GRGR(3) talking ethos

[keith woodward]

Paul wrote:
>Wouldn't this make B IMmoral rather than necessarily Amoral? Isn't  decadent
>closely akin to immoral. It implies there is something to decay  (something to
>do the decky dance with).

Yes.  As I recall, Blicero is partially in love with the wrongness of it,
the death-liness of it.  Awareness means im.

>On Charles' point of our all being  inundated with morality in childhood I
>guess this is true--but mostly  in the sense that we TOLD by our parents,
>teachers, clergymen , etc. what is right or wrong.   But does this necessarily
>result in a moral person. I'm thinking of all the talk about bad kids (who
>shoot people etc.) lately. There are theories floating around about what went
>wrong with THEIR moral conditioning. Theories beyond those of Dan Quayle and
>Gary Bauer I mean. Was some mysterious factor of bonding with humanity
>missing.?A missing mother figure or something of the sort? Is Mother the
>original Pavlov without even knowing it (or how she does it)?

Ye-owch!  That's a big can of worms: is this the way that moral
consciousness is fostered in the text?  I'm honestly not sure, but I can
say that it's not the only theory out there regarding how/why we are moral.
Aristotle and Kant don't see it that way at all.  I'm not saying that P
espouses either, but what I am saying is that, with regard to Blicero, it
doesn't necessarily have to follow a conditioning model (which looks like
another brand of hedonism to me).  Unless it pops up in the text somewhere
as such...?

Keith W