Isn't the truth of that dependent on context though? What if a woman has lots of support and an independent income? Bags of security, no need of that from a partner. Might they not prioritise the fun stuff more? — bert1

This is an interesting topic. I agree, that when the roles and responsibilities that used to be typically met by men are now met by women (more independence/ autonomy) the considerations they are likely to make become more about appearance, height, skills in the bedroom, personality, as you put it "the fun stuff".

The irony here is those were the expectations of men towards women when they had less independence and equality.

How does it feel to be objectified as a man, by women that earn more, have higher social status and influence.

Now we might finally empathise with what they had to put up with for centuries. It's not nice to be underestimated, undervalued or for all the value to be placed on superficial qualities like looks - as an arm piece.

We used to only care about whether they had child bearing hips, whether they had elegance, a pleasant and quiet demeanor while the men talked business.
Now they might expect us to have a whole set of head hair, some good brawn/muscle, to be tall.
It's tit for tat. Karmic really..

I have zero issues with that. It's merely the system swinging from one state of affairs to it's opposite. About god damn time too.

Patriarchies taste of its own medicine.

Luckily for us tho, I think women are more inclined to entertain our emotions and feelings on the subject and to support us in being equals rather then becoming as toxically matriarchal as patriarchy has been towards women in the past. We have shit to learn from women. We should listen up.

[

For example, weren't high standards of beauty already available to everyone before the era of social media, through things like magazines and TV? — Tzeentch

Yes but here's the crux of the situation. Never before have these things been as impossibly un-ignorable.
There has never been such integration of socialising with force-feeding of content.

Where once we had clear separation between beauty magazine, TV and social platform to contact friends. Now the social interaction is the magazine, it is the TV, the theater.

And when all your friends are on social media and demand that you are too, even to the point of finding you strange and socially outcast if you don't, it's either play game or be isolated, so logging on, you are sucked into the algorithm that learns you, your interests and hobbies, desire and dreams and starts you walking on the treadmill of personally curated content for your individual dopamine hits.

And thus depletes all your cognitive reserve, much like a drug does. Leaving you in your room, mentally exhausted by entertainment, and having done nothing else with your day. Withdrawal symptoms, that are avoided by going online again to get your next fix of wonder and awe.

And all your friends too are exhausted from intense scrolling. When all the dopamine and serotonin is used up, you're left in a spiral where comparisons have been made, self esteem dips and loneliness kicks in. That drives you back to the apps.

It's like we're teaching kids from a young age to be narcissists (ergo, lacking core self-esteem and instead deriving it from the perceptions of others), turning the successful ones into social vampires and turning the others into anemic dregs. With narcissism social interaction is a zero-sum game.

Social media plays a huge role in this. — Tzeentch

I think it's not even so much actively teaching children to be narcissists. I think it is the fundamentals of social media that alters our behaviour.

In essence what it does is widen the community to which one must conform to be seen or heard. Thus expectations are much higher across such a broad sphere than they ever would have been in a small close knit circle of friends.

Being aware of global society from our phones, we are aware of greater heights of beauty, greater depths of skill - from extreme sports to cooking to all sorts. We see the best of the best in every discipline going viral.

When faced with myriad masteries of skills and beauty, it is hard not to compare it to oneself. The way we interact socially has fundamentally changed in a drastic way as of the last 40 years.

What used to be genuine popularity for your authentic self has become being a brand, self promoting, being all things to all people, and if you can't, fake it till you make it/edit the shit out of yourself, and this just isn't a true social relationship like the ones that evolved for millenia.

tricky thing then is what the hell do they do about it? — bert1

Maximise the skills talents and positive traits you do have. No one, I think, is without any. They're just either not identified or cultivated.

The moral kernel here I think is that looks really are not everything. But they are the most initially apparent. So those without them need to nurture charisma to overcome the initial barrier.

