You may find Kierkegaard's Works of Love interesting at reconciling your idea of radical freedom with the idea of duty - it's one of the core aspects he deals with. In short, lovers choose (out of their freedom one might add) to swear their love by God (and hence by duty) because this is the only thing that can make it eternal - this is the only thing greater than their own love, which can thus guarantee their love for eternity -> "I will love you forever, because I ought to".

Thanks for the tip. I have to be honest though and say that I can only see duty as part of the Law that "my" so-called Christ (name doesn't matter) "transcends." There's an everyday sense of duty that I relate to, of course.
As far as the lovers go, I think the eternity is always already there in the love itself, because what they love in one another is bigger than either finite personality. They both incarnate something universal or eternal. In the mystery of sex, too, we have eternity. The lovers must die, but the love does not. For me the "cross" represents the death of the finite self. We have to assent to the death of our small selves, not as a duty but as a trade for access to what is deeper and more universal or eternal in our guts. (I don't know what my heretical assimilation of the Christian tradition can mean for others. But for me it's close to the flesh and the world. It affirms the flesh and the world, which is to say death and sin.)

Thanks for the tip. I have to be honest though and say that I can only see duty as part of the Law that "my" so-called Christ (name doesn't matter) "transcends." There's an everyday sense of duty that I relate to, of course. — Hoo

Yes but what if you were to find a reason for freely choosing duty? That's Kierkegaard's point.

My position would be that I think a mistake is committed when we go from "part of the divine" to "the whole of the divine". The whole of the divine is the Law and it makes little sense to say it transcends itself for a reason I will soon explain. But a soul (part of the divine) in no way can transcend the Law, which is always higher than it.

Now - if the divine were to transcend itself, then what this really implies is that the divine is more alike a will than alike an intellect - namely, God could desire X to be good, regardless of what it is, and then it would be - God would transcend whatever law. But I disagree with this conception. I don't agree with such a capricious God. I much rather find the idea of a God who is more like an intellect than a will appealing. Meaning that God always acts according to the Law, because the Law is simply God's nature. So God's will acts according to his intellect - his will and his intellect are one.

For me, this puts us outside of God, beneath God. Frankly, I don't have a sharp notion of God. I'm tempted to say that God is the totality, reality itself. But I can work with Christ as an image in passionate mind. The Law is beneath him, but not because he's so eager to break it. It's just a man made thing, a political tool, technology that enables community. It's only itself justified by the love and respect we can actually feel for one another. I relate to experiencing the law (or that best parts of it) as congruent with one's best self. I think Hegel addresses this. One doesn't want to steal or kill or commit adultery, or at least one's best self doesn't. But external or internal violations of the Law don't close us off from this image written on the soul of a person above everything fixed and alien to the self.

The Law is beneath him, but not because he's so eager to break it. It's just a man made thing, a political tool, technology that enables community. — Hoo

Or rather Christ is the Law...

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven — Jesus Christ

The Law is beneath him, but not because he's so eager to break it — Hoo

But the only question is "could he break it?" and to that I would answer no. Why? Because his will and intellect are one, and thus the will cannot act contrary to the intellect, which (the intellect) is the law.

One doesn't want to steal or kill or commit adultery, or at least one's best self doesn't — Hoo

Here I think there is a difference. If God is the totality as you say, and man is a part of that - then we cannot pretend that what must hold true of the totality also holds true of the part. For God, his intellect and his will are one and the same. Thus God cannot act contrary to the Law, which is given by his intellect. For man - who is a part of this totality, his will is separate from his intellect. Thus man's will can act contrary to his intellect. The part that is always free and always pure, as you say, that is the intellect. That's "one's best self". But the will can and often is corrupt, and thus acts against one's best self. That's why St. Paul writes:

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me — St. Paul

First, I'm enjoying discussing such a grand issue!

Or rather Christ is the Law... — Agustino

From my perspective, the inner Christ transcends the scriptural Christ. Saint Paul has no authority over the inner Christ, even if he's one of the great poets or communicators of this Christ. For me, Christ is beyond all scripture, all laws, all sages. I quote scripture as a sort of "poetry" that points within to the primordial source of such poetry. My heretical "Christianity" is just as "at home" in Stirner and Nietzsche, because the "Luciferian" aspect of this primordial image is just as valid. For me, atheism was a valuable detour. Iconoclasm has been hugely important to me. Negative theology, too.

