GRGR(3) talking dog 44.20

[calbert at pop.tiac.net]

> > I wonder whether "a"moral is the appropriate term here.

Paul sez:

> I would have though amorality to be the NATURAL state and morality the
> thing conditioned.


Technically, yes. Much like one cannot be a born again christian. But 
by the time we are post adolescent we have been inundated with 
morality  to the point where amorality must be in some way 
received or achieved. The reason I suggest that Blicero is decadent 
rather than amoral is the echo of a near "regret", almost the 
struggling of a conscience in Blicero's reflections. Amorality 
would'nt bother.

> Katje could never allow herself to be  so conditioned.
> It would be an insurmountable disqualifying factor in  her ability to
> carry out  the assignment.

But don't you feel that the act of betrayal which preceeded the 
assumption of any such assignment marked some kind of turning point? 
I am not ready to accept the idea that P considers Katje beyond the 
same manipulation all the other characters are subject to.

>  There is something  exceedingly glamorous in
> the completely amoral person.  O the lucky two heroes without this encumbrance.


Oh, everything comes with a cost. I suspect that the truly amoral 
live without the benefit of the kinds of emotional ebbs and flows 
which give the rest of us a reason to distinguish yesterday from 
today.

love,
cfa