I do believe women in general are the more empathetic gender. They are open to being shown kindness, humour and deeper levels of beauty than what's face value (excuse the pun). Thank yourself you're not trying to attract meaningful relationships from other men. I bet they're more superficial and objectifying toward eachothers than women are to men. And I hear lesbian relationships have the highest rate of fidelity/faithfulness. So there ya go.

maybe create a healthier dating app that emphasises more the character of a person than their appearance. Many people would go for that. There's success and money to be made and a gap to be filled in the market

And you get an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, as we see in some isolated populations. Tribal peoples have been aware of this, so they held - and still sometimes do - gatherings of young people to find mates; in many cultures, they routinely exchanged adolescents of either sex or both with another group. Stratified civilizations are more restrictive in the choice of mates - selecting permissible pairings by race, caste, creed, class and even to the point of strictly brokered marriage without the consent of one or both partners — Vera Mont

This is very good point! I like the link between stratification and inbreeding. Never registered on my radar in the discussion so far. Good addition

healthier society — Vera Mont

How does that look for you. Have we corrupted the beauty ideal as a society? How do we ensure every child grows up feeling attractive/ with good self esteem?

In 180 Proof's utopia, we'd castrate and/or lobotomize incels. Or maybe, less invasively, heavily medicate the shits — 180 Proof

Okay wow. Haha I'm taking this as satire/ humour because it swings to the opposite extreme and I suspect I know you well enough to assume this isn't serious.

But interestingly it does raise one good point against castrating/medicating or doing anything harmful to incels or any societally perceived unattractive person.

And that is: look what happened when we tried to make pedigree dogs based on aesthetics. Eugenics has turned out to go horribly wrong in practice.
And it's very nazi-esque anyways.

Two attractive parents can birth and raise unattractive offspring and two unattractive parents can birth and raise beautiful offspring depending on gene recombination/complimetarity if the pairing in any given individual.

So sadly, the so called "unattractive end" of the spectrum is here to stay both biologically and as a mutual and neccesary opposite, also beauty is at least semi-subjective, and it's also genetically good to have diversity.

And so as members of these societies condemning violence, even if marginalized in the case of incels, it is still a big obstacle to act on these beliefs — ChatteringMonkey

That's true ChatteringMonkey I think the culture is pretty much standard anti-violence in most places and I reckon now is the least violent we have been as a populus compared with hundreds or thousands of years ago. But I also think this is why very brief, sporadic and horrific events are occurring randomly. Like school-shootings. Mass shootings in the locations where the pent up rage/hatred spills over the social anti-violence precedent that usually is sufficient to counter it.

Hmm. I see certain good points in your post but maybe not the ones you were highlighting.

I note the diffenrce between the small community and the social media app as being one of presence (the subjective element)

In person, in a small community, "knowing everyone" as you say, it's not just about looks. It's about financial security, safety, charisma, humour, kindness, the way one composes themselves in social groups, what others say about them in the group. You learn a lot more about a person and their character in that case and a lot less on an app with a few pictures that is designed to objectify the person, to market them as a product to swiped on.

It's fair to say some men are handsome and some are not.
That's nature.

But it's also fair to say that that is only one facet of someone's eligibility as a partner. Other huge ones that are under ones control unlike their genetic makeup is comedy/humour, intellect, career, views on politics, family, # of kids they want, religion or lackthereof, common interests and hobbies etc. And a match has been made on less. None of these qualities generally transpire online.

So back in the day, men had an arsenal of ways to seduce. Now, online, you need to be hot, tall and affluent. Because there's nothing else to go on.

I think this is what incels are complaining about. The system has become more efficient (swiping) but less wholesome (interacting with people you may not initially find attractive but later develop a liking for).

Their frustrated energy is re-directed mostly into verbal aggression, instead of physical aggression, which is probably a win for society.. — ChatteringMonkey

See I'm not so sure tbh. Because, the more innate a belief becomes in ones mind by compression/condensation - by others and how they view you (be it positive or negative) the more likely it is to influence ones physical actions. No?

