"His defence fails if consequentialism is false, so to prove that abortion is permissible he must prove that its moral permissibility is determined by the consequences."
— Michael

I like this statement. I like it in part because it is my own belief that consequentialism is a lie or false and that deontological morality is correct.

The trouble is that choices occur in interwoven patterns that all matter. Each one has a deontological component.

To whit: One is not allowed morally to suggest that one is unaware (unless one is too young or incompetent to be aware), that a living being is not a possible consequence of sexual activity. Consequentialism is a lie as to moral blame, but not moral awareness. That means known possible consequences inform deontological choice. Intent in that sense does not matter. That is to say, one must be willing to 'deal with' a possible pregnancy in a moral way if one engages in sexual activity.

'Deal with', in my parlance here, is a variable term that includes all possible actions or choices which are then themselves subject to objective moral judgment. One is not morally allowed to declare intent and thereby avoid the consequences. Probability becomes highly relevant as well in such a discussion. For example, I would entertain as meaningful or more meaningful the joint statement of a couple, perhaps signed online (as I have recommended in the past), that they DO NOT intend to have a child. Society would then decide not willy nilly (ha ha) but based on evidence, what the probability of the contraceptive being used was. If that fell within some 'reasonable' limit the stated intent would overrule the pregnancy consequence. Note that this is ONLY rank mitigation of the moral choice. It IS NOT an attempt to claim that life is not all morally precious. It is only an attempt to work with the pro-life stance.

Of course we are ALWAYS talking here, about liars and deceit. People lie to themselves and others. So there would then be evidence of properly taking the contraceptive or not. If the evidence is not there, the intent as stated would be IRRELEVANT. The matter carries sufficient moral weight (to me) to require those who engage in it to take on this burden of evidence and documentation. The 'inconvenience excuse' is precisely the sort of moral low bar that needs to be held accountable. I have an ex girlfriend that is mostly neutral about choice, or let's say willing to tolerate it in others. She is pro-life in general herself. But she draws the line at driving an acquaintance to her 3rd abortion within 5 years. I agree with her that there is clearly an immoral pattern of irresponsible behavior there. So, liars and the uncaring need to be called to task for such things.

But this impinges upon the question of punishment (and reward) another moral layer. It is my own current belief that the punishments and rewards of actions/choices are immediate and resonant upon the entire universe, let alone the chooser. But I will try not to derail the thread. Suffice to say summing up the punishment paragraph that restraint IS NOT actually punishment. It is assistance. But then the debate rages on about what is and is not moral. Is morality objective, for instance, becomes a critical issue. On we go, leaving this here for now.

What if there is no proof of consequentialism either way?

The logical concept of proof is already foolish because nothing can be proven. If you mean proven colloquially as in 'beyond reasonable doubt' or, 'by appeal to some moral authority', then fine. But proof in the final sense, is impossible. So we have only a well of beliefs from which to operate.

Many people, often Pragmatists, will overly judge based on consequences, especially as mentioned LIKELY consequences. Among healthy humans, sexual activity is often LIKELY to result in pregnancy, especially over time. There is no reasonable way to claim one is unaware of that possibility as LIKELY, or, at least, that is the meaningful NOMINAL case.

I find it disingenuous and immoral in the extreme to discuss 'ownership of the body'. You own nothing in this reality. You pretend to such things as ownership, a moral delusion only. We all are one. You belong and cannot be made to un-belong. So does any consequential child. Any mention of 'personhood' is likewise ridiculous sophistry in the colloquial sense, although I admit I hate that word as it should be positive meaning the art of wisdom. When a woman is pregnant, she is dealing with two aggregate humans or more and not only herself. There can be no deontological avoidance of this truth. The sexual act will nominally result in pregnancy over time. Everything in the universe belongs to everyone equally. Our conventions in law and culture to the contrary are only immoral beliefs and choices.

The intent of that idea, the 'unity principle' is wise and good. The intent of selfish 'ownership' is not wise, not GOOD. The consequences of unwise belief are ramified immoral immediate resonations throughout the universe. That is contributory to 'universe failure'. The GOOD, to me, perfection, is the only valid goal in the universe, it's raison d'etre.
 
Can I assume that anyone who says that abortion is impermissible whatever the consequences is assuming that deontology is true and must prove that?

As mentioned, there is no proof. There is only belief. But one must state their belief and argue for it. Teh argument is all. Use as much reason and evidence as you can to argue, yes. But finally, it is only and always a matter of belief. Justification of beliefs is wise.

What if there is no proof of deontology either way?

Again, no such thing as 'proof', but let's assume you mean 'within reason'. Indeed, not only would it be near impossible to prove deontology 'within reason', but we would need mind reading or some such to implement it meaningfully. Still, deceit is not easy. All immoral acts break something in the actor and the universe. This brokenness can be felt and empathized (against). Some others will proselytize overmuch such that their 'good' intent is a blade used to cut, rather than to catalyze wisdom. Proof IS NOT the point.

The point is better and better use of all aspects of wisdom at the same time, all virtues. NO VIRTUE can be left out for the best effect. But if this claimed then one must have some suspicion that morality is objective, or there is NOTHING to stand on. Only the objective nature of morality allows for any judgment at all. This is why anti-judgement (desire) WANTS so badly to denigrate all judgment and many desire type or oriented people will hurl the epithet 'Judgy!' at people who are actually wiser than they are. Desire is merely a synonym for freedom, so freedom IS NOT always wise. The restraint of fear is needed to balance freedom into wisdom.

There's an interesting question of the burden of proof here anyway. Do we have to prove that abortion is impermissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that abortion is permissible? Or do we have to prove that abortion is permissible, in which case, lacking a proof, we can assume that it is impermissible?

The proof question is not as moot as it seems. Proof is elusive, if not impossible. Rather, make an argument and offer your supporting evidence. My take on the issue overall is that free will is the true and balanced state, or, 'moral condition', of the universe. So, yeah, ... now I am on to free will. The only reason people argue against free will is that as choice approaches infinity, truth, such a choice becomes infinitesimally probable only (and thus infinitely hard to make). So, as we get more and more moral, the next step becomes meta harder to reach. The tendency is to 'give up' or turn to immoral concepts like Nihilism and Moral Subjectivism to defend the ego, the chooser.

As such, I prefer to inform others of what I consider morality to be and to SUFFER their choice with them. This means although I am pro-life myself, I am pro-free-will (perhaps pro-choice) generally. I WILL suffer them to choose. But that sufferance has limits. There are ways to become so egregious in immoral choice that one must be restrained for their own objective good and that of society. Immorality is a disease and it spreads far more easily than does the wisdom to take a truly expansive moral stance, to make a truly moral choice. A moral choice in the final sense is always the hardest choice one can make. Ease is by definition, immoral.

If we lack a proof both of the permissibility of abortion and of its impermissibility, can we just suspend judgement?

I do not think or believe that there is insufficient evidence to make an argument. Pro-life is finally correct. But there Is also pro-free-will. If one is restrained from being able to make actions, that IS NOT the same as not making choices. So, restraint cannot ever affect free will really. That is to say, assuming abortion was indeed an immoral choice universally then merely the choice, even if restrained and prevented, to abort, would be just as immoral.

I suppose we have to. In that case, there will be nothing to prevent people following their own consciences.

In general this is true. It's the malaise or nonchalance of immoral choice that begins to creep in and spread like a sickening thing. It rots the effort towards wisdom and obliges us all, as belonging parts of the universe to step in and restrain, re-inform, and re-release to freedom to act (not choose as that cannot be restrained).

There is, at least at present, no conclusive argument available either way. In which case, there is no justification for a law either way and no ground to prevent people following their own consciences.

I tend to agree that law is not the proper realm for this issue. But, the repeat offender of a principle would need to have the three r effect imposed upon them. Restrain, re-inform, and re-release in as short a timeframe as is possible. Society must attempt to catalyze the good in its members, and this in a way that is not too prolonged or proselytizing. Like all wisdom, it's a tricky balance.

Aiming at Utopia ...

Regardless, the chaos side is rather pointless in isolation, and I suppose that would be rather obvious, although I would love to hear a meaningful dissent to that, mostly, I admit, to shoot it down in turn.

The thing about chaos is, if there are no rules, there is no real way to proceed, other than whim, desire, chaos. I suppose you could claim that that is the only real rule, that there are none.

But there is staggering evidence to the contrary amid all of existence. Rules abound and that should be obvious. And it is my assertion that all 'natural law' is only and always tied to morality.

Morality is based solely on the existence and persistence of objective moral truth. Our lot is only to grow in wisdom, which means first acting and failing to understand, then understanding, and then perfecting that understanding which includes preferring or desiring that which is objectively GOOD, ... ONLY. You can do a treatment of ANY virtue in exactly the same way I just did awareness/understanding and it would remain an accurate treatment, in line with objective moral truth, the GOOD.

ANY AND ALL specifics we discuss that are 'relatable' colloquially are NOT the best way to get at the truth. The emotional math that leads to a perfectly understood system reinforces itself in terms of acceptance. I suppose what I mean by that is that once you know a moral or believe it, you can still break it, but you suffer more knowingly then. Immoral actions after that point are bad intents in formation, deontological failure, which is a deeper kind of failure than consequential failure that is not intended.

Of course, all roads or choices contain a balanced consequence due to this objective moral truth. It means that the only punisher is YOU, yourself. The only rewarder is YOU, yourself. God or truth (synonymous) is just love, the system, truth, that sets up this trouble of free will, and the only thing in the universe, the burden of choice.

Since all roads can and do effectively lead to the GOOD, it would seem to be easy to follow any of them. But, it is not. Continual choices that are not closer and closer to the one best path (from where you are) will corrupt you and tend to repeat as addictive patterns. So, it is chaotic (desire-side) delusion that tempts us to believe that any old path is fine. Nihilism adds in its fear-based denial of meaning to further delude us. And the most harsh of all truths is that DESPITE understanding even a single moral choice remains the hardest choice to make in all circumstances. And that is exactly how it SHOULD be. The worthiest aim is Utopia or perfection (synonymous).

But Utopia is extant. It is only ours to choose or not, and by degrees, on a scale, not black and white. We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. This it is unwise indeed not to aim at Utopia.

So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.
— Chet Hawkins
That may be fine or horrific, depending on who defines "immoral" and what they mean by restraint. — Vera Mont

I agree heartily. The 'moral' police of Iran and China are horridly immoral.

If you mean stop people from beating and raping one another, I'm in agreement. However, forcing people to have more children than they can cherish, or than the ecosystem can support, I don't see as either moral or beneficial to society.
How did birth control turn into prisons? — Vera Mont

Again, I think I agree with you. No forced pregnancies. But, paying it forward as a species duty will probably not be needed much longer. Technology will eventually make artificial wombs I suspect and sooner than we think.

I am a proponent of extant overpopulation, meaning we are already badly overpopulated at about 4 Earths worth of sustainable population. I'd say it's moral greed to have more than replacement level children at this time. But as technology increases the amount of people can trend up, yet, I must admit if I have to drive behind EVEN MORE morons day by day, I'd still vote no on more people, even if tech can make them well fed and such without stressing the Earth. We are fast approaching too many rats in a maze that all go crazy and bite each other population density.

The birth control / prisons thing I am not sure I follow. Utopia visions would include weighing in on both of those issues, so, ...

In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.
— Tarskian
And, again, what has your twisted idea of the nature of men and women to do with reproductive choice? — Vera Mont

I mean tech is already at the level where, as Simon and Garfunkle say, 'They'd never match my sweet imagination ...' and what I mean by tech is porn or other aids that reduce that whole thing as a need. I am NOT saying I do not prefer or would not prefer an ideal real woman, but, I surely have not found even a tolerable one yet (and I am 58 years old). But most of that discussion is for another thread.

(I realize you were answering Tarskian, but I was replying so I did to that as well.)

Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole. — Vera Mont

I love the latter part of your idea.

But, no, the first part is not wise (to me).

No one is separate. We are all one. The so-called 'unity principle', my favorite term for oneness, means that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. You are literally me and I am literally you.

So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.

