indelible? Questions — Bella fekete
So what are you really saying? Might makes right? — baker
If that’s your vibe /.../
— AmadeusD
I'm high functioning on the spectrum.
— Vaskane — baker
(I use this list format for clarity only; not at all a function of exasperation or anything like can sometimes be inferred)You're a lawyer, right? What one can readily see in practice is a gross inequality before the law, depending on one's socio-economic status. If one has money for a good lawyer, one can get out of pretty much anything. If one doesn't have such money, even an administrative mistake by a government official can mean the end of one's existence. We're not living under the rule of law; we're living under the rule of money. Money, with which law can be bought. And so for someone who doesn't have much money, dealing with the state really comes down to might makes right. — baker
Preceptions (prejudice?) may bar perceptions in very drastic ways which require extraordinary measures to clear up, — Bella fekete
So with the morality of truth must also come the morality of fairness, and equality. — unenlightened
seein is not necessarily perceiving, sometimes perceptions bar a message, and here is a continuum an autist can swear by. — Bella fekete
Yeah, when you’re strange, in a strange land, that died in mcarthur park in the rain, like the Chevy in the levy, in Paris. — Bella fekete
That you don't understand that is because of exactly as what Bella says, Your perception bars your perception of other perceptions. — Vaskane
No, like now, I could have asked you to elaborate, as you did of me, by asking you to clarify what exactly you mean, but instead of being afraid of perhaps embarrassing myself by misinterpreting the definitions of the words used (that's why words have definitions in the first place: for clarity; my apologies for using a combination that appeared like hieroglyphics to you) I merely trust my judgement, and hold my self accountable for any accidental fallacy of equivocation that may occur during the use of words with multiple meanings. I've long overcome the fear and embarrassment that occurs on the route to knowledge. It's as simple as saying "Oh! That's what you meant!" And move on, all the while, I'm continuing the discussion, and even allowing myself to be vulnerable with the other party. — Vaskane
He's saying someone like me can swear that perceptions can bar perceptions. People can even be saying the same thing from two different perspectives and fight about it until they realize they mean the same damn thing. — Vaskane
In fact you're attempting to use my very argument against you against me. — Vaskane
That you can't shows you're probably being dishonest about something. — Vaskane
ust say the other possibilities out loud. — Vaskane
Not quite sure what that means? — Vaskane
To which you even admit that you're too afraid to venture into using your own judgement because you're afraid to convey your own solipsistic machinations: — Vaskane
I've sent them images of the process in the inbox, even how to quote. I think there's a language barrier. — Vaskane
Tell me what you mean.-on the part of the little monkey, that is — Bella fekete
What characterises the mindset associated with dishonesty? My first impulse is to notice that the mindset must typically include a notion that some advantage will accrue, either personally or tribally.
Consider the deceptive body of a stick insect. It (metaphorically) declares to the world and particularly to its predators "Ignore me, I am a stick." The Blind Watchmaker learns to lie, and simultaneously in the evolution of the predator, tries to learn how to detect a lie. Such is communication between species, in which morality plays no role. Nevertheless, the advantage of deception is obvious.
Imagine a tribe of smallish monkeys in a jungle environment; they have various calls of social identification, and perhaps some to do with dominance and other stuff, but in particular, they have two alarm calls, one warning of ground predators, and one warning of sky predators. One day, one rather low status monkey, who aways has to wait for the others to eat and often misses out on the best food, spots some especially tasty food on the ground, and gives the ground alarm call. The tribe all rush to climb up high, and the liar gets first dibs for once on the treat. This behaviour has been observed, but I won't trouble you myself with references.
Here, one can clearly see that dishonesty is parasitic on honesty. Overall there is a huge social advantage in a warning system, but it is crucially dependent on honesty, and is severely compromised by individual dishonesty. Hence the social mores, that become morality. Society runs on trust, and therefore needs to deter and prevent dishonesty. And this cannot be reversed because the dependence is one way, linguistically. If dishonesty were ever to prevail and be valorised, language would become non-functional. The alarm call would come to mean both 'predator on the ground', and 'tasty food on the ground'. that is, it would lose its effective warning function and its function as a lie. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.