If you construct a mental paradigm off a fundamental emotive source (a basic belief/ principle/tenet) like "I am ugly and unlovable" - that deeply rooted source of contempt, pure anger, hostility and frustration, is bound to a). Corrupt all your other beliefs that are secondary to it and b). influence your behaviour as a whole.

Especially when it targets a specific group of people - a scapegoat (sounds familiar to a certain someone in 1930/40s Germany).

So I'm concerned that if the system of dating apps, as well as social media etc is accidentally marginalising and compressing/ reinforcing negative beliefs in incel groups, they may indeed become so radicalised and extreme that what was as you said "verbal aggression" may become "physical aggression".

The ones who know how to do that make out like bunnies and the odious ones are jealous. — Vera Mont

Yes jealousy definitely seems to be an underpinning facet of Incel psychology.
It's ironic also in that it's a vicious feedback cycle.
Seething with jealousy and an self constructed- inferiority complex comes across for most as "unattractive" which in turn is the anticipated/expected validation an Incel is looking for to support their "justified state of jealousy".

So in that sense they're selectively deaf to alternative considerations and ideas. They only see through the lens of expectation.

Interesting. So incels were always there you say. And in a way, the incel is becoming hyper-radical/more extreme as a byproduct or unfortunate counter reaction to society moving towards more of a gender and sex equal state of affairs?

Is it like a concentrating of mysogyny from what was once more systemic but less extreme into a small, little awful and extreme nugget?

How would one go about defusing that? Is ignoring it not making it worse somehow? Their whole premise is being ignored or unvalued. Is there a way to promote self esteem/a healthy respect for being a man in this group of individuals without accepting nor permitting their continued misogynistic premises?

For me it sounds a bit handmaid's tale. That's quite scary.

Have you read any fiction? Language need not "reflect the 4 dimensions we exist in". — Luke

No I'm not talking about the content of language. I'm speaking about the structure of language.
Fiction writings still uses nouns, verbs, adjectives, grammar and syntax. Read what I said more carefully.

My questions - in the section that you quoted - were about the self. I don't see how your post addresses that (assuming that you intended to). — Luke

I answered it. Human spoken language is based on sensorium - the input and construction of our perceptions (qualia). Language is on a higher tier if cognition than sensory input. But requires it.
Languages structure reflects how we communicate our perceptions of time (syntax/chronology), verbs (action), grammar (relationship/mechanics), location and objects (nouns) and adjectives (distinction/définition). Language is communicable coding for these things.

I think if we are to truly see each other as equals, then we should operate as one race - the human race. This would seem to entail having one society and one governance.

Boundaries are the artificial constructs placed to distinguish "selves": or "us" from "them".
Our nation, their nation, our cuisine, their cuisine, our culture, their culture, our religion, their religion, our class/caste/status, their class/caste/status, our ethnicity, their ethnicity, our language, theirs, our laws, their laws, our wealth, theirs, our resources, their resources, our political views, theirs and so on.

Mine vs. Yours/ Ours vs. Theirs.

They are all dividing constructs that we use to construct self identity. And this fosters any myriad reasons to justify seeing ourselves as different from others on all levels: personal, familial, community, nation, international unions, etc.

I think we have global problems now. Climate change. Inequality. The wealth/privilege gap. We simply cannot resolve these from a divided state of mind, and thus from a divided "state". Unification is the only way forward. Division is chaotic and opposing.

Their view seems to amount to thinking that there can be no common framework that would provide the pathway of reasoning to a "correct" answer with regards to religious questions. In other words that religious disputes cannot be solved because there's no reliable source of reason for solving them? It seems to be a view a lot of atheists and agnostics have. — Hallucinogen

I think you will find most religions have a common thread under/through them. It may be simple, basic but it is there. There are several concepts that parallel across all religions. God is not one of them.

Not all religions have a godhead. Taoism speaks in favour of flow of nature that is ultimately not reducible to human language/description.

I think religions as well as science are all fundamentally reconcilable with one another for a simple reason - they all study/ponder reality - it's origin and it's nature. Some features of every religion are more or less accurate than others in a reconcilable logical/rational framework. Science also has its limitations in areas spirituality does not - like an explanation for irrationality, love, ethics/morality and intuition.