But punishment and reward both are immoral. I will not explain that all the way now. This post is enough of a response. Suffice it to say that moral truth is that all choices are punished or rewarded in the feedback the choice puts on you by truth immediately. There is no need for society to heap more upon either side of choice. Almost no one understands, let alone admits to, this wisdom.

Restraint is not punishment. We restrain those who cannot help but continually punish themselves until we have had time to attempt to teach wisdom to them. So, restraint is different and can be better than punishment.

Prison is ridiculous. I personally love the version of restraint I saw in the 'Last Samauri' where the old warrior followed Tom Cruise's character around and made sure he did not do anything wrong. I think that would open up a new huge occupation and calling in the world for tough life coaches that is well needed. And the added impetus of invaded privacy for people that cannot stop making the same bad choices would be pretty strong motivation to change. Anyway ... on to Utopia ...

The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran. — Tarskian

I understand the sentiment. But I do disagree. Your take on it is quite order-centric.

Wisdom is not order-centric. Wisdom is balanced. So, going backwards to order-apology, order-centrism is not a GOOD path. It is partly Utopian of me to suggest that people CAN balance their chaos, because, as you rightly point out, depravity and desire-apology has increased steadily I would say since the 1960s until now.

But despite what a left leaning reader might think or believe, I am not right wing either. I do have hope and in a new morality that is more properly defined than the old faiths. I confess I have not read the Torah or the Quran, but, I have read many sections of them and listen for decades to scholars who supposedly made such efforts their life's work. I do not find balanced wisdom in these books, these old faiths, precisely because chaos is not handled well at all, and order is favored, which IS NOT wise.

I do realize that to integrate and build a better world, if people are going to be such failures, then order is a better path than chaos. But this is a thread on Utopia. As such it converges on real wisdom, real balance. That means integrating chaos properly.

My own efforts towards understanding and informing others about morality is based in the ideas I posted quickly and briefly in this thread. If those old ways were best, they would have worked better. But as my posts show, morality is hard. In fact, as choices become more and more moral they are harder and harder to make.

Any near Utopian society would require balanced order and chaos. But, prosperity should be for the good of all, not just hard workers or people who are smart or rich. IN fact it's rather obvious that wealth should be controlled such that everyone per capita has the same access to resources and services. Then, all the classical objections of the chaos crowd are vastly diminished.

Each political wing has its issues but there is always a flip-flop. The right wing loves personal order and then when a person like that walks out their front door they are all chaos and winner take all. That is deeply immoral. Conversely the left wing is all self-indulgence personally and then tries to solve that with rigorous order from the state. Both are unwise.

I actually like Socrates' or Plato's idea in the Republic, a Sophocracy. And NO I do not mean ruled by sophists (a poorly defined word). But yes a rule of golden souls, the wise, is BETTER. We must therefore identify wisdom and be able to test for it. We are not allowed to throw our hands up as a Pragmatist will and say, 'we are only human and all corrupt'. That is not wise. We MUST try. So, defining wisdom and testing for it will cause the ruling class to be BETTER than any other possible ruling class could be. That is a great first step.

In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero. — Tarskian

I tend to agree because humans have gotten tech than empowers their choice WELL BEYOND their wisdom. That means chaos will ensue for the near future and disintegrate all societies, plunging the world into more wars and such until an orderly regime rise again to assert a 'new world order'. But that is just as terrifying a specter because of the right wing over-expression of fear.

We have begun to discover that tolerance has a limit as well. If you accept too much chaos as daily fare, as we are now in the first world and the whole world in social media, then the chaos seeps into everything and as mentioned, the nature of chaos will cause self-indulgence and self-hatred.

More than ever society and humanity need real wisdom, a BETTER valid philosophy, that is not based in religion and encompasses all morality. It is the only valid way to approach Utopia anyway. And I do believe the approach to Utopia is wise, even if the chaos-types try for too much change too fast and they SHOULD be slowed down. Only (more) time will tell.

And this is your idea of a good society?
— Vera Mont

In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.

But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!

So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia! — Tarskian

How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion?

Let me try to state the state of things and see if that helps.

Gender is on a scale and the leftists are mostly correct about that. There is ample evidence throughout the natural world and in humanity as well. The truth of nature also shows us that extant phenotypes are plastic in how they change. That means humanity could evolve in any direction that could be supported with reasonable balance. Any sufficiently imbalanced system will not last very long at all.

For example, humanity could evolve into the hive morphology and there is some evidence that we are moving in that direction. Genders in the past were more highly polarized mostly because society demanded the clarity and simplicity of the polar gender manifestation and roles. Many middle ground humans were simply killed by their own families if their infant presentations were not clearly understood. That still happens today.

Humanity could also evolve into an asexual style. If we all decided that was cool, we could force nature that way, because plentiful evidence exists to show that is possible and still produces thriving species.

Humanity could expand technology and make it to where all manner of chimeras and oddities were possible as well. That is highly likely and some of this 'mad scientist' type stuff has happened and is happening now.

But the difference between the classical gender roles is really JUST order/chaos balance, again, like EVERYTHING is. Men are overly orderly and tend to be the hierarchy within all societies as a natural order. Women are overly chaotic and tend to be resentful of the order of men within all societies as a natural expression of their greater desire/freedom/chaos. Orderly societies can integrate and build BETTER than chaotic ones, so feminist or chaotic societies DO form, but they fail. They disintegrate as chaos is the primary drive.

You see this same exact pattern in general in the left and right wing of politics. Real conservatives and orderly types will usually band together into groups with a solidity of identity that is integrating. It also causes wars with external societies because those are OTHER orders. But the point is they can easily team up and hold the line in orderly fashion. Chaos cannot do that. It always seeks to undermine even itself, selfishly. It IS more creative and expansive. So there is value there. But wisdom, philosophy, balance, shows us that both are needed for the ideal to flourish.

The left and desire types are full of delusional worthlessness. They wallow in it. They all think less of each other and themselves and watching it happen in American politics and abroad, it is easy to see. They seem faithless and scattered. But they do come together on the freedom points, the openness, in general. Likewise, the right wingers will stick with identity over anything, mistrustful and even hateful of others. Identity, fear and order, are the source of bigotry. I think it's interesting that social media has propelled the scattered, goofy left into a powerhouse in modern times. If they could control their wallowing in worthlessness they would be much more successful, but, they cannot, by definition. The polarization of their policies forces them to be unwise. It's the same on the right wing, but different. They wallow in delusional worthiness, which is caused by fear. And then they become autocratic. bigoted, and too hierarchical. So, both side alone fail because alone they are unwise.

And everyone, please spare me the exceptions arguments. It's just a tendency (a big one) that more women are chaos leaned and more men are order leaned. There are many exceptions on a scale, of course, showing again the fight, the conflict of balance itself.

Anyway ...

(I believe)

The belief is all I have.

I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions ...

I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. 

My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule ...

... the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. 

... my model of belief suggests ...
— Chet Hawkins
You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. — 180 Proof

Youre failure to recognize the evidence all around you, and my valid arguments does not change their validity. You are saying nothing that argues the other way, just saying my offering has no evidence.

Proof is not possible for anyone. Belief is all ANYONE has, including you. Not realizing it and agreeing to that unprovable 'fact' is silly. You hide behind the probable and that is order-apology, cowardice. But the reverse is not true. That is to say, I am still quite rational and erudite, and I use logic every day (I am a software architect with 40 years experience).

I am saying belief has power because it motivates us. You would deny that unprovable fact? Again, proof is not the goal, but the evidence IS INDEED all around you.

In fact, the atom itself supports my theory.

Fearful orderly protons, manifestations of fear clump towards the neutral balanced anger mass of neutrons and thus the fear's higher energy forms identity (elemental character). The chaotic electrons are dissipated in the space surrounding the nucleus showing off their higher energy and the relationship between time and energy as well because they drift into the future like all desire/chaos does. As such every manifestation, even at quantum levels is nothing but this same pattern repeated over and over again in a hierarchy of meaning and mass, both.

You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning – preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another. — 180 Proof

I can agree that we seem unable to relate well to one another. But no, I am reasoning these issues and not JUST rationalizing.

Reason can be defined as:
A basis or cause for belief, action, fact, or event.
A statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
The mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
The capacity of applying logic consciously to seek the truth.
The process of evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts.

ra·tion·al·i·za·tion
[ˌraSHənləˈzāSHən, ˌraSHənlˌīˈzāSHən]
noun
the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.

So, reason and rationalization ARE NOT contradictory in many cases. What it comes down to really is whether each party ACCEPTS or LIKES the logic used. It's just the same as whether or not you ACCEPT OR LIKE the evidence I claim is evidence.

You are stuck in order-apology and that is clear to me as it is about most academics. But reality is not trapped amid order alone. It has equal parts chaos, and anger/balance. If it did not, the imbalance at that fundamental level would effectively almost immediately disintegrate the universe. It's the built in truth that I refer to, the great tendency to balance, that is why everything is at it is. And these tendencies play out precisely the same as emotions do. All quanta want, fear, and are. The reason we anthropomorphize the universe is because there is evidence to see all around us that matter itself is emotive. The animists were always a better religion that modem faiths because they were more primal, based in mere feeling and observation. And by the way, observation is quintessentially an act of fear. It's true that all choices have some of each primal emotion in them but they are all limits as x approaches purity when we limit the action to one part of the whole behavior, like observation, or the need to be aware.

the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous ... The terms are effectively synonymous.
No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them. — 180 Proof

I was conflating them in the case I referred to them, because they are the same in that case. I realize your case as well, and that is not what I am referring to.

It is the goal of this universe perfection. Every particle in the universe has that as a default goal. Directions are always thus a sub-effort within that goal.

Order is dissipative and thereby a phase-transition of disorder (i.e. chaos). Re: entropy. — 180 Proof

I disagree. My disagreement is based on what I am referring to as order, which may or may not have a relationship with your reference (I believe) to dynamical systems.

Order is, in fact, conservative, and clearly so. That is to say the order of the universe ... probably ... answers favorably, compares favorably, to a Poincare recurrence theorem respecting effectively idempotent behavior. Big bang, expansion, (whatever happens next), some type of collapse or reunification, Big Bang again. Of course we cannot know one way or another, so I am not holding my breath to prove this. The belief is all I have.

I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions, and these translate then to fear and desire respectively.

Order is clearly conservative. Chaos is dissipative.

Order integrates society and people. Chaos disintegrates them. I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. Although I would also say that colloquially 'common sense' is most often just a subset of Pragmatism, order-centric beliefs and points of view.

Also, the universe has a direction (i.e. thermal/cosmic equilibrium aka "balance"), not a "goal"; — 180 Proof

That is your assertion/belief. And I might point out that quibbling about the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous, and classical order-apology (my term). The terms are effectively synonymous. It, order-apology, means the speaker is too caught up in the trapped and circular sub order set rather than also embracing equal parts of chaos and thus able to escape any sub order trap excepting only the final order, objective truth. This subset at least appears conservative. To have a meaningful span of time before recurrence, order must be stronger within the system. This means of course that a higher amplitude of chaos/desire is required to break that cycle and return the trapped energy to the external order. The final external order is only perfection.

and "perfection" is not a/the "moral goal" but the dream of "the Good" that paralyzes – excuses failure at – actually doing good (i.e. preventing and reducing disvalues as much as practically possible aka "negative consequentialism"). — 180 Proof

I disagree again. My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule, the only rule really, causing all others, that everything in it should strive towards perfection, which can in the simplest sense be thought of as transcendence or unity plus. The plus part is what allows for transcendence to the next dimensional plane of intent. And if intent is not the verb/object of the new dimension, then it is integrated in some fashion with intent.

Further and quite obviously, the dream of the GOOD does not paralyze nor excuse failure but does indeed forgive it. We all err in choice. Every aspect of the universe errs in choice. Amid these infinite errors awareness is gained as only one virtue. Over time the clear goal/direction is towards that same perfection. What else would be the goal? You say only entropy? It is my contention that life as we know it goes the other way to balance entropy by coalescing it back into order. What we call life is a misnomer because the entire universe is alive or contains the seeds of life via free will and choice. But the increase of that moral agency is indeed the thing that will overcome entropy and stop what we now in ignorance fear, the unknown unanswerable mysteries that only SEEM to be sending us all into chaos.

