Curiosus ( wrote:
>In scn there was an attempt to define an absolute for ethics, in terms
>of maximum survival along the dynamics. 

     Yes, it was defined as maximum REASON applied to the goal of
survival and greatest good for greatest number.  Good and survival and
pleasure were all equated.

     It is in fashion to point out that pleasure is not always good
for you, but that is an agenda.  Some things have a kickback, that's
all.  The kickback is worse than the benefit.
     A few lifetimes stuck in a body is far worse for you than a few
hits of crack.

>Now, when looking for an absolute definition of ethics in the spiritual
>universe, the best definition I could find is: “Ethics is what is
>helping the purpose of the creation.”

     In the most absolute sense, the universe can not help what it
does, it must do what it did and will do.  The prime movement from
unmanifest to manifest is above reproach.

     There are fundamental values to the AllThatIs, but it is quite
incapable of violating them as that would be violating its own nature.
The impulse to manifest and maintain Sovereignty is an example.  One
'loses' one's sovereignty later in the game, but only through a
sovereign decision to do so.  Thus one's loss of sovereingty may look
like a violation of fundamental values, but is in fact a manifestation
of soveriengty and those values.
     Only once dicoms are conceived and pleasure is *ARBITRARILY*
assigned to certain states of survival and attaining survival itself
becomes dependent on specific actions, does the the whole question of
ethics have any interest or meaning at all.

     As Ron said, only as long as anyone is interested in survival or
maintaining something in a state of survival would he have any
interest in logic (reason) at all.  Since ethics IS reason applied to
the problem of survival within a specific game sphere, it has no
meaning or interest once survival and pleasure become indepedent of

     This does not make logic wrong or arbitrary, it meely renders
logic useless and uninteresting.

     If I drink poison I will die, I wish to live, therefore I will
not drink poison.  Simple syllogisms of ethics are only meaningful if
it matters what we DO.

     Once survival and pleasure become unassigned to conditions, then
ethics and logic are no longer important.
     They are still King, but what need does a sovereign being have
for a King?