In essence the reconcilability of the study of the universe as "self/conscious" (spirituality) and the study of the universe as an inanimate object (science) are divided by the hard problem. Where does self end and inanimate substance begin?

For me the issue is that there is a belief that economy has infinite potential to grow. We always talk about the growth of GDP. And yet we know that resources are finite. And economy is based on resources. So it's impossible to grow indefinitely unless we expand to other planets.

This is totally unbalanced with respect to how nature operates. Nature operates in balance/equilibrium. So destroying it to uphold a notion of infinite economic growth is what is causing a rebound effect - a countering mechanism from mother nature against what is basically "a cancerous growth" - infinite and all consuming - human economy - the pillaging and plundering of resources that work to stabilise the entire system.

Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish

That's a toughie, given that the law of God as taught by most religions runs counter to the laws of nature; that good moral behaviour requires that one suppress one's animal instinct and repudiate one's animal drives. — Vera Mont

Well the way I see it is that nature itself is creative and destructive. It's chaotic and ordered. And natural living things embody this - acting in both ways either in service of themselves or in service of their community (social animals - packs, prides, squads, troops etc).

So what is ones instinct? For me it is directly related to ones cognitive ability. Animals that don't have much need for abstraction, reasoning or conceptualisation, reflect this in the limited nature of their languages/communication as well as how instinctually driven they are.

Humans on the other hand, excel in abstraction, imagination, reasoning etc (cognition) and have one of the most complex languages to reflect that. Thus we can go against instinct if we so wish.

We can be as self serving or as socially cooperative as we like. It is likely that we have more control over instinct than most animals do. Sacrifice and suicide being prime examples of how we overcome our primal instinct to self preserve.

In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it. — Jacques

Can one not do something purely spontaneous and random with no purpose at all. Like scribble on a page for example. If so, then people don't only do something because they expect it to beneficial or have useful purpose to them.

Would we have words like "aimless", "pointless" "purposeless" or "random" as descriptors for such things if people were perfectly ordered, rational and goal orientated all the time?

Are one’s thoughts on the same constitutive footing as one’s qualia in terms of their sense of self or are one’s thoughts a step removed or a step “higher” than one’s qualia? Would I still have a sense of self without any qualia but with my thoughts? — Luke

Thoughts - both linguistic and visual imaginings - are based on sensory input. Verbs, nouns, syntax/grammar reflect the actions, objects/locations and structure or relationship between theses respectively.

Language reflects the 4 dimensions we exist in. The Who, what, where, when, how and why reflect the features of the reality we sense - subjects, material, location, time, relationships and cause-effect.

Mr. Rose also makes the argument that the belief in political authority/the institution of government is a superstition because no one can legitimately wield political authority, as no one has the right to rule or forcibly control another as if he or she were his slave. — AntonioP

It's about consentual bdsm. Consenting to have someone else bind you in a system of rules and govern your life, dominate your social and political capabilities and conventions on your behalf, hopefully with your best interests at heart - safety/security, enjoyment, medicine, luxury and entertainment all available and close at hand, and this is done by election/will of the many.

That is not slavery to a system, but informed consent. Democracy. Especially when any citizen is free to campaign to become the master/dominatrix - presidency, prime ministry etc.

So long as there is a choice to live outside the system, or "off the grid", then passive or active participation and contribution to society is by consent.

If one is not happy with societies rules and structure. They are free to live self-sustainably. You can squat, live peripherally or nomadically (like itinerants, amish, romani or other marginal communities left to their own devices) or further still camp out in the most isolated unpopulated regions, grow your own food, collect your own firewood and make your own remedies, textiles etc. Free from money, taxes, and the law to pretty much the largest degree possible. Unknown, difficult to access communes.

There are many uninhabited islands and regions in the world, and several of them in dispute over nationality or ownership, and despite that, should one survive there they will never encounter any opposition from any authority.

