I'll rephrase, yes every attitude has it's basis in physical reality, but when it comes to ignorning truth, like hard evidence that the Earth is a sphere and not flat, some people choose to ignore facts.

People with OCD and emotional problems in general have little to no ability to modify or moderate their moods.

I know because I have it and deal with it on some level every day or every two or three days.

That being said, I'm essentially cured from that, and it was more just knowing what I am internally, which is a good Human Being.

Confidence is king, just don't go out of your way to be a dick, and if you do, learn from your mistake and move on.

Maybe if I was a super buff stud muffin people would believe me more.

Incels are weeaboos that want to be monks because they can't get laid.

The reason is the acceleration of videogames and fantasy as teacher, rather then real life and trying shit like sports and having real life friends with real emotions.

The only reason we are here is to be good Human Beings.

Mushy? Yes, but often overlooked.

Until we start warring with aliens, then shit hits the fan.

Hopefully they have adapted to understand the basics for perpetual peace if such a thing were possible, but I doubt it.

You don't know whether I have a girlfriend or not, and even if you did or didn't you have no context for understanding that potential relationship.

Manipulation and influence are the same thing, with different intentions.

I dont understand why you have such a hangup with the word good, you sound like a Determinist steeped in cultural relativism.

Telling me to fuck myself while being a woman and wearing a bikini is just rude (not the bikini part, I'm not sure why you added that necessary detail), it's not really a moral transgression, it just means that person would be kind of a dick. There's nothing wrong with being kind of a dick unless you accelerate it to the point of lambasting someone with slander.

Even if this was a moral transgression it would be a very minor single act, rather then the collection of experience people have and act in their lives.

"Who can be slandered and who can't?"

People with more cultural capital can be "slandered" but culture receives it as parody or satire if they have the foundations of free speech. People that are just run of the mill and have no higher influence then their job will allow shouldn't be slandered because in truth most people can't handle it and could end up committing suicide or worse attacking people. Criticized? Yes, but not slandered.

There is no "authenticity of motivations" because we all have the same motivations, security, love and fun.

Perhaps you mean authenticity of intentions, which are not the same thing as motivation. Motivation is the primordial precursor to intentions, it is up to the individual to decide for themselves as best then can given the restraints of their society and worldview what is right and wrong to do. Is accident of birth a thing? Yes, but it isn't the only thing, by a long shot.

I'm not indifferent, I just know from experience I can't go down that rabbit hole again. I choose to know that I will do what I think is best in the future. Am I wrong? Yes, at times I'm sure I will be, but you can't just program your moral compass to be right everytime, it's hard enough to think about what could be potentially moral or immoral even most of the time. What you are proposing is quite honestly, really short sighted.

When did I say the world is me?

I am part of the world and the world is a part of me. My identity is inseparable from the time and place of my existence.

You say instinct and motivation aren't the same thing.

Me: Instinct/Motivation precedes intention(s)/moral compass

You as I am interpreting your post: It's actually instinct then motivation. I don't remember seeing you write anything about intentions, but I could be wrong.

It's semantics at this point so I don't think we really believe our primordial natures are any different, your wording is just different compared to mine.

The you was bold, meaning Timeline the poster, specifically.

You claim to understand your moral compass but seem to like to type good in quotations, which indicates you are uncomfortable with that term. Further, the final part of that statement asserts that NO ONE's moral compass is distinct from their environment.

My understanding is that you think somehow a moral compass can exist totally outside of structure and context.

"Your understanding of my assertions is wrong."

Ok, so prove yourself right.



There is none, neither structure or context are totally knowable in the future. There is only the summation of your acts in trying to be the most moral you can be.

Interesting, but being the jokester I am, I would state that the fire is always real before the shadows. :cool:



Could you provide a summary? I'm interested to know your take on it.

I'll rephrase, it's self evident once it is seen.

"What does that mean" I don't know exactly, but neither do you so we are on the same page.