'Utopias' are mostly just thought-experiments (i.e. counterfactual what-ifs, forecasts, crises, etc) used to critique real world social systems in order to provoke public reasoning about alternatives and reforms which might prevent or reduce structural disvalues (e.g. injustices, inequities). — 180 Proof

We agree on this point. But it takes nothing from my argument so there is no need to counter it nor disagree.

Btw, "intention", like mere "thoughts & prayers", is mostly solipsistic (pace Kan't) and contra (Peircean-Deweyan) pragmatism. — 180 Proof

I disagree. And over time it will be proven that intent at all levels, those intents driving hard action and reforms, AND the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. These 'thoughts and prayers' are tidal forces expressing the highest most effervescent form of sentiment and will of ALL. We are not yet evolved enough to sense the consequences from these efforts so we tend to scoff at such efforts. But my model of belief suggests they are the seed of a greater will to power. Just like imagination they do effect change even now and again obviously so. The more these practices are repeated and the will fortified within the ALL-self of the universe, the more and more they reinforce harder action/intents and help to cause them. In time the relative stability of this phase of moral agency (current human limits and such) will disintegrate because the desire will rise up and break the limits. Its all around us the wish for magic and superpowers and it is NOT going away. It will intensify until it is manifested.

That is the march towards perfection and the GOOD, by intent.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

Every single aspect of life involves only one thing really, free will. This free will is the infinitely precarious order/chaos balance. If the universe and all aspects of it were not infinitely balanced on this single point, free will, choice, would not have the strength to move things, to choose. But everything moves and vibrates back and forth along the balance. The order/chaos balance is EVERYTHING.

So, perfection, or Utopia, they are synonymous is the goal of the universe. It is seemingly impossible. But that is only precisely because it is the most improbable thing in all of existence.

The SEEMING nature of this impossibility is not really relevant. Pragmatism is an approach to the perfect that stresses order as the right path. Idealism is an approach to the perfect that stresses chaos as the right path.

Order as a concept and meta emotion is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is fear.

Chaos as a concept, synonymous with freedom, is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is desire.

The balance is aided by the 'hidden' emotion of anger. Anger literally causes all of reality to exist by its tension against fear and desire. This possibly perfect balance defines a straight-line path to objective moral truth (perfection) or the GOOD.

So your post emphasizes a failed immoral point of view, in my opinion. You fail in both ways at the same time, the order way and the chaos way. That is to say you lessen the burden of moral duty by appealing to the great sin of moderation.

Moderation is a tacit acceptance of the balance needed for wisdom, but lacking in the awareness of the hidden third emotion, anger.

Real wisdom requires two very distinct facets to be defined properly. These are balance and maximalization. So, to be wiser and wiser, to approach perfection, we must increase fear, anger, and desire; all three; at the same time.

Perfection is the POSSIBLE and end result, the purpose, of the entire universe. It is the GOOD. So the GOOD is not the enemy of the perfect, finally. They are instead synonymous if wisdom is earned.

Moderation is an appeal to the sin of laziness. It is entirely understandable, and we are all afflicted by this delusion to varying degrees. Moral advancement, advancement towards perfection, is always the single hardest choice a person can make. That is a tautology. So, of course, many and most will denigrate the infinite effort required of us to pursue such a course. No matter where we are on the moral scale of progress towards perfection, the next moral step will be one that requires MORE effort than anything else we have ever done previously, by definition.

That is why moral progress and Utopia are so hard to envision and believe in.

But remember, please, not to be a fool.

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation. - me

That is my favorite self-quote. It shows us that the only moral aim is the perfect. And it also shows us that consequentialism is a lie. Do your best, aim at the perfect, and fail. Do not expect the consequence to be perfection. We are all playing the LONG game here, wisely. Only deontological morality is correct. Intent is everything.

Well, this is a classically interesting thread (to me). I say classical and yet we are discussing drug use which might seem to some a more modern phenomenon. But that is not the case at all as several posters have mentioned throughout the thread. From ancient times people have chosen of their own free will to use drugs. But the reasons stated here span the ENTIRE gamut of human experience and choice. That is to say drugs are used for mostly base and immoral reasons as self-indulgent desire or acts of subterfuge and control. But then there is an exponentially diminishing scale of people that use drugs in moderation to moderate their own imbalances. And at the very top end of this scale are more spiritual gateway experiences that entail things like careful overdosing on LSD and Ayahuasca.

Like any aspect of this universe, it is all about free will, the only thing in existence. Within that limitless limit, the most interesting aspect that is primal to all truth is the order/chaos balance. As Leary mentioned, and even as @Shawn inferred as well partially, this experience now is limited to the physical realm. But the inference is weak, not Leary's comments. Sorry but here is the reason why:

Are we wizards, or jedi? We imagine such. But can we, physically, do it? No. Some accounts vary, but, let's say the scale of wizardry and jedi mind tricks is rather steep from almost 0 in 99.9% of the populace to MAYBE some in the tiny remaining percentage. And these possibly just presumed as wizardry effects are easily doubted as even their enactors have great trouble with any application of the scientific method, repeating the successes.

So, how is it any surprise that what drugs affect is what we CAN do, can choose to experience? It is no surprise at all. The limits are still respected in many ways. But altered awareness is a simple enough sidestep, an easier, lower threshold, of change. Thus, OF COURSE, sensory experiences are changed. But what precisely is changed?

Leary said it in a way that is certainly poetic and yet he is a fairly erudite communicator and successful in other walks of life. So, he is higher on that scale I previously mentioned, despite his unabashed hedonism, that just a self-indulgent type. I ask in all candor, how is an expert or professional in the realm of drug use qualified? Certainly, the people speaking about this experience from the external virginal point of view have not much credibility. But then oddly, especially those same people, feel compelled to judge what they see as erratic or incomprehensible behavior. This is nothing more than again the order/chaos balance.

Orderly people stay within their restraint limits more regularly. That is almost a definition for an orderly type of person. Science is indeed an orderly profession and skepticism itself is an ism born of restraint and prudence, all facets of a scaled order from the simple coward all the way through the rigorous academic skeptic.

Chaotic people, desire driven, do not stay within limits as a pattern. Their pattern is the anti-pattern, born of desire. This freedom is JUST AS critical to real wisdom as is order and restraint. Wisdom is in fact best defined as a perfect and maximal balance of both order and chaos. Both aspects of this definition are relevant and critical to wisdom. That is balance is the obvious part. But the unobvious part is the amplitude, the maximalization.

Maximal freedom means that any and every choice has been experienced and balanced. If you have not had the experience you are trapped on the fear and order side, the coward's side. It is a tautology that experience IS NEVER best had from one side or the other. All emotive paths lead objectively to objective moral truth. And that is balanced and maximized order and chaos. Therefore, one MUST, to be wise, risk experience.

If you wish for a defense of any and all chaotic and self-indulgent behavior, then I just gave it. It matters not whether you understand or admit to the truth I detailed in the above paragraph; it remains the truth. Of course, many will assert that is only my opinion, and I agree. Yes, it is my belief and opinion.

But remember the scale. Some choosers of these acts are not just engaging in them for pure self-indulgence. Like Leary they are instead intrepid explorers of a new realm. That realm may not yet be understood well and the insights gained from it are almost incomprehensible to the ... fool ... that has never left his own village and yet is quite majestically orderly in character. Orderly people tend to stay put in all ways, and all branches of conservatism and skepticism lean quite heavily towards stagnation and death as entirely stable. Likewise, and contra oppositely, chaos types tend to flame out, testing EVERY whim too often and becoming by turns restrained to certain patterns of freedom, then a hilarious ironical representative of restraint, as in trapped into their specific indulgences (addiction). EVERYTHING is only the order/chaos balance.

But remember that wisdom is the only goal here. Are we philosophers or not? Define wisdom. I did. If you are too afraid to try or too stable to try, you are too afraid to be wise. This DOES NOT denigrate the order types any more than the chaos types of people. We need as a whole species, some people to stay ashore in fear and hold the fort. But there is no moral way that such people are allowed to denigrate the intrepid explorers either. Such desire must be supported and especially the priesthood of that effort a la Leary and others. Even a casual observation of say alcoholics reveals a scale of 'functioning' along with even an addictive pattern. Nothing is not on a scale.

But order rises then as awareness is grown by DOING. And that DOING includes the doers, the merely self-indulgent, and the priesthood of experts, as well as the self-restrained orderly observers who abstain as their DO. In such cases all aspects of experience are covered. In such cases the whole of the species reaches with its meta tentacles into the new realms.

This is not at all the same thing as saying 'let's explore wanton murder' for example. The wisdom restraining us from that choice has long been earned (mostly). That is a subject for another thread maybe. There is still some room to explore that seemingly deeply immoral path also. No, drug use clearly has some valuable parts to it that do relate to advancement of awareness and wisdom.

I speak as one who has explored almost every type of experience in that realm to some small degree. I am a counter-addictive type of personality. Some part of me refuses to be ruled or demanded of by any experience. That tendency is brought on by the 'hidden' emotion in the order/chaos balance, anger. It is my belief that anger causes all of what we refer to as physical reality to spring into being. The tension between the fear/order emotion and the desire/chaos emotion is resisted by anger. Anger DEMANDS that fear abate and that the self is large or capable enough to bravely move forward by right of existence. Anger DEMANDS that desires are quenched and unnecessary as the self is sufficient as ALL to begin with. And anger is right. All rights stem from these demands of anger. But that is my faith, my belief system. It defines my approach to solving any philosophical issue. And this paragraph is only about me, my relation to this topic, so people know where I am coming from.

Awareness precedes most action, certainly understood or 'successful' action. Succes and 'right' are the same. These pertain to the objective moral truth, perfection, and the GOOD. So, we MUST explore the realm of drugs with awareness before the frequency of vibrations can extend into mind over matter type interactions more safely. That is my assertion.

There is always this mundane and entrapped derision of drugs by those engaged in religious practices. This is understandable. The revelations or epiphanies that drug users experience are sometimes similar in aspect to the religious experiences. After all I describe some of the high-end occupation of drug use scale as a 'priesthood'. This merely means a fairly high order/chaos balance. It means that the people engaged at such a skill level are able to order their experiences despite the chaos. They can do so precisely because they are wiser in most cases. They have the order skill to balance the chaos skill. But each path, religion and drugs is AN APPROACH from opposed sides of the SAME objective wisdom. Drugs are a chaos side approach and religion is an order side approach. They are effectively equals in some ways. One IS NOT ALLOWED morally to merely denigrate the other wholesale.

I may add more to all of this if people deign to respond to my points.

I added the word "real" to the title of this thread in order to eliminate an ideal Heavenly realm from consideration. Some people, when faced with the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of personal or world events --- especially when bad things happen to good people --- will express the belief or hope that "everything happens for a reason"*1. And they don't seem to be concerned that the "reasons" & purposes motivating Cause & Effect are seldom obvious, and must be taken on faith. — Gnomon

There are several points to be made JUST here. The main one is that 'everything happens for a reason' is both true and NOT RELEVANT to this issue.

'Reasons' are, like any other choice humans make, mostly immoral. That is to say, EVERY choice is immoral to some degree, not being perfect.

Just like so many issues in philosophy you can get the best indication of the type of person you are dealing with based on their general response to such a question. But all these answers impinge upon the singular general question of 'is morality objective?' Those who answer 'yes' too easily are often fear-centric (order driven). Those who answer 'no' too easily are desire-centric (chaos driven). And those that answer in detail are wiser (more balanced). Note that just answering in depth with excuse after excuse for an apologist point of view either way IS NOT wise, but, can be camouflaged as such.

Also, as another issue in this paragraph, the assertion that 'bad thing happen ...' is not quite accurate either. If a weakly moral partner leaves a relationship or a tenuous social issue cascades within reality to conflict, that is not actually bad. We would almost universally take the Pragmatic shortcut and incorrectly name it 'bad'. But that is not wise. Of course, again, wisdom, is a rare quality, and most people are not wise and would indeed take such situations as 'bad'.