I think that creating children is the source of all human harm. — Andrew4Handel

When is a human a human? In the sense of gradual slight changes over evolution?
Presumably if we have a strict set of conditions that determine us as homo sapien, then there was a point in time in which a predecessor homo species that failed to meet this criterion gave rise to the first sapien that did meet it. The parents = not sapiens, the offspring = sapiens.

In that case if there is "harm" in giving birth to children. The harm is not human. But from other animals that "imposed our humanness on us". Should we then go out and blame all human hardship on australopithicus?

Maybe we take it back further and blame everything on LUCA (last universal common ancestor).

If we are to take this sharp delineation, then creating human children was not harm done by humans. As the parents were originally not human. But rather pre-human animals. Should we then blame all the primates or extinct homo genus groups for harming us in their contribution to birthing us?

You can blame away if it helps you have peace of mind. But it seems totally pointless.

The universe gave rise to life. It imposed living on itself. Through biogenesis, evolution and speciation.

Should we just blame the entire universe then? And if we do, what comes of it? The universe doesn't give a rats ass. Nature operates the way it does. Nothing will change this.

Is there any point in exterminating life in a universe hellbent on its emergence? What is to stop life from rekindling. It is the law of chemistry and physics that dictates the emergence of biology. You cannot swim against that tide.

Ah I was not aware of such an initiative. Thank you for pointing it out

We are not equipped to evaluate anything for universal, eternal or absolute truth. — Vera Mont

Well, it is indeed certain that we cannot establish all truths, at all moments in time, everywhere, all at once. For that, we would have to be everywhere, at all times, all at once to measure and establish such truths in the constant change and permutation of the system.

But reality, luckily for us, has innate consistency imbedded within it. A consistency that we can follow/track, and it makes sense to us. Through intuition, reasoning and logic. A consistency that governs why we are here in the first place - the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, society and consciousness and diversity that evolved from it.

So there seems to be a uniting reason for the occurence and behaviour of all things. A reasoning or consistency or truth more fundamental than the rest that binds all things yet one we do not fully know nor uderstand yet.

But that permeating sense, or logic, is how we have been able to apply our senses to the world, or generate technology to sense/detect that which we cannot.

The complexity of the system we exist in is profound. But complexity is on a spectrum, is one pole, the other being simplicity, or singular principle.

This state allows us to delve into and ascertain things that are long gone (the past) as well as make algorithms and predictive formulas for those yet to come. Insights into how basic rules determine where we came from, as well as where we are going.

Thus, there is immense knowledge to be had. We need only pursue it, with our logic, a logic that precedes us and stretches beyond us.

antinatalism and related positions where extinction is preferable to life because of the inevitability of harms associated with life (I actually support the antinatalist conclusion that life is too harmful to warrant proliferating.) — Andrew4Handel

Anti-natalism is extremely biased. If life is good and beneficial, antinatalism fails in its arguments. If life is bad or harmful, antinatalism is warranted.

But who has more choice in determining that? The living or the dead? Having choice trumps not having it, so I would say life is more powerful and authoritative than death. And thus more beneficial. The living have control. The dead cannot harm, nor can they impose, nor can they make choices. The dead are just that, irrelevant and totally without any control or authority over the living other than what they stand for - that simply, we will all die some day.

Thus life is better in that you have freedoms that death does not afford. The living can choose to continue to live, or they can choose to die. The dead cannot choose to live nor die. They are totally impotent.

I am living. I enjoy life. I think living is good/better than being dead. How do you reconcile "me" with antinatalism?

So long as I and people like me exist, Anti-natalism is reduced to a hypocritical state of constant cynicism and complaint. A cult of mass suicide idealists.

Trying to impose on everyone that enjoys their lives, and want to make a positive or beneficial contribution, that they ought not to, that they instead should feel ashamed or guilty for not wanting to die, I would say, is immoral to the most extreme level.

To that I say "deal with it" or "cry me a river". The living are here to stay. Pro-extinction groups have always and will always be powerless over the majority. The proof is in that none of them have ever in the history of mankind nor ever will in the future of mankind convince ever single of 8 billion people to commit mass suicide because "life might be harmful sometimes".