The receptionist comment is rude, but I won't insult you in return. :smile:

I will admit that saying thought and feeling as diametrically opposed was a bit much. Thank you for the feedback.

How can you separate truth and falsehood, (notice there are no parenthesis, meaning I know there are truths and falsehoods and your parenthesis indicate you don't believe in either) when you can never have a moral system that is separate from values prescribed by society?

Lastly motivation is never a question of what is appropriate. The want for food or sex is neither appropriate or inappropriate, it vastly precedes it in nature.

I don't believe in "isms." I take what I find useful in schools of thought and disregard that which isn't succinct. Is this stupid? Maybe, but I can live with the fact I'll never perfectly understand morality.

Edit: The term moral comes from the word mores, as in social mores, similar to norms.

Mores are just a measurement of what is moral.

I've only read The Republic and only remember The Forms and The Cave Analogy.

Also Plato's Five Dialogues, The Tao Te Ching and The Analects. Still haven't read The Odes.

The I Ching can be pretty esoteric and superstitious but I may be interested in reading it soon since I still like Astrology, Archetypes, Enneagrams and the like, it's just good old fashion nerd fun I don't necessarily believe in any of the latter. examples.

Rational thought is actually a dirty word to me, given it may not be for everyone.

You can rationalize bad behavior.

You can't be reasonable with bad behavior unless that behavior leads to a good end.

No one says "you're just reasoning your behavior" when they mean rationalize

The word rational is morally ambiguous, so is logical. Think of them as diametrically opposed similarly with thought and feeling. Reason is the best of both the logical and the rational in my opinion. If this is incongruent give me a good reason, not ration, why it isn't. :cool:

Yes, your beliefs are largely influenced by society, but this doesn't mean you can't learn to separate truth from falsehood.

Through your actions hopefully, but it's impossible to know the future, you can only make an educated guess.

That's what character is, just good intentions. The only way it's measured is once you are dead and other's essentially give you your moral high score.

I know that's reductive but I'm must being cheeky, but the kicker is, they all might be wrong.

"What is good?"

You know it when you see it, it is self evident.

Are there things that appear good but are able to be made bad? Yes, this is called perversion, meaning twisting that which is good into the bad.

There is no opposite of good, evil is simply a good act with evil intentions or the absence of good. I'll attribute the later to Goya

"All that is required for evil to spread is for good men (Human Beings my...emphasis) to do nothing" - Goya paraphrased.

I think the popular opinion is that Atheism is actually the belief there is no god rather then lack of belief in a god.

At least that's how militant Atheists come off to me.

If you ever want to see militant Agnostics look up the South Park episode where Kenny goes to a foster home with strict Agnostic parents. It's a laugh.

Whether it's right or not your moral character is the only metric that is truly measurable, paradoxically it doesn't always end with the best moral outcome.

I'm going to list your bold assertions and reply with my own whether I agree or disagree.

1. Agreed, but it can also be purely a physical proposition or a pure attitude disregarding the physical.

2. Belief can and cannot imply truth, but truth or falsehood are the essence of the tool of belief.

3. Totally agreed, unless they have Dissociative Identity Disorder, but I understand that is a stretch.

4. Agreed, but I like to think of it as nihilation rather then making sense of error. Acquiring knowledge is first and foremost a deductive process that leads to an inductive or inferential process.

5. I dont think so in essence. Yes, words change but the dynamic is always stemmed from Human Success and Human error, meaning love and fear. Our intentions change, yes, but our motivations are always the same: Security, Love, Fun.

6. This sounds like you're against cultural relativism, and I generally agree with that notion. For example, schadenfreude has no English equivalent, but it's basis of pleasure of others pain is just as knowable for English speakers, it's just a discrepancy of vocabulary.

7. I totally agree, if this were true, that would mean magic were real. Once something is real that was once imaginary it is subject to the rules of reality and then no longer purely immaterial in the mind.

8. This sounds like transcendence to me, so once again cultural and even on a person to person basis make this a very grey area.