{Cue Monty Python's 'Always look on the bright side of life ... (whistles)}

The topical question was raised in my mind by an article in Skeptical Inquirer magazine (vol48), authored by psychologist Stuart Vyse, in his discussion of Skepticism and tolerance for Uncertainty, as illustrated by movie plot spoilers. In his preface, Vyse noted that "religious and spiritual beliefs promote the assumption that the universe is fair". — Gnomon

I love this take. Even the way you write it about someone else writing about it SEEMS to be saying that 'fair' means something akin to NOT 'good for you', but MORE LIKE 'easy and perfect for you'. I think it is safe to presume, to infer, that most people will interpret the statement or idea that way. And THAT is the problem.

The truth that is objective, (ha ha), shows us that the fairness is only in the allocation of universal truth equally to all. How then can anything not be 'fair'? It's all fair by definition. Each maker of a choice has the same moral duty to live up to. That is fair, of course.

But that AVOIDS the real issue. The real issue is how hard each choice is to make. And if a choice is hard and there is a right answer (and an objectivist believes that there is a right answer), then usually in any situation the chooser is NOT wishing for understanding so much as they are wishing for EASE. That wish in and of itself is immoral.

My own belief is that morality is clearly objective. This universe would literally disintegrate in relatively immediate time if morality were subjective. And if that is true, we SHOULD all want to suffer hard choices to earn wisdom and grow by making the right choices, even so.

Then, he adds, "they find solace in the belief that they will be made whole in this life or the next". — Gnomon

And THAT specific delusion is morally repugnant to me. Acting or choosing in the name of GOOD, is ... evil, if you do it for any reward other than the sake of the perfect moral GOOD within any moment. That means that clearly, ANY AND ALL transactional efforts towards morality are highly immoral.

All reward and punishment is immoral. This is my belief. The only reward or punishment that happens morally in the universe is the reflective result of the choice and that is immediate as the choice is made. In other words the universe and objective morality make it (life and choice) such that in the act of making it you either reward yourself with genuine happiness by aligning with objective moral truth (the GOOD) or you fail and by degrees and then by those same degrees suffer genuine unhappiness therefore. The only 'punisher' is you yourself. That is quintessentially fair. So, duh, it's a fair universe.

Perhaps, a non-Christian source of solace is the Eastern religious concept of Karma : that Good & Evil acts in this life will be morally balanced in the next incarnation. — Gnomon

No, indeed not. The concept of karma is deeply silly. It again assumes an immoral transactional nature to actions and choices. I suppose if one approaches the moment of now, of choice, as an asymptote, a limit, then that is still ok. That would mean what I already outlined above. The reward or punishment (still somewhat transactional) happens immediately.

But, this to me is not quite accurate AS IN I mean to say that because of the immediacy and more to the point the OBJECTIVE nature of morality, there is no 'bartering', which would characterize a transaction. Instead, choice is non-transactional and objective even as it is immediate. So, if you follow, the concept of karma to me is nonsensical overall and immoral in its suggestion.

Ironically, both approaches to a Just World seem to accept that the real contemporary world is neither fair, nor balanced. — Gnomon

No, that is incorrect. Such a conclusion can only be drawn if one is blatantly incorrect (subjective) and transactional in outlook (again incorrect). I guess an easy way to say this is that such a person has NO IDEA what fairness really is.

As Vyse summarizes : "The universe has no interest in your success or failure, and things don't happen for a reason --- they just happen". — Gnomon

Again, this is incorrect faithless subjective nonsense.

The universe clearly IS DEEPLY and INHERENTLY interested in your (moral) success. The whole universe is NOTHING BUT an objective theater for simulation (experience). Within that theater you choose. Nothing else is happening but choice. All choices are punished or rewarded by the nature of the universe, the system. And the only punisher or rewarder is YOU, because what is moral, what is GOOD, what is perfect, is objective. It does not change.

Thus, because things ARE fair, you may then earn wisdom and grow, progress, towards the GOOD in understanding and action (choice). If this was not ALL true, there would be no point to anything and indeed, as mentioned, matter cohesion itself would fail and the universe would cease to exist.

What convinces us of this tempting lie you suggest here is that we are above all aimed at ease. Interest in and preference for ease is effectively the sin of laziness.

We are tempted to believe in a subjective universe because that 'eases' (not really) the pressure on us to choose wisely. If morality is not objective then we are just hapless victims and our choices make no difference. But objectivity is empowerment. Blame is healthy! But don't be a clown and blame the universe and disempower yourself. Blame yourself.

If we get into the right habit, of blaming ourselves (for literally everything), we are then empowered to choose and encouraged, DESPITE ALL FORMER FAILURES, to try again to make things better. I know which side I am on. Fair universe, choice matters, and it's all you.

Tied to this idea is the unity principle. That is the classical 'we are all one' idea. Literally, you are me and I am you. So, indeed EVERY choice in the universe is YOUR fault, finally. You are not JUST a representative of the godhead, but the godhead itself.

For example, the current hurricane in the Caribbean is indiscriminately destructive. But is the obvious bad stuff offset by punishing an evil group of people : e.g. Jamaican politicians, oligarchs and landlords ; while poor innocent Jamaicans are just collateral damage? Are blessings & curses proportional? — Gnomon

I would define this conclusion, as constructed, as blatant sophistry of a very low order.

Although I'm not comforted by scriptural assurances that "all things work together for good", — Gnomon

You should change your mind. The mind and all fear constructs are prisons, limits, by definition. They NEVER arrive at perfection. Only by balancing the transcendence of desire and the being of anger into fear, is moral choice made wise.

All things DO work together for the GOOD. But it's so damn hard to reach the GOOD (perfection) that both the unwise Pragmatist and the unwise Idealist turn away exhausted by the effort. It is not called perfection lightly. The wise understand the exponentially increasing effort required to be wiser and wiser than the mean in society and amid humanity and ALL.

I do infer a kind of Logic to the chain of Cause & Effect in the physical world --- and an overall proportional parity between positive & negative effects. Of course, that mathematical & thermodynamic symmetry may not always apply to the personal & cultural aspects of reality : to people's feelings about those effects. I won't attempt to prove that vague belief in balance, but it seems that philosophers have always been divided on the question of a Just World*2. — Gnomon

Philosophers are not only divided. Taht rather implies a duality. Instead it is a multiplicity of infinite variation of failure.

Essentially ANY sliver of difference between objective understanding (reality) and subjective wishes or fears (delusion) is a lie, comforting though it may be. Logic is a prison on one very large DUALISTIC side of that multiplicity. If you want equal halves of failure to choose perfectly, then choose your camp in life, the fear and order side, or the desire and chaos side. And then to convince yourself that you are even more erudite and correct, waffle back and forth pretending towards balance, rather than actually BEING in balance.

Logic is just fear. All thought is fear. That is an order side failure of moral choice. Pragmatism as a whole arises from that flavor of failure.

Plato was not conventionally religious, but he argued from a position which assumed a Rational*3 First Cause, that he sometimes referred to as Logos*4. That philosophical principle was not necessarily concerned about the welfare of individuals, but only that the world proceed in an orderly manner toward some unspecified teleological end point. Rational humans are able to detect the general organization & predictability of physical events, and often refer to the regulating principles as Laws --- as-if imposed by a judicious king. Ironically, modern science has detected some essential Uncertainty at the foundations of Physics. So, we can never know for sure what's-what & where & when. — Gnomon

And see then how Plato was waffling. And then how modern science waffles.

But the truth is still objective and that is orderly, finally. So the orderly INCLUSION of chaos by law is still lawful. Wisdom is NOT easy. It's the hardest skill there is.

I get a sense that this forum has some moralists who feel that the physical world is morally neutral, yet organized human societies should be scrupulously fair & balanced toward some ideal of Justice ; and some amoralists or nihilists who think its all "just one damn thing after another" ; plus perhaps some nameless positions in between. Since my amateur position typically falls in the muddled middle, and as part of my ongoing education in philosophical thinking, I'd like to hear some polite, non-polemic, pro & con discussion on the topical question. :smile: — Gnomon

Nonsense! Politeness, as most often portrayed colloquially, is an uncommitted position. It is THE quintessential waffling mistake, an immoral choice.

Peace is finally delusional. Conflict is eternal and ubiquitous. The struggle IS AS IT SHOULD BE.

That means though that it is POLITE to be in synch with this truth and struggle, get involved, 'Participate', as Joseph Campbell would say. In fact, a wise person will cause suffering intentionally to be moral. That suffering is distinct from other forms of suffering in this one way: that suffering is NECESSARY to allow yourself and others the opportunity to earn wisdom. Evil is properly defined as a choice for UNNECESSARY suffering. And then we have a whole new debate!

Anyway, my two coppers are just a tiny penny rolling up the walls inside. You have to look for the ghost of real cause and real effect. It's only you again, the chooser.

In 10 days this thread has produced 4 pages of back-and-forth discussion. So, there is action, reaction, interaction. If some read the thread and do not choose to participate and then those that do not read it at all provide another thing, inaction.

There are always only three ways to examine something/express something. But these three ways when combined in percentages allow an infinity of ways to examine something/express something.

The penchant here on these forums and elsewhere these days relies upon one of the three ways overmuch. That is the way of fear. The way of fear is responsible for all order in reality. All structure, all limits, all connection (speaks again to structure really), all observation and awareness, all thought, is all just and only fear. The world of the Noosphere (Vladimir Vernadsky / Ken Wilber) is all only fear.

When you use symbolism, symbolic logic, logic, any thought really, you are enacting and manifesting fear.

Of course no manifestation within reality is truly isolated in emotive content. That means besides fear and its rather pure manifestations like structure and thought, we have ... two ... other emotions.

These are desire and anger.

The core tension of all reality is only and always the interaction between these three emotions, which I refer to as primal emotions. There is nothing else in existence. But the three primal emotions, again, fear, anger, and desire, together are the system, reality, ... and the term most often and appropriately used for this union, ... love. You can call it God if you like, or fate, or nature. Blah blah blah. It's all the same thing, everything, and all only and always fear, anger, and desire and their interactions.

Fear, as mentioned is order and logic and academics and certainly especially philosophers tend to gravitate towards fear and thought as their holy tool. But this is a rank failure in philosophy. It SHOULD be obvious why this is clearly true, but alas, logic is a prison, and that includes logic itself as the thing imprisoned. Rules, rules, rules ... order .. hierarchy ... structure. Yawn.

What of desire and anger then?

YOUR types in general, apologies to those that do bridge the gaps, seem bound (intentional word) and determined (Intentional word) {both words are fear words clearly associated with hierarchy and limits} to fail in regular and predictable ways. Again, this is NOT philosophy, but a caricature of that fine effort only. The greats of the field, even if prone to such failures, will mention and partake in healthy doubt (proper fear) of this foolish order-centric Pragmatism.

All Pragmatism is the base philosophy of fear and thus, on its own an obvious failure as well.

So, again, and repeatedly, what of desire and anger?

Well the short answer is they are the EQUAL, precisely equal (order) emotions to fear. Any wise philosophy must perforce include them and indeed, my contention, as EQUALS.

Desire is the classical enemy and balancing force to fear. You will notice that although I speak in plain English using relatively easy to digest words instead of arcane academic formulas, there is still an equation, and a balance mentioned and upheld as meaningful and true. If you choose to be offended by this approach and ignore its actually rather obvious veracity, well, it can be true that the gilded cage of Pragmatism is pretty and a 'safe' bet. But, 'safe' is in quotes and appropriately so. It is and always will be a cop-out, the Pragmatic 'short-cut' to truth and being. This is just the way of fear, the way of cowards.

Cowardice is indeed the core sin or failing of fear and order. The betting man's game says cop-out things like 'We are only human! You can't expect perfection'. In underscoring the 'impossibility' of perfection, pragmatism will point to any number of logical short-cuts and in facts will often sacrifice wisdom and all that is GOOD, in the name of mere cowardly efficiency. Continue this over-anxious path at your peril and certainly amid failure to understand wisdom.

So, desire.