Do you really want to subscribe to that state of helplessness and ineffectuality?

Get over it. We get it. Life is harmful. But it's a risk our intellect and optimism can and does repeatedly overcome as we progress in medicine/health, technology and law.

An antinatalist is someone who continues to lives but desires total anhilation (a hypocrite). God forbid any such individual finds themselves in control of nuclear warheads.

Why? That seems arbitrary and tautologous where the term morality is attached randomly to one set of behaviours or concepts — Andrew4Handel

Morality arbitrary? No. Try telling that to anyone you wish to do harm to. Try insisting on that to the law/legal system, or society at large. I think one would find such a sentiment as undesired and ill-accepted at large.

If one were the only thing that existed, the only conscious being that mattered, then I could consider morality as being entirely arbitrary, irrelevant and tautologous. Afterall, there would be no one to be immoral toward.

However we don't exist in isolation. And we are not alone nor totally free to do as we like. Whether one likes it or not we live in a reality with more than one sentient/aware being that can suffer/be harmed, and can have differing opinions and views. That is society. So in the context of society, and the things that can harm it, morality certainly is not arbitrary. Not even close.

One can say this is "imposed on them." But I would simply reply with "deal with it". It is how it is. It is imposed equally on all people. Therefore that is nothing special or unique to any individual.

It is not clear what "morality" refers to and it seems that it refers to whatever you want it to quite arbitrarily. — Andrew4Handel

Morality refers to minimising harm.

no worries.

How do you determine what perfection is? — Tom Storm

At its most basic, I would characterise perfection, the ideal or "paradise" state as one of universal kinship.

Total benevolence towards oneself and towards others in the pursuit of a personal identity/self actualization, knowledge, diversity and abundance of experience, beauty, entertainment, health, love and contentedness.

This is reflected in the virtues: effort or discipline; contemplation - of self and other, perserverence, patience/ listening, understanding/consideration, wisdom, good intentions/kindness, charity/generosity, tolerance and forgiveness.

If everyone nurtured within themselves and others such qualities, I fail to see how the world would not begin to "self-correct" towards a more ideal state of existence.

Conversely; laziness, ignorance, arrogance, self-centered thinking, impatience, intolerance, selfishness/greed, resentment, blame/grudge-holding and hatred. These things bring us many steps away from something more ideal than the current state of affairs.

In the end, when virtually any action can be justified or rationalised however one feels, then "choice" or freewill is the only thing one has to sway in either direction. Towards the ideal, or away from it.

You are either the center of your actions (responsible) or you are off center of your actions (scapegoating/projecting them onto others and playing the helpless wronged victim of an unfair existence).

Or in other words, you may either lead by example, or follow the example of others. Where does your trust lie?

What do you believe is perfection?

I don’t have a specific question except: what do you think? — Jamal

What I think is this is an excellent, coherent and articulate analysis and summary of the role of philosophy to humanity. It clearly has a rightful place in tying together all human disciplines, and steadying them, moderating their dominance over one another, and thus danger to one another. Philosophy does this by being innately flexible and applicable.

The "art of thought" can approach any field of study.
As nothing can be mastered without thought other than pure ignorance.

Thank you for the kind words Quintillus. I'm glad I can add something of interest :)

If everyone had "pure common sense" - in the sense that they could consider all possible outcomes of an action (foresight) , as well as how this would impact or affect others and their well being as well as the environment (rational empathy) and could then elect to take the least harmful path (benevolence) in light of the 2 former conditions, then we would not need Law nor a legal system at all. It would not exist as there would be no need for it to correct people who are already acting in the most prudent/appropriate manner.

But people do not think so meticulously, often not even wanting to, acting off impulse, and everyone has a subjective sense of right and wrong, personal bias, delusions and prejudices, often acting irrationally to the common/"greater good" but "rationally" to the "individual good."

