Theos-Talk Archives (February 2001 Message tt00049)

Dear Louis,
> Am I missing something? I thought poverty was the opposite of 
wealth, pure 
> and simple. 

I agree, it wasn't a good example of virtue and vice. What it 
explains moreover, is that virtues have need of need. There would be 
no need of kindness in the world if there were no unkindness, for 
example.
I'm not thoroughly happy with some of the virtue/vice pairs presented 
on Yanis Dambergs page either.

You'll note that the idea of virtues and thier opposites goes way 
back beyond Lully.
In Aristotle for instance:
http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/~jarvis/bola/ethics/mackie6.html

And here is one Hindu's view:
http://www.hindutva.org/AnwarShaikh/Psychological/LoveHate.html
"This universe is composed of forces which are exactly equal and 
opposite. This is the reason that all attributes come in opposite 
pairs, and one cannot operate without the other. As a positive charge 
of electricity is useless without a negative charge, the concept of 
virtue without vice, pain without pleasure and love without hate is 
meaningless. Nobody can say that something is sweet without knowing 
what sour is." 


>Charity, it seems to 
> me is a compassionate response of our higher nature which can and 
should be 
> made equally, to the wealthy as well as the poor. 

That is correct.


> What about it's role of simply providing freedom of choice to an 
evolving 
> species in its journey to enlightenment. 

That is part of it, to be sure.

>Karma regulates the action of 
> inappropriate choices, not the duality's.


If Karma were instant Karma there would be no freedom.

An understanding of the virtue/vice pairs is part of a science of 
life.

Vice only fulfils its purpose when overcome- this cardinal point is 
overlooked by many.


Cheerio,
Bruce
http://www.egroups.com/group/spiritualscience