Desire is chaos, the opposite of order. Another synonym is freedom. If you believe freedom is only GOOD, what a trivially false belief that would be. No, desire alone is as foolish as Pragmatism and ONLY equally so. The Pragmatist would scoff at this and prefer order to chaos, a la so many such ... men (usually). One example whom I dearly love yet fails this way often enough, Jordan Peterson. Most classical philosophy by far falls into the trap of order (and is also male by the way). Cowards, at least in leaning is my accusation.

Desire is the source of idealism. Alone, like to Pragmatism, it is silly, ridiculous immoral failure. Self-indulgence is the core sin of desire.

The concept of separation from all is a fear thing, the structure of a thing apart as identity. This permeates all reality from the smallest quanta to ourselves, humanity, who, as far as we know, are the highest quality moral agents in the universe. Notice how the one immoral failure begats another. The foolishness of separation, a coward's fear of being unequal to ALL, also then causes the will to freedom, self-indulgent specific desire (immoral).

So, let's BEGIN to segue this long post towards the OP. A 'simple' definition for philosophy. And I completely realize that I have not yet discussed anger. That is intentional as is all of this post.

What is wrong with, 'A love of wisdom' ? Is that too simple somehow? Or really too complex? Clearly, it is both. We simply do not understand how complexity is defined by simplicity and vice versa. And when some ... philosopher ... comes along and starts saying things like 'there are only three emotions' or 'love is only fear, anger, and desire; combined' everyone gets mad at the simplicity stated and the complexity implied.

I rather like 'A love of wisdom'. But, then of course we are left defining what wisdom is. Oh bother. You will find this simple complexity is unavoidable in all things and no fear-only formula can withstand it. All three emotions MUST be present and in equal measure. But equality alone is not enough. There is another factor and that is amplitude. Something happens when we increase fear, anger, and desire.

That something is actually ... the GOOD. Or let's be clearer and say the potential for the GOOD. So, the GOOD to me (and I all cap it to show its difference from the colloquial nonsense term 'good' which is usually corrupted by immorality to mean 'what i want' or 'what we think is right right now'. The GOOD is actual perfection, objective moral truth. Although it is impossible to arrive at it, it is the only proper aim in all cases.

Why is wisdom so elusive?

People are easily far more fearful or angry as individuals than they are wise. They are mostly NOT in balance, NOT wise. Some of the most concerned with so-called philosophy, which SHOULD be the love of wisdom, is deeply skewed to academic Pragmatism and thus precisely unwise. Likewise, must of common culture is a pig sty wallow of self-serving blather, feckless self-indulgence at its worst and again, especially these days, hidden behind a wall of pretty propped up virtue signaling, as opposed to actual virtue.

The common polarities in life are almost all just fear vs desire. The right and left wing are the nominal example. Pragmatism/Idealism is another.

But wisdom shows us the failure of even that balance. And the reason is the much misunderstood truth of anger, of balance.

Anger is the emotion of balance. It denies fear and desire and in equal measure. This tension of anger, caused by anger, literally CAUSES everything we call reality to exist. The empty prisons of order are meaningless though without instantiation. Imagination and desire has no object, no existence and floats in all directions (chaos) without the instantiation of BEING. Mass itself is caused by anger, the action of the emotion of anger on both fear and desire.

You WILL NOT be engaged in philosophy well and properly until you grasp some aspect of these truths. I DO NOT claim to know anything, only to believe some things more than others. But that is my belief. Most academic prison builders (order bound) would do well to engage more desire and add and accept chaos in their systems of thought. This acceptance of the enemy of fear, the enemy of order, desire, chaos, is REQUIRED for the final truth of order to emerge. That is that the order DOES include that chaos and it MUST be accounted for as an equal.

Finally, there is the question, why the dichotomy? Why not a trichotomy? It is a trichotomy is the answer. But the Pragmatists and the Idealists alike team up to denigrate anger (being). They deny truth wholesale to shrink in fear and imprison themselves. They deny truth wholesale to remain open immorally to self-indulgence. And the amplitude of their anger is weak. This is the sin of moderation. Perfection IS NOT at peace with vapid empty moderation at all.

Moderation exposes at last the core failure of anger. That is: 'don't get angry! don't get violent! Be calm! Seek peace! Cum for us and take your place and its spoils in the order of things!' Men of Athens! I beseech you, peace is delusional and not a wise or valid goal. The moral truth of anger is effort, the suffering of being. As such the amplitude of anger is the amplitude of effort. The moral man DOES NOT seek ease but instead increasing suffering to earn more wisdom. Conflict is the core means of approaching effort.

The truth and perfection are ALWAYS harder and harder to increase. If you find an easy way, by definition you are failing. If it seems easily at first to be a preferred or practical path, then BY DEFINITION you are failing. The truth of anger shows us that eternal conflict and increasing effort is wise. Deal with it!

And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.
— Chet Hawkins

Needed. Please. — ENOAH

Well, ... I thought I already gave YOU the rundown. But in this case, objective morality is argued as causal to all concepts of balance. That is to say in my model, the fear, anger, and desire are the only forces in the universe. Instead of reality being a dichotomy as most systems will show, a duality, the real nature of reality is trinary, between these three emotions.

We can go into more depth but suffice it to say that my model would predict that first there SEEMS to be a duality, with a polarity that is set up. In the emotional realm this first order divide is between fear and desire. These are the ruling emotions of any duality. I can't really go totally on and on here, but things like left and right wing, order vs chaos, and even the polarity between male and female as genders is all caused by this 'false' duality. But those energies are MORE OBVIOUS and yet delusional (unstable) within the 'false' duality. I say more obvious because when we talk about such polarities, that delusional model, many based on it, seems to only realize the two sides. Why?

The answer is that the emotive force of anger is unique and strange compared to the other two. Instead of primarily participating in the duality, anger splits in the middle and joins BOTH sides equally. This means its very nature is confusing to the unaware. Why does anger do this? Because anger is all about one thing, and one thing only when it is moral, and that is balance. So, anger is actually the force for unity of all, and balance of all. If you refer back to the Enneagram bit I posted, you will recall that Enneatypes 8, 9, and 1 are anger types. The type 9 is the anger infused anger. So, the sin of that type is laziness and of course they are known for their calm, peacekeeping and unity-seeking ways. The two go together. It seems odd to the unaware that we properly state that anger is the emotion of calm. But, it is.

Amid the three types of love, friendship, passion, and compassion; anger's part is the compassion, the so-called empty love, the love that needs neither friendship, nor passion to exist. It simply IS, balanced love, love equally for all. And yes, that is from anger.

So, how do we relate that to objective morality? These balances are laws of nature. They are not accidents at all. They MUST be this way and only this way. The 'false' duality sets up a tension. But it has no substance. Keep in mind, these are emotions, the working parts of moral or immoral choice.

How does morality relate then to natural law, to physics? Well, fear is the emotion of the past. All order proceeds from the past. And desire is the emotion of the future. All chaos stems from the randomness of desire. Only the eternal moment of now and all of physical reality is 'created' or emerges as a result of the non-delusional third emotive force of anger. Anger says no to fear and no to desire both. So each of the three emotions is acting on both the other two to cause a PERFECT balance. It is only that PERFECT balance that allows for a tiny emotive force in any way, to move things, to choose. This PERFECT balance is the state of free will, and the universe would be impossible without it. It that balance was subjective, was off by even the plank length, the entire universe would not have the balance to form.

Of course, again, because of this balance, so PERFECT, is the background state of the universe, an objective guarantee to all entities, even subatomic particles, are possessed of choice to a degree. Choice is literally the only thing in the universe. It causes everything else. And its basis of empowerment is free will. Determinism is a vast and easy temptation of fear-side foolishness. They are looking at probability and that effort will fail as the limit described by the singular path of each emotion to perfection. Only all three together in balance can arrive at perfection.

It goes further and connected more, this model. Literally the atom shows the truth of my model in every way. The false dichotomy is the proton and electrons match in charge. The protons are manifestations of fear grouping together near the more confident and balanced anger bodies, the neutrons. And, no surprise the chaotic desire monkeys are out making friends in random directions all around that system, the nucleus. All civilizations form this way, all groups form this way. And what is the nature of the system? Trinary! Proton, electron, neutron; fear, desire, and anger; respectively.

So, we have the three tenses of time and the basic structure of the atom, each showing, resonating with the model, the emotive model of reality.

If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral.
— Chet Hawkins

What if choice wasn't predetermined, but still not free? — ENOAH

That makes no sense. It is either free or not. There is no in between. If you are TRYING to say that some choices are hard and that seems like not free, then that would be a wrong opinion. Yes, admittedly, some choices seem impossible or not free. But choice is infinite and our delusions, lack of awareness, lack of effort, lack of restraint; are the problems, the immoral aims we choose that make it seems not to be free will.

What if the root of confusion is not in whether or not there is "freedom;" but in what is "choice." — ENOAH

And then you MUST say what your theory is. You do not here. So, I cannot explain how your theory is wrong, if you do not have one.

The OP suggests, at least asks, if there's no freedom, is morality doomed (to) nihilism or fatalism. And you state that if there is no freedom its impossible to be immoral. — ENOAH

Yes, luckily, freedom and morality both exist and it cannot be otherwise, as shown above. And by the way, luck has NOTHING to do with it. It could only be this way.

If everything were determined, it would feel that way. And the universe would implode to static death in infinitely small time. It does not. So, the imbalance is not there. Instead, we do have a persistent and rigorous balance. Things are so stable, and we so confounded by our delusions, that we are 'stuck' earning wisdom to be better choosers. It MUST be this way.

Both imply that a reason to accept free will is it resolves the problem of morality; I.e., free will serves a function. Keep that in mind because it will re-emerge in a second. — ENOAH

No, there is no need. There is no problem with morality. The problem is immoral choice. Imbalances impeded our progress towards perfection. So, we have only ourselves to blame. Progress CAN BE MADE. If morality were subjective, no progress can be made. That is because what subjective morality really means, is that from one nanosecond to the next acting the same way would feel perhaps 180 degrees different. We would literally wake up and feel that quick and rapacious murder was correct. It would be like every M Night Shyamaylan movie all rolled into one. Moving goalposts on feeling would be the least worrying aspect of it. Because of what I just described, atoms themselves would not cohere together. They would fall apart if morality were subjective. Almost instantly, the pressure to make a choice would become impossible to overcome and the entire system would die in frozen lock. Really, people have NO IDEA what they are saying when they suggest that morality could even possibly be subjective. Morality upholds all other laws of nature. Their consistency means morality is objective. Time and the atom and the emotive model are the only thing holding this universe together and all of it is only free will.

Moreover I can infer that "choice" is at the root of both of your statements. The reason freedom allows for immorality (yours) and no freedom renders morality impossible (OP's) is because we can "choose" moral or immoral. — ENOAH

Well, yes. But, the whole idea of subjective morality is just chaos and insanity. People WANT to believe that morality is subjective because then they do not have to own up to truth. Truth and objective morality state quite obviously that perfection is the only worthy aim. Incremental progress is laudable. But this requires the choice to suffer to earn wisdom. Each suffering is a chance, an opportunity to then choose to earn wisdom or to deny it.

It is only with meaning being objective that the concept of balance itself is possible, That simple statement is a writ small proof for objective morality.

This ultimately must be rooted in (to bring in concepts from your other posts) fear. If we can't "choose" how could we be blamed, and without blame (one fears; i.e. the OP suggests the fear) there will be nihilism. In plain English without choice and blame, who cares? — ENOAH

Yes, sort-of. I mean the whole evil thing is really overdone. It's just LESS good. Just by being and having some balance there is a ton of good happening. The universe's constant serving up of the truth of that balance amid free will is being thrown back in its face, in our face, because WE ARE IT. As you no doubt can tell here, 'God', 'All', 'truth', the universe, and Love, are really all just synonymous things. There is no point to separating them. Fear tries to, to limit, to flee in fear from that truth, and is responsible for all separation. And all of those separations are only delusional. Desire tries to get, but, it tries to get everything in every direction, and there is only one step you can make that is perfect at any time and from any state and that is the single next step towards perfection.