The law tries to protect an ideal - "the hypothetical perfect citizen" and the ideals of such a person. Someone truly harmless, without fault, considerate, empathetic and wise or purely rationale and reasonable in action.

Of course, failing to identify such a person, the closest stand in is the innocent - infants, children.

Those adults who reflect or are close to this ideal in belief and behaviour are likely to never break the law, even without having a degree in law/ studying it, and if they do, the court is likely to review the case and rule in their favour. Ammending the law in such a case.
But because everyone is flawed to some degree, even the supreme policy and law makers, the ideal good-doer is always at risk of being wrongly punished.

Law is a tool. A guide. And an imperfect one at that. Law is only a rough blueprint, constantly revised and ammended as needed. But it is not permanent.

Much of what was legal 400 years ago is not legal today. And much of what is legal today likely will not be legal in 400 years. Other things which are illegal may become legal also. The paradigm if law is in flux, as it tries to keep up with knowledge, technology and social conscience /culture.

What is more fundamental than law are basic principles on which it relies. Do the minimum harm, while endeavouring to bring around the maximum benevolence. This is the basics of morality or ethics.

The law is also generalised - a sweeping statement. It must apply to all subjects to be considered "fair" and equal". The irony being that the needs and situation of different subjects is not equal at all. There is always a marginalised group that has not been addressed and is thus vulnerable and blindsided.

The law doesn't pick up on specific exceptions or sets of circumstances it has not considered yet. There are always untied "loose ends". These loose ends are both the source of denying rights/causing injustice under the current law - ie being moral but considered unlawful, as well as those exploiting and abusing blindspots/loopholes or "being immoral" without being treated as unlawful.

This is the frontier of ammendment and revision of the current law to include those possibilities within it's framework. This is an endless game of catch up.

Laws do not forsee. They only work in hindsight. Retrospection.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism — Andrew4Handel

Well for me there is truth ofc. And it is valuable as it is how reality truly is and truly works.

Having said that, I also believe" anything goes interpretative relativism" must exist as a neccesary compliment to the truth ie. "that which is relative to the absolute. That which fills the spectrum of uncertainty (0.00-0.999') with the truth being 1 - absolute certainty.

Relativism is imagination, pondering, postulations, beliefs, biases and all that is arbitrary and assigned either for convenience or because it works in finite restricted parameters - temporary. The truth however always works, everywhere, all at once. Despite what we relatively dream up about it.

The truth includes falsity. As falsity, delusion and fallacy also exist (are true). They're just not as permanent, unchanging and fundamental as truth. They cannot supercede what underlies them.

If some things are not true, never were true, nor ever will be true, and some things were true, but no longer are, and some things were never true, are not true but will be true, then it stands to reason these are "partial truths" of the universe, dependent on temporality/time or "context".

It also stands to reason then that if some things are more true, more permanent and applicable to a larger time frame, then there is one absolute fundamental truth that is consistent at all times. And is even more fundamental than time itself, because whilst time is part of the truth (it exists as a phenomenon) that is not to say that absolute truth is dependent on time, because if it was, it would change, it would not be absolute.

Extreme brain in a vat — Andrew4Handel

For me the brain in vat argument is rather non-workable and fallacious.

For me it's like saying what if you had a "boat" (brain) except the boat is made of lead and also has loads of holes in it and doesn't float at all (not fit for purpose/doesn't have much of any qualities of a boat), in itheriwrds a brain that doesn't "brain" . It never floated from the get go and never could transport passengers but is say "boat shaped" sitting at the bottom of the sea.

This is not consistent argument.

I would say in that case well it's not a boat then is it? Just as I would say a brain in a vat with no body, and only a one way sensory input with no control over a body and no ability to interact or impose on its environment, in other words no ability to express agency/autonomy, is not a brain at all.

It's something in a vat, defined as a brain without characterising much of any of its qualities within that definition.

Loren Williams tells the story well. — apokrisis

Thanks for the link!