If God is the totality as you say, and man is a part of that - then we cannot pretend that what must hold true of the totality also holds true of the part. For God, his intellect and his will are one and the same. Thus God cannot act contrary to the Law, which is given by his intellect. For man - who is a part of this totality, his will is separate from his intellect. Thus man's will can act contrary to his intellect. The part that is always free and always pure, as you say, that is the intellect. That's "one's best self". — Agustino

I think the intellect has a huge role to play, but I'd say that love is man's best self. But we think and love at the same time, so it's not a mindless love. I guess I envision a synthesis, the man who has organized his concepts and heart so that the world makes sense and is beautiful at the same time. But this is hard work, as you imply. In that Plato quote above, I think this is addressed. Desire and intellect inform one another. A series of frustrations (collisions of will and intellect) are like the rungs on a ladder.

If that is so, then you are dangerously close to the Orthodox position. Because you'll end up saying that you love according to the intellect - hence an intellectual love, not a mindless one. And the intellect as I said just is the Law.

If I'm close to another position, all the better. I really love Hegel and the conceptual evolution of self-consciousness. Ideas can glow. We can passionately love them. So maybe we aren't so far apart. But for me there's the concept of something beyond any law or authority. Maybe it's the in-finite concept as the negation/subsumption of all finite concepts. I get something from it, and I can relate it to themes in the Gospels, but I make no claim toward its universal validity or relevance.

Gluttony may lead to obesity and other severe health problems that place a tremendous burden on those who must care for the obese person; or his family may struggle to survive if the person dies very young and was the breadwinner, and so on.

Gluttony may lead to obesity and other severe health problems that place a tremendous burden on those who must care for the obese person; or his family may struggle to survive if the person dies very young and was the breadwinner, and so on. — John

Sure but you certainly do see the way in which such effects are less likely in the case of gluttony, and more likely in the case of something like murder.

Certainly murder is worse than gluttony; I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

If I'm close to another position, all the better. I really love Hegel and the conceptual evolution of self-consciousness. Ideas can glow. We can passionately love them. So maybe we aren't so far apart. But for me there's the concept of something beyond any law or authority. Maybe it's the in-finite concept as the negation/subsumption of all finite concepts. I get something from it, and I can relate it to themes in the Gospels, but I make no claim toward its universal validity or relevance. — Hoo

Well yes, it's a position I find tempting (and interesting) - that of an absolute freedom not bound by anything. But then I also find that to contain its own contradiction inside - a freedom not bound by anything is a denial of the possibility of law, and hence of itself. Freedom and law need each other - they are mutually fulfilling, not mutually denying.

Certainly murder is worse than gluttony; I don't think anyone would disagree with that. — John

My point isn't about the morality of it for the doer, but about the way it affects others. Murder is likely to have stronger effects than theft, which is likely to have stronger effects than something like gluttony, and so forth.

Yes, of course murder has greater effects on others than gluttony, that is just why it is worse. It also would have greater effects on oneself; and that is also why it is worse.

If I'm close to another position, all the better. I really love Hegel and the conceptual evolution of self-consciousness. Ideas can glow. We can passionately love them. So maybe we aren't so far apart. But for me there's the concept of something beyond any law or authority. Maybe it's the in-finite concept as the negation/subsumption of all finite concepts. I get something from it, and I can relate it to themes in the Gospels, but I make no claim toward its universal validity or relevance. — Hoo

Maybe in a bit you'll end up like G.K. Chesterton!

When I fancied that I stood alone I was really in the ridiculous position of being backed up by all Christendom. It may be, Heaven forgive me, that I did try to be original; but I only succeeded in inventing all by myself a copy [...] of the existing traditions of civilized religion [...] I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy — G. K. Chesterton

Hegel made this kind of point also in a somewhat different way. Freedom, he said, is impossible without discipline, which is achieved by habituation, by following rules or procedures. The great concert pianist has achieved greatness, that is freedom of expression, by internalizing the necessary constraints via discipline, but her actual freedom does not consist in following any rule or procedure, but in transcending them.

Yes, of course murder has greater effects on others than gluttony, that is just why it is worse. It also would have greater effects on oneself; and that is also why it is worse. — John

I agree. My distinction was aimed merely at showing that some sins we need to treat differently than others. Some we need punishments for because they do not only (or mostly) harm the doer - they also harm others. These are sins such as murder, adultery, theft, etc. Other sins like gluttony, compulsive masturbation, etc. may harm the doer, but generally only bring little harm on others. We organise society not based on preventing self-harm, but preventing the injury of others. Whereas in morality we are interested in both self and others. We call immoral that which brings harm either to self or others. Under the law, we only care about how others are affected - how the doer is affected remains irrelevant. Thus we call unlawful only that which harms another.