And we have REAL evidence. The genuine happiness that is a consequence of a BETTER step towards wisdom and morality exists and is demonstrable in every case. It's all there ubiquitously and omnipresent, free will, and perfection, available to all. Choose, and suffer the consequences. Only free will can support that truth.

But I submit this concept--that we need freedom and blame for morality (to function; or, for a morally functional humsn existence. If its not that you're worried about, then what? Morality for morality's sake?)--is the actual root of the problem. — ENOAH

Yes, you can take that tack. I have thought much on this. Is Love and Truth a tyranny? Is it finally some odd form of evil? No. The reason why is that morality IS objective. In other words being biased is ok in one case only, when that bias is to perfection, the GOOD. So, this means GOOD is actually good. It is a natural law of the universe that good is better for you. Because of free will only, we only are to blame for our choices and thus, all suffering we experience is our fault entirely. The infinite nature of choice means we could at any point just choose perfection. But our delusions feed over-expression of fear, anger, or desire; even all three; and we fail.

Love is NOT a tyranny because GOOD is objective. If morality were not objective, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. If free will did not exist, then the system of Love would be a tyranny. Luckily free will exists and morality is objective. And, by the way, luck clearly has nothing to do with it!

Which brings me back to what is "choice." If choice--and thus concomitantly freedom of choice/free will--by its function, evolved — ENOAH

Incorrect. It did not evolve.

It was present as free will at the dawn of time. All particles partake of free will. 'Inanimate' matter is NOT inanimate. It is choosing.

(because it was fit for the vitality of the system in which it evolved) to appear to involve a single ontologically real and essential being freely making it (those latter shoes filled by the Subject I); but if both choice and the Subject seeming to freely make it, were just mechanisms in a process with the ultimate effect of provoking bodies to act and or feel; and if (that which we rightly cling to because it is functional and call) morality, is not a universal pre-existing Reality, but also an evolved, because it is ffunctionalmechanism (or set thereof) in that process; and if every seemingly free choice, and their moral status were determined not predestination-wise, not pre determined, but by the movement of causes and effects operating within that system and following evolved laws of that system (evolved due to function), then within that process there could be morality-the appearance of choice-but not free choice in the sense of some individual being. — ENOAH

No, there could not be such a system. It would have no basis. The model I describe explains EVERYTHING. The existence of the stability and the limit conditions on each emotion combine to make all other models or ideas, including the one you just offered, impossible.

The reason why is that you cannot get to here with your model. It would fail long before. And you still need physics to exist for NO REASON. In my model physics is supported wholly by morality. Physics is caused by morality.

Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies,
— Chet Hawkins

I submit the contrary. Choices are "everyone's" fault because we are ineluctably interdependant. — ENOAH

I agree, but you are wrong. You are wrong because that is NOT the contrary of what I stated and you loaded your submission with that assertion.

The contrary of my statement you responded to is that the left and the right DO NOT have vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. But they do. And by the way it's OBVIOUS I mean an immoral interest, not a moral one.

For the left and right TO EXIST at all is immoral. There should be only moral balance. So, you cannot should halfway. If you start with the perfect moral shoulds, there should be no left and no right, let alone each of these 'teams of delusion' working for their side only, which is what happens.

Not a single idea on these pages is original. — ENOAH

I disagree. I think many of mine are.

I am responsible for contributing to the crimes of anyone who has crossed my path or heard my speech. How's that for burden and not comfort? We want to impose freedom on the individual to avoid the reality that History is one mind, a process interacting. — ENOAH

And yet that is the moral task: to rise above our state and aim at perfection, REGARDLESS of the difficulty. The infinite power of choice and the PERFECT balance of free will make this possible all underpinned by objective morality. ANY OTHER state would collapse into ruin immediately.

Granted we are all one. Granted we are all responsible for the actions of all of us. We can attend the delusion of separation at any scope and there is diminishment. But, we cannot escape then the impression that since fear exists, and separation is plausible and entertained as a notion, that it has a function to join with the other functions of unity and motivation. In other words, AS LONG AS you reunify for the final, you may consider the contributions of each part in that unity. That means the contribution of the individually scoped CHOOSER matters and can be judged separately than the whole, as long as we admit the whole is the final perfection. This means individual blame also matters as contributory.

The complexity of getting around the logic that I am not free but yet an actor in a system with a "burden," should not have to be (but because of the progression of western thought to date, is) a reason to reject that. — ENOAH

The rejection is immoral. It is caused by each of the three emotions in specific ways, fear-cowardice, anger-laziness, and desire-self-indulgence. That is all.

All words like 'complexity' or 'confusion', etc are there because we are unequal to the will to be perfect to use our infinite choice to transcend our state that we are deluded to believe is 'hard'. It FEELS so hard because we make it hard on ourselves. The more of us that resonate their goodness more, the more the rest will feel it and join in. Of course at some point in this process the TERROR of not measuring up or being able to choose well will erode the progress towards perfection even more. A moral act is the single hardest act a person can choose.

But in spite of the restrictions superimposed by logic, I'll try to state it in simple words. How do we fulfill our duty to the system if we have no freedom to choose? — ENOAH

I mean, it sounds like you believe that subjective nonsense?! Do you?

Tragic answer is the system is making that happen. For e.g. when ideas like these are shared. Ignore that. It cannot be expressed. It's like knowing the ego is not what you think it is, yet you are that ego thinking it isn't or is. It's impossible to discuss. And I anticipate your rebuttal but I won't sacrifice honesty and what you might help me bring to light, so have at it. — ENOAH

I very much detest the type 4 delusion of the need to be special. I have a super strong type 4 vector. It is my second highest personality trait in the Enneagram. So I can say that with some understanding and impunity. But that type is the source of the immoral feeling that 'you can't know this because only I experienced it' bovine poo. That is incorrect. We are all one. We are connected despite immoral denial. We DO experience that SAME thing. Even rape victims are wrong to separate themselves or attach only to other such victims as a 'precious' thing. They make their suffering like the One Ring is to Gollum. The thing he should discard, he keeps as precious. OK, do it! It will rankle your happiness until you make the right choice and discard it willingly, never seeking it again, that feeling of being so special that you are separate from all as well. You are damaged goods, born bad, a cursed entity. It's so tiresome. Drama ... The tragic-romantic type is aptly nicknamed.

I ran out of steam and must sleep!

↪Chet Hawkins
My understanding of McCarthy's words, 'historical law' is referring to the laws which were developed in various forms of civilisation. — Jack Cummins

So, then, human law as a written/customatic version of natural law. What a poor substitute. I understand that some people claim to lack a moral sense, hence the need for law. But my emphasis on this need would be more sinister these days, as in, laws to pretend morality is not a natural law, AS IF they had to written by us in a conceited way to make any showing. It's a tacit artifact of DISBELIEF, not belief. But I suppose clarity is also ... useful.

In connection with your idea of , 'Real morality is the law of the universe', which is very Kantian, it does come down to whether there are specific ideas or laws independently of the consequences of an action or the way in which morals develop in any given society. — Jack Cummins

So, I disagree that 'it' comes down to that. Define 'it'? The 'situation'? That 'situation' causes miscommunication and disagreement, or, let's say more than there should be. We improperly reserve the right to declare our selfish interpretation of natural moral law and then we get it wrong in all the right ways to 'sin' unimpeded by our own legal works. And each society is different about how they 'sin', spawning conflicts unending.

Laws are always independent of consequences, so I am not sure what that phrasing means. In the Kantian ideal, laws SHOULD BE written towards intent, not consequences, yes? Let's keep the apples in the apple bucket. Don't apples spoil other fruits if next to them, ripen them quickly? No wonder they were the fruit of original 'sin'. Apples are the fruit equivalent of pederasts.

I would prefer a 'situation' where humanity realizes and respects the truth of natural moral law. Yes, it is the hardest thing in the universe, but, the right set of ideals would be nice to aspire to. My book is about us realizing that truth and, in some ways, looking again to, not quite discard, but place religions (all of them) in their proper place as early guides or ideas towards morality. The law would and probably should continue, but, once we get a fairly well working version of natural law, that need would diminish. In other words if our awareness of natural law is close enough, the feedback loop of genuine happiness would be fairly noticeable. That would take the place of most of the need for a written code of law. But I can see sociopaths and forgetful or insensitive people still needing a written reference.

But the real point there is that such a moral code would be complete, even if we could not sense it all. The could and would be no need to 'mess it up' with our interpretation (as we do now).

There are some underlying universals, such as the treating others as well as a general principle of murder being wrong. These develop in relation to human life, as opposed to apart from it, so they could be seen as intersubjective principles rather than objective. — Jack Cummins

I disagree with those principles. They are not precisely correct. 'Treating others well' is too vague by far. The probably rather bizarre statement I would counter with is: 'Treat all beings with a proper decorum/demeanor including the respect for the intrinsic value of all life and all concepts of waste and greed included. Disturb things only to challenge them to better themselves morally. That means increasing suffering is almost guaranteed to be morally correct.

We task a horse to earn its connection to us, for example. The horse IS bettered by this process in many cases. It is a more aware and happy creature with a proper human interaction. Of course, most human interaction is a mix of improperly and properly aimed goals. And for sure the horse initially suffers much more as it learns the 'rules' of interaction with humans.

As for the idea of political correctness as a 'horror show', I am wondering who determines what the horror is exactly? — Jack Cummins

Objective moral truth, of course. But I get your unstated objection. One of the first goals of a new wisdom based society would be to state (I suppose in law) what wisdom is for all to debate and complain about. This is a regurgitation of the old Greek forum, or this forum, ... a place where we test and debate the ideals of the new human path.

'Horror show' is what we have now, where roughly half the populace has a fear-sided only approach to wisdom and the other rough half has a desire side only approach to wisdom and the ideals of anger are denigrated and not properly understood at all.

The good of the right and the good of the left must be integrated. The bad of each must be challenged.

If we keep letting one side or the other dominate and rough handle the other one, like the left is doing to us all right now, we all lose the 'real' game of morality and political correctness is anything but that, it's political incorrectness. Chaos-apology is disintegration and rot.

I am not saying that I am in favour of the rigidity of political correctness in language, but I do think that language sensitivity matters in day to day life. — Jack Cummins

Although I agree that sensitivity is always better, enervation, when that reaction or input is the wrong narrative, not moral, but one-sided, as it is now, and fairly well always has been one way or another, then we fail in the name of the good. It's definitively little-g good, not GOOD.

The part that is most missing goes back to my first post on this site. That is the demonstrable feedback loop within reality of genuine happiness as a way to show that objective moral truth is being resonated with ... BETTER. Once you feel that connection, that harmony, and by the way I specifically call out giddiness as immoral, it is hard to go back. Backsliding morally reflects on the self, the connected self, unified somewhat with all virtues towards the objective good. That happiness is genuine, and it really does hold its ground well, better, against temptation.

I am sure that 'greed' and 'power' is a problem as a human weakness, and as enshrined in capitalism. — Jack Cummins

No doubt that Capitalism has to go. As long as it remains, the One Ring is still in Middle Earth and Sauron may rise again too easily. Of course removing Capitalism does not remove greed. If a Communist society were begun, some men would harem all the women due to their skills, presentations. That would also be immoral greed, even if the women were willing. A precarious balance would be deeply disturbed. Humanity itself would shift in every way to accommodate. If we really want the GOOD we have to understand the brutal nature of nature, of weakness and its relationship to immorality. At least the foolish money factor would be gone. But we might let in a thug factor that would also have to be countered.

These are problems and may be connected with loss of meaning in general, as may be the source of children and adults committing suicide. It may point to a 'broken' system, and the question may be about who and how can it be put together again, especially in relation to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Well, yes, the GOOD is the answer, to everything. Answers that seem to offer solace that are not aligned with the GOOD are effectively immoral. Those are the temptations of ease that we must be aware of. In short almost everything we now seek is immoral in many ways. A new way, a new awareness, is sorely needed. And wisdom is a very hard sell if it is improperly understood, and it will be.

I am raising the topic as being about the interaction between ethics and politics, based on the following quote from Cormac McCarthy, in his novel, 'Blood Meridian':
'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test'. — Jack Cummins

Um, what the heck is 'historical law'? I have no idea. I am guessing based on your context that you really mean something like 'Pragmatic efficiency'.

