Reading Bieg's thread about mods vs. no mods brings to mind a philosophical issue I've wrestled with for many years.

Years ago I read an article about a concept for a super computer that would use holographic memory, ie. three dimensional memory. In theory, this computer would not only be able to solve complex equations related to space and time, but would also be able to conceptualize! Not having the sensory limitations that humans have which influence our understanding of the cosmos and limit our ability to reason, the computer could generate entirely new concepts of reality. For existance, humans tend of think of everything we know of as being either "good" or "bad". All things are labeled by us from the moment we gain our self consciousness. When we see a wild animal kill it's prey, we are repulsed by it and tend to think of it as "bad". In fact, it is a "natural" event and should probably be labeled as "good"! We label natrual disasters as "bad" though they too are part of the overall plan of nature (we just happen to be in their way). What if there is a third choice? What if it's [I]neither]/i]?

So, back to Bieg's post. It seems that Bieg and the repliers to his post have proven my point by staking their claim that mods are either "good" or "bad". I prefer to think of them as morally neutral and benign as to the meaning of life. It's hard, but if we wouldn't place moral value on such silly things, maybe we'd all experience more peace.

 

My arguments just point out the consequences of modding your S2000 which in my opinion and from my point of view are "Bad". The "act" of modding may very well be "good" ie: a learning experience, gives a great deal of satisfaction, freedom of expression, etc...

It is up to the individual to determine if the overall effect is a good one or bad one. Cost/benefit analysis etc...

 

I think you make an interesting point. In the past I've been surprised by the vitriol expressed when some (morally insignificant) subjects are discussed.

As I think about it, the need to value and evaluate (or label) might be rooted in the need to have a sense of moral/intellectual superiority. Many people have the need to constantly reassure themselves that they "own" superiority (often despite the evidence) and maybe it reflects an insecurity.

Combine this need with a personal decision-making strategy that only considers two choices for every situation (about one-third of us, I think) and the extremes of good and bad apply to every situation.

What I haven't figured out though, is whether two-choice decision making is the chicken or egg. Does self-reassurance lead to a two choice decision-making strategy or does a limited decision making ability lead to bad choices and thus the need for self-reassurance.

Obviously, whether one changes the gear knob is irrelevant to the moral conundrum.

 

Your argument is flawed by the fact that YOU are interjecting "morality" into a totaly harmless discussion on the pros and cons of modding your car. Who implied it was a moral decision besides you? When I say that what someone has done to their car is a "sin" it is a figure of speech.

 

Ahhh, Philosophy! One of my favorite subjects!

When we say something is "Good" or "Bad", you have to remember that:

1) Nothing in the universe is inherently Good or Bad. Everything just Is.
2) All statements of "Good" or "Bad" are made by a conscious entity.
3) Therefore, all value judgements contain the implicit question "To Whom and For What"?

With respect to Bieg's discussion on Keeping it Stock, this means that each person decides which is a value for him/her. I personally think that keeping it Stock is better (i.e. "Good") FOR ME, but this statement of my preference says NOTHING about whether it is Good or Bad for anyone else.

Values are ALWAYS relative to the valuer.

JonasM

 

This is a "bad" post. . .

Just kidding. . .

Also. . .Lableed???

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by airgate
[B]

 

I agree with Jonas.

These good/bad evaluations are usually made through a self centered survival instinct of the judging individual, and are often linked to social acceptences. What someone labled "bad" yesterday can easily turn to "good" today, because more people accept it now.

To thy own self be true.