind of "you are evil therefore you don't count" context, but if there's going to be a word called "evil" we might as well use it for something..!? Maybe..? John .oOo. "hello" (c) 1997 mailto:semprini@buttle.com (All Rights Reserved) http://freeweb.redcat.org.uk/~semprini/ (for Heaven's sake, go there..) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:43:28 +0000 From: "Semprini" Subject: Re: [monkey] evil -monkey definitely mentioned here! > >Hmmm.. using long words as shorthand. Now that's a novel idea. ;-) > > I think this is a feature of technical language - using a technical word > which serves as a shorthand for a whole paragraph or page of discussion. > Saves lots of pages and repetition and useless bandwidth. :-) The only > problem is nobody else understands what the hell you are talking about!!!! > :-) This is of course quite true (not that I'd know, not actually knowing any long words myself). It kind of backfires when you have to explain yourself in even greater detail. And then explain why you couldn't have said it that way in the first place. And *then* if that wasn't enough, people have to download messages like this one where people like me say crap like this which has no particularly relevance to anything. > >> What I meant is that one does not need to depend on anything else for what > >> one is, that one says I'm me and do not need to relate to anyone or > >> anything else for my existence - in fact I am a law unto myself and can do > >> whatever I like. > > > >I see. I'm not sure I entirely agree, though. I think that's quite > >a good attitude to have, to some degree. We don't want to end up > >like in George Orwell's 1984. > >Surely what you are saying is that the struggle for independence is, > >in some way, evil...? > > Not at all - Independence and autonomy rule a okay - I am in no way > advocating a George Orwell situation. All I am saying is that one has to > recognise that one is a social being and interacts with others and that one > cannot exist on one's own as separate from the rest of society and the > universe - to try to do so usually leads to various kinds of destruction, > not to mention insanity. But I am totally opposed to notions of rigid Hmm... well I obviously believe we have got to interact with each other and all that sort of thing, but is someone who does not realise this evil? It's certainly an indication of mental illness. But, then again, IS it? Obviously we would lock such a person up and declare them mentally ill, but who's to say? > social conformity. Paradoxically the more one recognises how one is shaped > by one's social and historical and social situation the more independent > one can be from it and the more choice one has. Erm.. not sure that's paradoxical. The more aware anyone is of their situation, whatever it might be, the more they can do about it because the more options there are available. Although this isn't necessarily desirable. I do believe in ignorance is bliss, but once you start knowing stuff it's too late to be ignorant. Once you realise you are ignorant then troubles begin. > One of the many reasons I like Monkey is because he is such an anarchist Who? Look, perhaps you'd better post this in the Monkey mailing list. I hardly see how this is appropriate.. ahem.. > and so totally irreverant of social hierarchies. Just look at the way he > acts in the presence of the Jade Emperor wanting to rip down the curtain > and so on! (go for it!) Monkey is his own master (see his comments in the > episode where he fights the 'good dog') but recognises (or at least learns > to) that he exists in relation to others. I agree entirely. Monkey opposes society completely which is why he's so great. He is truly like an animal, say a dog, that just does what it is its nature to do, without really appreciating or needing to appreciate what is "supposed" to be done. I've always thought dogs had the right idea. Same with Monkey. So, then... this Monkey guy... who's that? John .oOo. "hello" (c) 1997 mailto:semprini@buttle.com (All Rights Reserved) http://freeweb.redcat.org.uk/~semprini/ (for Heaven's sake, go there..) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:53:01 PDT From: "Howell Parry" Subject: [monkey] UK video release - latest "news". LATEST NEWS - Monday 30/06/97: I spoke to the UK distribution company earlier today, to find out the latest information on Monkey being released on video in the UK. Last week, they told me that the Japanese TV company which made Monkey had promised them some definite decisions by the end of the month. Alas, they haven't, but the guy told me that he intends to really pressure the Japanese TV company, and hopes to get something sorted within the next 2 weeks; but, still, nothing is definite... Watch this space. Howell - --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:53:49 +0100 From: L.Stevens@cableinet.co.uk Subject: Re: [monkey] evil -monkey definitely mentioned here! Hey what about a new Monkey series starring Jackie Chan I think that would be