Further, moral law IS NOT an invention of mankind. It is an interpretation of mankind of reality. In all cases we fail with that interpretation. And yes, the powers that be LIE constantly about the role of morality in their decisions. They do so to sell immoral action as moral to their constituency.

What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. It leads to the idea of the way in which moral views are connected to power structures and interests, even to the point of being ideologies. — Jack Cummins

I view morality as objective and a law of the universe. The fact that power abuses it DOES NOT reflect on morality in any way. It only reflects on them, the choosers. I think Cormac is a terrible cynic as presented and cynical projection is a lamely immoral way to be. As in if everything is bad that excuses your badness. That is a deeply tedious and wrong world view.

This may be relevant for thinking about cultural clashes and about ideas of 'political correctness'. In such ideas it may be that values are being upheld to an extreme as though they are 'laws'. — Jack Cummins

Real morality is a law of the universe, yes.

I must always go back to Milton, 'Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong!'

I do not think people behave according to their values as often as they delusionally believe. Instead they constantly hedge and shave, hedge and shave. They intentionally do immoral things rationalizing that everyone does, exactly in the vein of cynicism, even if they are not purely that. I am aware that when I stand on principle, and I have in life many times, people distance themselves from me because they all smell death in such a decision. I find that the height of cowardice and laziness and self-indulgence, to abandon friends, family, coworkers; when they are making a stand because you can't even support it. I mean they are not the main stander. I will still take the brunt. But they are just slimy so very often.

Again, the most ways that morality is broadcast is just a sell-out hypocrisy. Feel good about us stealing your tax dollars to peddle influence with your money. And it used to be countries. I could almost understand that. Now it's just elites, individuals. In other words the countries ARE NOT being served properly in any way. The common man is always just betrayed over and over again.

For example, I was in a discussion with someone who worked in a charity shop (and I won't name the charity', who told me why the charity won't stock music CDs any longer. She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. I was stunned because it seemed to be such a sweeping generalisation about music. I would understand if the charity did not wish to stock Gary Glitter's music, or other questionable artists but to outlaw music entirely seemed like political correctness going to the point of absurdity. — Jack Cummins

You really cannot track absurdity. It knows no bounds. Best policy is to pull off site and nuke the planet from orbit. It the only way to be sure. Even then the cockroaches that think this way will survive and evolve as any good vault dweller will tell you.

Virtue signaling and posturing is so epic these days that anyone that doesn't engage in it seems like a dinosaur. And they say no man is an island. So I nicknamed myself JP, for Jurassic Park. Yeah ...

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. It is based on forms of moral absolutism and what is acceptable being enshrined as 'moral law'. — Jack Cummins

One must be aware of darkness, almost familiar with it, in order to fight it. Exposure to its various shadows is wise. Those who seek to bury their heads in the cleanest of sands are without hope of being truly virtuous. All they can do is pretend. Don't worry, if they hide their eyes, they cannot see you, and they will in general.

Kant and others argued for moral law on the basis of a priori principles. Plato argued for ideas of justice and goodness based on forms, however, he saw the elite philosophers as being the influence that mattered, which was a form of authoritarianism. What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins

I agree with Kant and Plato both in that sense. Choosers must interpret moral truth because it is esoteric and distant from most people's awareness. It takes invested philosophers to dig it out and frame it back to the general population. That happens the same way any discipline makes itself useful.

Political correctness is a horror show only.

The basis of all systems we have today is greed and power. Does that sound GOOD in any way? Nope! It's so obvious that currently morality is like a smokescreen only. The real believers should be mortified. If anything, we are becoming more subjective and foolish relative to moral truth.

More children are learning less and committing suicide. Is power making the right choices? No, and less than in the past.

Some empirical logics can only be understood by first understanding everything there is to know, because you would need to be able to sense these logics in the universe, thus allowing you to see all the empirical logic. This seems like the process of philosophy to me. Would you agree that philosophy is largely down to registering and thinking in line with empirical logics? — Barkon

So, yes and no. In your case, the way you ask this question, it's mostly no.

My own theories about reality include a required three-way approach to wisdom, and philosophy is the love of wisdom.

The approaches are fear, anger, and desire. The fear side is the only side from which logic comes. All thought, all order, structure, patterns, etc; are manifestations of fear. Empiricism is a fear-side approach to truth.

So, whereas it is true that fear is part of truth (1/3rd to be precise), your idea is missing 2/3rds of truth, so that's less than an F as a grade. ;)

Many sources talk about the science of morality, but I find no agreement on how to define what it studies. Not finding anything succinct in more authoritative sources (suggestions are welcome) I turned to Wikipedia. Wikipedia describes the science of morality as a mixture of descriptive science and moral philosophy:

“The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world. It is sometimes framed as using the scientific approach to determine what is right and wrong” (Their main reference is Lenman’s 2008 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article Moral Naturalism.)

Consistent with Wikipedia’s definition, two well-known investigators, Oliver Curry (2019) and Sam Harris (2010), propose what people morally ought to do as a legitimate part of science. They are outliers. I will argue this Wikipedia definition is inaccurate and confusing regarding mainstream science of morality.

Contrary to Wikipedia’s definition, the state of the science of morality (see Note) is that almost all mainstream investigators limit their claims to what morality descriptively ‘is’. Their agreement is that morality regarding interactions with other people ‘is’ cooperation strategies. (Note that the larger ethical questions such as “What is good?”, ‘How should I live?”, and “What are my obligations?” are generally avoided.) — Mark S

So, I am within reason, hesitant to post here as you seem to be a more dyed-in-the-wool academic or academic adjacent type of intellectual. But everyone deserves a chance ...

So, THE problem with science in general and academia in general, is that the whole lot of it is a fear only approach to wisdom, morality, and life. I have my own model I am writing a book on that discusses this issue much more deeply, but, in brief, there are only three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. Together, maximized and in balance they are the GOOD, defining at once, perfectly, all that is wisdom and morality. The system, the natural state of the universe, is Love, which is another name for God or truth or 'All'. Every single bit of all of that is only those three emotions. In other words to me, consciousness is reality. I say all this briefly to set the stage for my later comments so that you can have them make some sense for you.

Fear as an emotion is redefined or MORE PROPERLY defined to me as 'an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past.' Notice the 1:1 relationship between the temporal sector referred to as the past and fear. Fear is thus all about patterns. Fear is effectively the same thing as the meta-emotional concept of order.

As such all structure, all limits, all boundaries, all categories, all patterns, all thought, all logic, is only and always will only be fear manifested. Keep in mind, everything is only fear, anger, and desire. But these manifestations in reality, what Ken Wilber refers to as the Noosphere, are all only fear-side. It's ONLY hilarious to me that Data and so many others, academics, etc, consider logic to be emotionless. It is ONLY fear. And last time I checked, fear is an emotion. The colloquial definition of fear is weak and foolish.

So, where am I going with all this?

There are three approaches to truth corresponding to each of the emotions. Fear is only one. And it has zero percent more value than the approach of anger, being; and the approach of desire, chaos. Each of those others is EQUALLY valuable and must be integrated in to wisdom or that which is being discussed IS NOT wisdom. It is a fake delusional sort of anti-wisdom instead of wisdom.

Most academics and scientists engage mostly the fear approach and fail quite horridly at the anger and desire approaches to truth. Pragmatism itself is the fear side philosophical base approach as an ism and is thus highly immoral. Likewise, Idealism is the desire side philosophical approach as an ism and is thus highly immoral. Anger is so little understood that it is hard to qualify its ism, but its place is understood or at least theorized as understood in my model.

So, the point of all that is that these 'science' approaches are necessarily doomed to over-emphasize order and like even Jordan Peterson, the result is order-apology, in other words conflating order as a goal with the GOOD. The GOOD is equal parts order, chaos, and the neutral force of balance (anger). So, of course, rigorous order will always fall short of truth until the end of time. But we can do BETTER if we understand the three paths and integrate them in these pursuits.

Some investigators avoid even the mention of “moral” or “morality” and describe their subjects only as, for example, The Complexities of Cooperation (Axelrod 1997), “the evolution of altruism” (Fletcher 2009), or “cross-cultural norms that solve cooperation problems”(Ostrum 2000). They pointedly avoid stating the obvious, that they are talking about aspects of our moral sense and cultural moral norms. Perhaps they take this approach to avoid nuisance misunderstandings based on definitions such as Wikipedia’s. — Mark S

This avoidance of truth is exactly correct. You are RIGHT to point it out. But now and later you seem to then side with the idea of avoidance. Avoidance is lazy, the 'sin' of anger. If it doesn't fit, heck, just toss it aside and discard it.

Nope. We have to deal with every problem to be correct. You have well educated idiots like Marx intentionally and laboriously removing the word and concepts of morality from their theories and ideas and thus failing, effectively. There is no escape from morality. You cannot avoid it.

It is my belief, if you don't realize it by now that morality is objective. That means it existed as a law of the universe before time began. It provides for time. The perfectly balanced forces of fear, anger, and desire provide for the central truth of the universe, free will, and its active element, choice.

These fear side cowards (bear with me as all fear side immoral failure is roughly called cowardice) like to pretend that fear and logic and reasoning is better than desire or anger. They are wrong. Each emotion carries precisely equal moral value.

Fear controls awareness and preparedness as well as joy oddly. I can explain why, but, for right now let that stand as an unsupported assertion. Why break a trend? It stands to reason that reason is overly proud of itself. It works by definition with high probability born out by the patterns of the past. And this offers fear its delusional worthiness.

Desire has the reverse issue. The idealists are well aware, all too aware, of how failing they are. The many paths of desire often yield suffering instead of growth. But the higher energy of that 'spirit' allows for so many tries. The consequences are predictable to the stuffy fear types. They see this and think 'no wonder' when the delusional worthlessness happens to the desire types. It's also why they turn on each other so easily when the fear types often support one another in orderly lockstep.

Anger is a much-maligned solution for both of these errors, although it has laziness to contend with. Anger stands to all. Anger denies fear and gets loud and big, using confidence to handle impact with mystery. And anger denies desire saying instead that the self is already sufficient (intrinsically worthy as part of it all) and needs nothing. Anger is the wellspring of compassion and unity.

That is just a brief overview of why I agree with your suggestion that too many academics avoid ethics and morality. In my opinion they do so because they cannot 'prove' it and they would rather use fear side Pragmatism to 'get er done' like the cowards of efficiency they are. This DOES NOT serve humanity really as wisdom. Fear is a cold trap leading to death when over-expressed. It is a logical stagnation of truth, and not truth itself.

Perplexity (https://www.perplexity.ai/) is a new, user-friendly AI program. I was curious how it would define the science of morality. In its reply, it said:

“The science of morality studies the psychological, neurological, and cultural foundations of moral judgment and behavior”. — Mark S

To me that is more like moral history or the history of morality. Even saying the words, 'the science of morality' is TRYING and bound to fail at a fear-side only approach to truth, dangerous in both its aims and its means.

As with the rest of science, claims about what people imperatively ought to do were not included. This definition is consistent with the mainstream science of morality. This consistency is what we should expect since the science of morality literature, plus relevant philosophical literature, is the basis of this AI’s answer. Of course, any output of AI programs must be viewed with skepticism, but this example appears sensible. — Mark S

Yes, although, again, it's more like 'a history of morality amid humanity'.

However, I prefer to define the science of morality as:

“The study of why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist". — Mark S

I like your definition, but, I am not sure you really mean that. It seems unlikely that you do. I will explain later.

I see my definition as encompassing, but more fundamental than, Perplexity’s while similarly avoiding any awkward implications about what people imperatively ought to do or value. — Mark S

So, no, not at all. In fact, what you say here NEGATES your definition. The study of WHY our moral sense exists is indeed the study of morality itself that implies ALL OUGHTS. There is nothing about it BUT oughts.

You left that word in your definition, WHY. Why is the central question of all philosophy. That one word contains all philosophy.