Hegel made this kind of point also in a somewhat different way. Freedom, he said, is impossible without discipline, which is achieved by habituation, by following rules or procedures. The great concert pianist has achieved greatness, that is freedom of expression, by internalizing the necessary constraints via discipline, but her actual freedom does not consist in following any rule or procedure, but in transcending them. — John

Yes! I am aware of this although my direct study of Hegel is quite lacking in comparison with other philosophers I have studied. This point is especially important for some conservative, Right Hegelians I've looked into, such as Ivan Ilyin.

As I see it, a general structure of law and sin pervades life. Even progressives who scoff at religion themselves obsess over whether they are guilty of racism or sexism. This is their version of sin. I don't think it's different in first-person emotional terms from the experience of "old-fashioned" sin. The world is and has always been a traffic jam of law-bringers, accusers, and those guilty before their own law and the laws of others. It's a jungle of status significations, apes beating their chests, Inquisitions, class race and gender solidarities, Stalinist purges, paleo diets and crossfit as religion, etc. etc. It's the assertion of finite personality as the "true" law. The self identifies with something finite and partial and is therefore at war.
But stepping into "Christ" is stepping out of all this noise and angst and need to assert. It affirms even the endless narcissism that the jungle of finite personality is made of. It is itself clarified and opened by moves within this jungle.
So the freedom in Christ has its contrast in the mundane world, which it does not replace or obliterate. It's like a lamp that burns more or less brightly. I can reference peak experiences, but I feel the warmth and light of this image most of the time. I could deductively/defensively just call it a clump of thoughts and feeling. But that's pretty much what we are inside. So the best part of us can (in my view) very well be "just" a clump of thoughts and feeling.

Yes, I agree, what is considered unlawful is usually only what harms another; but certainly not always. What about fornicating with animals, for example? What harm can that do to other people if they don't know about it? And the animal is unlikely to become morally corrupted, and may even enjoy it; probably will in fact, if not pain is involved. And yet we somehow know that it is deeply wrong in a truly grotesque ( and not merely aesthetically grotesque) way.

And yet we somehow know that it is deeply wrong in a truly grotesque ( and not merely aesthetically grotesque) way. — John

Yes but that is more morality than law (that we find it grotesque and deeply wrong). Furthermore, the problem is that the animal probably will not sit there patiently for the man (or woman) to do it (as it is simply not attracted to them). Thus it is very likely that forcing the animal will be involved. And that is an example of violence and cruelty which should be punished by law.

As I see it, a general structure of law and sin pervades life. Even progressives who scoff at religion themselves obsess over whether they are guilty of racism or sexism. This is their version of sin. I don't think it's different in first-person emotional terms from the experience of "old-fashioned" sin. The world is and has always been a traffic jam of law-bringers, accusers, and those guilty before their own law and the laws of others. It's a jungle of status significations, apes beating their chests, Inquisitions, class race and gender solidarities, Stalinist purges, paleo diets and crossfit as religion, etc. etc. It's the assertion of finite personality as the "true" law. The self identifies with something finite and partial and is therefore at war.
But stepping into "Christ" is stepping out of all this noise and angst and need to assert. It affirms even the endless narcissism that jungle of finite personality is made of. It is itself clarified and opened by moves within this jungle.
So the freedom in Christ has its contrast in the mundane world, which it does not replace or obliterate. — Hoo

Yes they (the progressives) do have a small, tiny point. Although I think they take it to extremes, the same way ISIS fundamentalists take it to extremes. I'm a conservative, but nevertheless approve of those subjects of social justice and left-leaning economics into my political positions. I don't think Christians for example understand by "the wife should obey the husband" that the wife should kill herself if her husband tells her to for example. But rather if, for example, there is a disagreement about which school the child should attend, the husband should have the final say, but he should nevertheless consider the wife's position and thoughts. A feminazi is likely to think something different - although they will have a point that the wife shouldn't be abused or mistreated or disconsidered. They rebel against power structures - I being a conservative seek to maintain power structures, and think that respect for those power structures is essential in everyone's well being, as they are what is required for order to be maintained, and everyone profits from that. Although I do agree power structures shouldn't be abused. But just because it is possible for them to be abused doesn't mean that they are bad. It is worse if there are no power structures.