cool! - --Louis-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 13:56:35 +1000 From: "Clare O'Farrell" Subject: [monkey] evil etc etc Robert Walter says >That is the reason that I don't beleive in evil or good. I think it is >conceited for someone like me to say my beliefs (mainly pacifist) are any >more valid than Hitler's (kill all the Jews etc.). Robert, I hope you won't be offended by any of this, but I love a good argument! IMHO I think the kind of argument you express is a cop out. I entirely agree with you that one cannot from the point of view of rationality argue that one system of belief is better than another. Hitler's system was in fact a very rational one - the problem was his assumptions: eg all Jews, Catholics, homosexuals are not good for the Reich, therefore should be eliminated, not to mention his other assumptions. I agree there is no way one can prove by rational means that one set of assumptions or beliefs is better than another. And to believe that rational argument is the only way of proving the truth of something is in itself a belief. One can only state that you *believe* one set of assumptions to be true - BUT the statement above that your beliefs are no more valid than Hitler's is likewise a statement of belief (in the relativism of truth this time!) Just because one cannot prove the validity or truth of something by rational means does this mean that it is invalid or untrue or that nothing is more valid or truer than anything else? I stubbornly believe that some things are more valid and true than others - but I have no way of proving it! All I can do is point to the consequences of certain beliefs and even then it could be argued that it depends on your interpretation whether those consequences are good or bad. But there is no way that I am going to calmly sit back and accept something I believe is wrong just because someone else asserts it's true. I like all those statements that pop up in Monkey such as 'most misery in the world is caused by those who are certain of something' or 'the wise man is he who says I don't know' or 'there is no certainty - perhaps!' but there is still a strong notion that some things are good and others are not. There is no sense that uncertainty or unprovability implies a relativistic approach to the truth. > >I try to relate everything to myself and see what it makes me feel, >instead of judging what others do. The only problem with this is how do you know your own perceptions aren't flawed? So much of Monkey is about this question of illusion and failure to perceive accurately. When Tripitaka goes mad when he thinks he has eaten Pigsy he clearly has a problem, just as when he fails to recognise the red, yellow and blue demons for what they are. On this basis I agree one should certainly not judge others but one should not judge oneself either - as the narrator says somewhere in one of the episodes! >This is my only objection to the philosophy in monkey, it is too black >and white. My philosophy blurs around the smudgy bits of real life, >that's why I like it. I have to admit I rather like the positive outcomes in Monkey - things generally turn out for the best but that is because the characters are usually making an effort in that direction in spite of their numerous failures. > >For example, generally speaking I don't eat human flesh. However if >I was stuck on a desert island and there was nothing else then I wouldn't >hesitate to "dig in". Some people would object to this morally and >therefore die, my logic is, "if I die, I hope they eat me, so if they die >I hope I can eat them." If a person was absolutely aginst my eating them, >then once again I'd have to oblige and die. What do you think of the episode 'Outrageous Coincidences' which deals with these very issues? What if the person were dead? Would one respect their wishes not to be eaten and die oneself? Personally I don't think eating human flesh is a big moral problem under these circumstances - it is not a particularly nice prospect but this is more social than moral training! It would of course be good if they could die in animal form as Monkey and Sandy propose to Pigsy! Clare *********************************************************** Clare O'Farrell email:c.ofarrell@qut.edu.au web page: http://www.qut.edu.au/edu/cpol/foucault/ 'Let battle commence. Wine and.... bananas!' *********************************************************** ------------------------------ End of Monkey Digest V1 #47 *************************** ----------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the Monkey Mailing List digest list, send mail to: majordomo@valinor.eldar.org with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe monkey-digest To send a message to the list, send mail to: monkey-digest@valinor.eldar.org If you have any problems or questions, send mail to: owner-monkey@valinor.eldar.org For lots more information and news about "Monkey", check out the Monkey! web site: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Towers/8153/