kennethamy,



The main point I have tried to make is that no matter what the nature of the action is,it is first serving the self-interest of the subject,that is,no matter what the action is.




http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

kennethamy,

Yes even in these cases there is a reality that the act serves some preconceived notions, ideas of ones self that makes such sacrifice possiable.
.

If this be the case, I might just say this:
If our actions are always selfish, then getting a glass of water to relieve thirst is selfish (as mentioned originally), however, if we must be selfish to survive we must ask firstly, is selfish then, always bad necessarily? if so, what is selfish?

I wonder how you know that. Why isn't the "reality" that the Navy Seal desires to save his comrades more than he values his own life? At least, that seems to be the evidence. Have you other, contrary evidence? Did you know the person? Or is this just a priori?

O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.

.All actions are self serveing first, whether they are relative to another individual or not.

http://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html

How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

I had to edit this post, after reading your link, Boagie.

I see the point you are trying to make, and I'm big enough to admit I was wrong, by misinterpreting your meaning.

However.


I can possibly buy into your argument, but where does all original input come from?

Hi Irishcop,

I do not mean to lessen the importance of self-sacrifice either.I had intended to approach this from both the perspective of Mark Twain the said link no one is apparently willing to read and Schopenhaur's treatment of explaining what might over ride that prime directive self-survival.These story are inspireing but I shall check back in at a later time to see if anyone has been willing to read the inspirational link that started this thread.

How can you know that the Navy Seal who sacrificed his life for his comrades was being self-serving? You did not look into his mind. You did not even know him? Should you not have evidence for your assertion? Especially when all the evidence there is available is contrary to your assertion. I don't see how any link you provide can tell me what was going through the mind of the Navy Seal. And isn't that what counts?

Irishcop,

You could always put god there!,but I will hold him responsiable for the flaws in his work----------lol!

It (the link's content) is purely about God being the source of all input, that is inherently saying the Universe is an open system, something you have advocated.
The point of my spear here, and don't take this defensively, is if you accept the principle layed out at that link, and you also accept that we are in an open system, what acceptable form then can the source take?

Irishcop,

The universe does seem an open system,its totality however is beyond our comprehension,it is a bit like saying the universe is of itself whole,but we do not have the capcity to view it as such,but only through the imagination.Certainly one acceptable form would be a god of some sort but not one of a personality cult.Christians often refer to a personal god,but in doing so they must realize in the same breath the possiablity of the impersonal god,the one defines the other.It is logical to look toward a source,it is when believers insist on a particular image and the certainty of that image.I can more easily deal with a universal concept,"The truth is one,the sages speak of it by many names." Upanishads We are however getting a little off topic.I thought I might suggest the reading of Schopenhaur on this topic of self-sacrifice but that would be asking to much,if any one is interested however it is to be found in his works,"The World As Will And Representation."

Thanks Irish,for the vote of good intent,for a while there I felt like a suspect in the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping,vile creature of the shadows.

Irishcop,

Yes,I can see where that would be tempting,the non-local control of our actions leaves it wide open for someone/thing pulling the strings of the puppet.Actually it might be said that,that thing pulling the strings is the environment itself.I know,you are salivating aren't you.I think that is a sin of some sort------isn't it?:p

kennethamy,

The link is provided I think five times throughout the thread and in the quote of me in your last post.