I'm not against power structures. Politics will always be with us. Like I said, I want my religion to be beyond all that in its essence, even if it influences such things. We have different lives, different histories, different prejudices. That's what finite selves are made of. But (as I see it) we don't want to get trapped on this level. Because we are only playing the role of our opponent's shadow. We need our ideological enemy to the play the inferior role to our superior role. This game is inescapable in general, I think, but we can see beyond it with the best part of ourselves. I've always had mixed feelings about taking politics seriously. Some part of me always felt diminished and betrayed. I felt a thirst for something higher and larger-hearted than all of this grinding of oughts against oughts. I think that's why there is talk of the "beyond." Some part of us gets sick of the pettiness. Any of us can fall into a petty, stubborn defensiveness. Conservatives and progressives sneer the same sneer. They dehumanize the other, project their own repressed dark side across the aisle. I think facing one's own dark side (sex, violence, greed) is important, but then I was influenced by Jung. "Be wise as a serpent but gentle as a dove." But again, this malfunctions as duty rather than as wise counsel. (And of course this is just what the "spiritual" means to me.)

When I think of sin, I think of it as acknowledging that I want to be virtuous, and acknowledging that I sometimes fail. — Anonymous66

However could *that* happen.

Only kidding.

The etymology of the word is contested. Some say it is derived from the word for 'blood', others say that it is derived from a term meaning 'to miss the mark'. I prefer the latter.

I think a lot of damage has been done by Calvin's interpretation of Augustine. As you mentioned that you're Orthodox, you might be aware of that. The Orthodox interpretation of the 'original sin' is far less drastic than the Calvinist one with its ideas of absolute predestination.

In Buddhism, there is no 'original sin', however there is the idea of 'beginingless ignorance'. The major difference between 'sin' and 'ignorance' is that the former is volitional, i.e. corruption of the will, the latter is cognitive, i.e. corruption of the intellect (in scholarly terminology.)

I actually really doubt that dogs have to be forced to lick vaginas and/ or to penetrate them. Nonetheless it is disgusting. Why is that; if it is not merely an aesthetic disgust. Actually for that matter why would it be aesthetically disgusting at all?

I met a fairly dissolute street artist at a tapas bar in Barcelona when I was traveling; who told me, after a few beers and a hash joint, that he and his mates used to fuck a she-ass up in the hills of Morocca when he was about 14. He said the she-ass loved it and would come running when it saw them approaching.

However could *that* happen.

Only kidding.

The etymology of the word is contested. Some say it is derived from the word for 'blood', others say that it is derived from a term meaning 'to miss the mark'. I prefer the latter.

I think a lot of damage has been done by Calvin's interpretation of Augustine. As you mentioned that you're Orthodox, you might be aware of that. The Orthodox interpretation of the 'original sin' is far less drastic than the Calvinist one with its ideas of absolute predestination.

In Buddhism, there is no 'original sin', however there is the idea of 'beginingless ignorance'. The major difference between 'sin' and 'ignorance' is that the former is volitional, i.e. corruption of the will, the latter is cognitive, i.e. corruption of the intellect (in scholarly terminology.) — Wayfarer

I never wrote that statement that you have attributed to me :D

Why is that; if it is not merely an aesthetic disgust. Actually for that matter why would it be aesthetically disgusting at all? — John

As I said, because it is morally wrong - which doesn't necessarily have something with the legality of it.

I met a fairly dissolute street artist at a tapas bar in Barcelona when I was traveling; who told me, after a few beers and a hash joint, that he and his mates used to fuck a she-ass up in the hills of Morocca when he was about 14. He said the she-ass loved it and would come running when it saw them approaching. — John

Ok - I have my doubts regarding the story though, but surely it may be possible.

Beg your pardon. Edited accordingly, comes from sneaking into forum at work.

Haha no worries!

Conservatives and progressives sneer the same sneer. They dehumanize the other, project their own repressed dark side across the aisle. — Hoo

Certainly as far as it goes I think conservative principles are much more necessary for social order. As I have stated however, progressives also have a point with some of the issues they are championing, and these are simply to be incorporated.

I felt a thirst for something higher and larger-hearted than all of this grinding of oughts against oughts. I think that's why there is talk of the "beyond." Some part of us gets sick of the pettiness. — Hoo

Why not seek to put the two together? As I said, progressives also have some valid oughts.

I think facing one's own dark side (sex, violence, greed) is important, but then I was influenced by Jung. — Hoo

What do you mean by this? How do you "face" your dark side? Surely I would agree that we have to be aware of any tendencies we may have towards immorality and be watchful about them, as well as practice becoming better people on a continuous basis.