9. I disagree, you can discern peoples beliefs even if you don't understands the minutae of every event that led to their actions. Is it difficult sometimes? Yes.

Here's a question about abortions and women's rights.

What if the majority of women didn't want abortion to be legal.

I personally know a woman that would refuse to have an abortion regardless of circumstances.

What if she were the majority?

Do I want abortion to be illegal? No.

But I'm a man, so it will never effect me unless I accidentally have a child, and even if I do I can't choose whether or not to have the baby.

Right off the bat, I don't remember Morpheus telling Neo that he was going to be a success.

How about the Amish (maybe Jehova's Witnesses?) refusing their children blood transfusions. That's a good'n.

Morality may be subjective so long as your description of "subjective" doesn't mean "whatever those other people think is moral" is somehow defendable.

Subjective doesn't mean "whatever you think is right" it means shades or tones of right and wrong.

If country A outlaws beating sheep on Wednesdays and country B outlaws beating sheep on Tuesdays, the moral is permissive under the notion subjectivity.

If country A outlaws beating sheep on Wednesdays and country B allows you to beat sheep on Wednesday Tuesday or any amount of days the transgression is no longer a question of subjectivity. It's wrong to beat sheep, it doesn't matter what day it is.

Given my original statements implying beating sheep on any other days besides Wednesday and Tuesday is incongruent, but that wasn't the point.

The point is, the word subjectivity pretends that things can't be arbitrary or capricious.

My understanding of Zeno's paradox is that across infinite timelines were are in a solid state of vibrations.

I say solid state in a metaphorical sense.

Pretty much this.

God is what happens when our supposed multiple consciousness of individuation die. God cannot be conscious, if God were conscious he would just be a dude.

The notion that we are in God's dream makes sense at first. However, if you have ever tried to read or look at a watch or clock in a dream you will likely not see any kind of symbols that mean anything to you.

This indicates there is a contextless origin of structure, i.e. A Non Nothing.

Think of nothing, now it is something.

The original Structure and/Context are totally arbitrary although self evident in it's own way.

What facilitates nothing? Everything. What facilitates everything? Nothing.

It is not original creation, and even if it were it would be facilitated. If it were not originally facilitated it would be a thing that was already created.

Think about infinite space. What do you think of? Outerspace? Space can also be that which OCCUPIES space. Meaning a full solid structure. Both are fully justifiable as space.

If you can imagine something that was either nothing or something it is now that something in your mind. You can imagine "nothing" but what do you think of? Blackness and empty space? Those are both something.

This is the Tao, the ever expanding perspective. Wherever you look, it goes farther, whenever you make it larger it becomes smaller.

If God is a person, or even isn't a person or entity, and we are all people or Human Beings or entities, I will state that my opinion is that our species and any other sentient species are fragmented aspects of God's mind.

God can't be a single person, if he she or it was, it would emphatically be, just a dude.

Once you become more then one consciousness, your identity melts, you stop existing, i.e. you die.

Interesting topic.

If the notion that everything is in God's mind, the closest thing we can relate that to would be a dream, whether or not it's a sleeping dream or daydreaming or imagining I can't say.

But even IF this were true and God were the original Structure, it would mean it needs a context preceding it.

The original context is lack of context, which is the structure from which all things come from.

The original structure and/or context (It's hard to explain with language especially over the internet.) Is a Non-Nothing.

Stick with me. There is no such thing as nothing, but now there is because I said there is.

If existence is A and nothingness is B but A is dependent on B that means A and B are essentially arbitrary. Yes, I read a couple chapters of On Being And Nothingness, and no I didn't read the whole book because it's dense in unnecessary pedantic words.

The Structure and Context are FACILLITATED by nothing, not CREATED by it.

What facilitates nothing? Everything. What facilitates everything? Nothing.

This is The Tao postulated by Lao Tzu.

It's pretty easy to see what my biggest influences are.