I wonder if "asymptomatic carriers" of an infectious viral disease in this analogy are like societies (genomes) that found a compromise with the invader (viral apostates). " Do not cause us to retaliate and "inflame" the situation into outright war (illness). And you will be given permission to use our civil infrastructure to regroup/reproduce your people (virions).

It's as if they're treated as "semi-self". Not fully allowed to integrate with ones DNA, or perhaps they don't wish to, but at the same time not leading to total outright war (the symptoms of infection. The society acts then like a sanctuary or temporary refuge for the rebellious viral genes that go in to redisouse on their airborne conquests towards other nations (genomes).

It is supposed that more than 8% of human DNA are archaic or inactivated /integrated viruses.

I wonder when a new viral disease arises, was it some sort of dispute within a once cooperative holistic genome where some factions decided to hell with this and stole little boats (membrane), coated themselves in it and ejected out into the external environment on solitary pursuits.

Let all heathen dna strands that blaspheme against the one true god 'Merase,' be shunned and get no assistance to replicate from our chosen ones, our glorious enzymes. — universeness

And thus they became viruses. Excommunicated from the community (genome). Marginalised, shunned, adrift on the gene pool winds, such heathenous and blasphemous genes persist in parasitising off the community, invading, taking over, manipulating it into replicating them for their own selfish interests through anti-merase propaganda and toxic rhetoric .

Let the chosen community be privy to the instructions, the guidance of merase, so that they may be "immune" to such "raids" (infection) by the outcasts. So they may identify them as "other" and not "self" and thus mount an counter-defense. War between civil genes and barbaric outcast genes is inflammation, disorder, chaos, battle. War is disease.

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection — Mikie

If a word is a symbol holding meaning, and a molecule is a symbol holding meaning (ie what it is, what it does, it's relationship to other symbols, it's "significance" - derived from the root "sign" or "symbol") and those meanings are flexible/dynamic and change over time due to context, knowledge, understandings, paradigm etc. Then what's the difference exactly?

There are many "languages" - modes of communication in reality. Some are human languages. Some are animal languages, some are plant or fungal matrices with chemical release (expressions) , reception (listening) and response (discussion) . Some are computing languages (binary for example) and some are more intrinsic basic languages - DNA/Rna (which is partially quaternary - 4 nucleotides, and partially binary - base pairing).

What they all hold in common is relationships between discrete bodies (words, numerals, molecules) and their behaviour/interaction through time - ie how they influence eachothers to create a fluid/flowing and progressive "cross-talk" (syntax - cause and effect) and grammar (rules, laws, constants and principles of relationship).

I would see it as foolish to conceive that "language" is restricted to/ only the purview of humans.

We are biased in that we relate everything to a human-centric conception of the world. But information is constantly being exchanged/communicated at every level of the system as a whole.

The purpose of the discussion is translation. Translation of DNA language into human language. All languages can be translated between one another, as information is a spectrum and can transform from one mode of communication to another).

Symbolism has parallels running through the entirety of nature. If it didn't, we would have no access to nature, no ability to decipher or decode other "languages" by translating them (through analogy, logic and reason) into human language, and thus knowledge. Gnosis of all forms of language or interaction.

In essence, to understand nature is to be a linguist. To ask "what is it saying?" and put that "saying" into an accesible mode (human language).

I find it particularly interesting that RNA is an intermediate between DNA and protein. Not random I'd imagine. Maybe this is the primordial species? How might RNA behave more like a protein than DNA does? We must do some research I think.

DNA appears to be on one side highly specified for encoding/storage. It's very stable. Committed to definition (doing nothing/being restricted) but holding everything (information) - then it lacks the "fluency" of enzymes. Due to this DNA is a bit helpless by itself. Cannot fend for itself in writings. Just words. Definitions, a dictionary. It needs enzymes to do the work for it. Enzymes are temporary (unstable) unlike DNA but highly proactive (can do shit) again unlike DNA. More "fluent", more "verbose".

Could RNA be that key link?

In this way I would liken DNA to nouns. And Enzymes to Verbs. As for RNAs role in-between. Not so sure. Can you think of something?