The norms and cultural interpretations exist because SOMETHING is there to provoke that feeling, that belief. And that something maintains for us a set of OUGHTS. It is finally only the OUGHTS that matter at all. Everything else is just choices that are in error about what the OUGHTS are. That is to say when we discuss opinions on morality, all we are talking about is the degree of error from the objective moral truth. Opinions are errors. Subjective experience can only ATTEMPT to understand objective morality. It cannot ever really succeed 100%.

Again, other suggestions for defining the science of morality studies are welcome. — Mark S

I like yours, but, that is because your definition DOES include the OUGHTS as stated, even if you maybe believe it does not. I believe you wanted to focus on the observable cultural constructs as all there is, rather than morality being an objective law of the universe predating mankind's hubris. Is that correct? That would be wrong.

What are the advantages of excluding philosophical moral ought claims from the science of morality? — Mark S

Sleazy easy approaches to truth ARE NOT advantages, but cowardice encourages Nihilism and conceit both. Fear causes delusional worthiness, just like desire causes delusional worthlessness. Then anger must come in and balance them and they it.

First, combining claims about objective scientific truth (the normal provisional kind) and claims about what we morally ought to do (which may forever be subjective) can be confusing for both scientists and philosophers. Where does objective science end and philosophizing begin? — Mark S

Philosophy can describe science and the reverse is not true, so far.

Second, excluding moral ought arguments from science can help make the same science useful for a wide variety of moral systems. — Mark S

Yes, this is the ultimately cowardly Pragmatism. 'Get er done!'

For example, consequentialist philosophers might propose moral system goals of “living according to nature” or maximizing happiness and flourishing (however those might be defined) for one’s group, for everyone, or for all conscious creatures. But by what moral ‘means’ regarding interactions with other people ought these hypothetical moral ‘ends’ be achieved? — Mark S

Real wisdom, like morality which it describes and supports, shows us that suffering must increase for wise action to be in progress. That is to say, a moral act is the single hardest act one can do or even believe in. Perfection is the goal. That is not easy. Ease of all kinds is immorality. So, Pragmatism is immoral. It stresses that which is 'useful' or 'efficient' only, and thus fails to account for anger and desire.

The science of morality, by both my and Perplexity AI’s definitions, provides an attractive, mind-independent option for moral means: achieving those ends by solving cooperation problems. — Mark S

I know what you mean, but mind-independent is actually impossible. As a concept mind, e.g. fear predates and suffuses the entire multiverse. It is order itself, all of it. So there is NOTHING in reality and never has been, that is truly mind-independent.

That delusion will not assist you in reaching real wisdom.

As mentioned above, solving cooperation problems is the generally recognized function (the reason they exist) of our moral sense and cultural moral norms. — Mark S

How predictable is this? You leave out the desire side truth of competition as moral, and perhaps the balancing requirements of conflict between the two, which anger is fine with. I'm ok with it. 'Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong.' - Milton was right!

Choosing to advocate and enforce moral ‘means’ as strategies for solving cooperation problems can be attractive because 1) these means can be innately harmonious with our moral intuitions since they are what shaped them, 2) they are the well-tested primary means by which humans became the incredibly successful social species we are, and 3) the subset of those cooperation strategies that do not exploit others can be shown to be universal (the subject of past and perhaps future posts). — Mark S

Anger is aware that harmony is overrated. Peace is delusional. Conflict is ubiquitous and eternal. We do need or OUGHT to require that suffering is restricted to what is necessary, but that is the real debate. What suffering is necessary and what is not? The wise suffer exquisitely more than others by definition. Greater awareness is greater suffering. Greater sets of fear side restrictions is greater suffering. Greater confidence in the face of mystery is greater suffering. And greater wishing for the ideals to be realized, for the GOOD, is greater suffering.

These attractive eases you propose are immoral aims in many ways. I understand that you mean them to help, but, unless balanced, they will not help, but harm.

In summary, solving cooperation problems as moral means for groups is an attractive choice because, among available options, it is arguably the means most likely to help us achieve our ultimate moral goals. — Mark S

No, as mentioned, the fear-side only path is not finally wise. More balance is needed and that means redirecting the understanding to include chaos (desire) and anger (balance) as moral forces equal to fear in importance.

Excluding moral ought claims from the science of morality enables a more useful definition of what the science of morality studies with a clear demarcation of science’s and philosophy’s domains. — Mark S

More useful as in short-cut fiat. No, that is not moral.

I'll start with Chapter 1 and see if the comments are well received.

Chapter I:
Definition of Life

For as long as we have lived, we have thought. Thought; a concept created by a brain so powerful it can bring rational thought and emotional feeling together. The downside, it can also destroy the bond between those two ways of perception. — Elnathan

OK, so right off the bat, the brain DOES NOT create thought. It supports the thought process. When you are going to dig into the details on something philosophically, you need to be clear.

Second issue is that the brain IS NOT the thing that brings rational thought (or irrational thought) and emotion together. So you left out irrational thought which is part a of issue 2. You show GREAT and incorrect bias towards thought as an approach to life that is singular with this setup.

Part 2b is that thought IS ONLY emotion. All thought is only fear. This truth completely disrupts the false high position of thought in most peoples; foolish opinions. So your bringing of two ways of perception may be true but they are BOTH emotional. And in fact there is a third one, anger.

People who act more on emotional feeling are deemed overreactional beings. People who act more on rational thoughts are praised as intellect and smart people. — Captain Homicide

These are wildly blanket statements that are also not true of all people and in fact not true in general. There is NOTHING BUT emotional feeling. So all people act on emotions. What you call thought and reason is only fear, an emotion. Yes, fear-side people are usually considered 'smarter' by default. That is because order which is the source of fear, shows us probability and is therefore supposedly more 'useful'. It is a dangerous lie because desire points to the ideals, perfection, and is every single bit as moral as fear side Pragmatism is, despite its lower probability.

I believe I am a dualist, but I do believe one way is vital for the existence of the other. For there to be rationality, there must be emotionality and the other way around. When asked for a rational opinion, the question is actually: give me an opinion without emotion. But for opinions to be, there must be emotion involved. — Captain Homicide

OK, nice. Now, you are starting to make more sense. I gave you the reasons WHY this sentiment is true, above.

We simply can’t exchange thoughts without emotion involved. If you do, it isn’t your opinion, but a given fact. — Captain Homicide

No, incorrect. You were right with the FIRST statement. All thought is ONLY emotion, fear. And facts are only beliefs. You must have some desire for or against the fact. It's super rare that someone can maintain perfect balance.

Where we see the separation of the two ways the most: science. Science is the most rational based way of perception of the world around us. — Captain Homicide

Yes, fear, Pragmatism, empiricism; all the same things. Limit oneself to what we can trap inside a construct of awareness and repeat as observable. But all fear is a trap. It is a cowardly retreat. It humorous that you consider the other emotions reactionary. You are PRECISELY wrong there.

Fear and thus all thought is all reactionary only. The other two emotions desire and anger have to do with the future and the present, respectively. Fear is the reactionary emotion. Fear is 'an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past.' All structure, all order, all thought, is a manifestation more of fear than of the other two emotions.

What is the definition of doing things over and over again and at least being OPEN to the concept of getting different results: Here's a hint. It's NOT insanity. It's the scientific method. Morons think that is insane. The man who first came out of his hut 4345 times in a row to record the sun in the sky finally sees an eclipse. Colloquial thinking and word use is horrid beyond all understanding. We have to do better to be wise.

The fact that we could get so separated of our own emotion and feeling to understand the world around us, shows us how powerful our brain actually is. It is so strong that it can dismiss its own nature, just to get a physically perceivable way of the world and existence itself. — Captain Homicide

You really need to explain that jumbled statement. It is not a good idea to get all 'la la' giddy happy about what the brain is and can do. It is only a single part of the body and that only a single part of the universe. Humility is advised as a moral path. The old school partitioners had it BETTER. Mind, body, and heart(soul). The three way split between fear, anger, and desire is MORE correct. To glorify reason and the mind is order-apology, fear-side thinking, only.

The urge to find and understand the origin of our existence has driven us through many ways of living. We have seen many different religions in our history, from Greek gods with various characteristics to a monotheistic god like Jaweh who symbolises love and justice. — Captain Homicide

There is NO segue here. We are left at this point wondering how this will connect.

That has always been the way of our understanding of the world and we let it be, it was a way of life. Till there were those who were curious, weren’t satisfied with obeying and non-critical thinking about the world around us. They started to dismiss the reality of that time and made it religionless. From praying to be healed, to doctors of our time who tackled almost all of the diseases at the hand of science. — Captain Homicide

Religion at least tried to embrace wisdom, philosophy, to better mankind's plight. The brutal Pragmatism of fear-side logic is cold and dead by itself. It might be able to pick out more probable paths for us, but, to eschew the desire and anger contributions of a moral life is just immoral. You are glorifying immoral failure in a way.

In a way science became its own atheistic religion. People believe in science just like people believed in gods. There is one thing these two have in common. The search for life; how we are alive, why we are and what made us be. — Captain Homicide

And now you come back to a position I can agree with.

One thing they don’t have in common is the emotion. In religion we find ourselves with norms and values. Whatever religion you are a part of, you must have encountered the norms and values of that religion. From charity in Christianity to Buddhist values like wisdom, kindness, patience, generosity and compassion. — Captain Homicide

This is wildly over simplified. Each of these faiths is about wisdom and control or ordering the populace towards practical function. And you are wrong, the emotions are the same. If you are trying oddly to say that the emphasis is slightly different, ok, ... who cares?

An interesting thing about all the norms and values is that they are universally accepted. If you ask a person if he thinks that patience is a good value, then he will most definitely say yes. — Captain Homicide

No, that is a trivially incorrect answer. I know people, myself included that think patience is overrated and often just self-indulgent cowardice or laziness in disguise.

I think you are alluding to an objective morality but you do not come out and say it. Say it if that is what you mean.

The fact that everyone experiences these universally accepted norms and values, wherever you go in the world, means that we’re somehow connected in a way that isn’t perceivable or provable by science. The fact that that is present, proves that there is a meaning of life beyond one religion or science. — Captain Homicide

Well, you're wrong again. What passes for scientific proof does prove we are alive and connected. These values can be measured and actions weighed against them and they have been in countless studies. Science (and religion really) are not DONE. They are not OVER. They are ongoing processes. So, to say something is beyond them MIGHT be true only right now. So your statements are vague and undefendable. Keep in mind I do not really believe in 100% awareness of anything, but the standards for valid beliefs require more justification in depth than I see here. It does NOT have to be academic, but well covered, at least.

For some, science represents life, for others, religion does. I think that we have been looking in the wrong place to find the meaning to life. We have been looking outside to the world around us, but what if we have to look inside? The universal norms and values suggest that we have a part of life inside of us. — Captain Homicide

Well, that is yet another 'la de da' statement. And it is yet another non-segue.

Take for example the urge to reproduce. Of course not everyone feels this that intense, but the urge is definitely there. The sole biological purpose of a human or animal to reproduce is to pass on genes so that they can keep living on. Why is that? What makes us so urgent to keep living on? We can’t put it in a formula or see it happen in our brains. It must be something greater. Is life a god? Is science the formula to life? Is life a good thing? — Captain Homicide

Lol! The SOLE purpose? No, not at all. Rejected.

Clearly, though if moral expression or wiser choices are part of the meaning of the universe, then we must 'pay it forward'. That is to say evolution invested a lot of time and energy into us, so we are obliged to keep the process going by breeding and in fact evolution has made sure that we do not forget to do that. Incentives are there to coax us into mating and having children.

Is life a good thing? We think about that when we see nature going on without any looking back to the loss it endured. Is life good if something alive can stop an alive being from being alive? These questions get clouded by our feeling of moral good. — Captain Homicide

Moral good brings clarity, not cloudiness. You are all over the place.

Life doesn’t have a personality as it can be everything alive, means life can’t be a form of thinking like us. — Captain Homicide

Life is us. Life has every personality. To say it doesn't is again JUST WRONG.

Which means it is not a person in our way of perception. This brings us to if life itself has morals, or if that our brain has made that concept to stay alive. — Captain Homicide

Morality is not a social construct. It is an objective fundamental law of nature. Attempts to name it a social construct are blithe immoral acts made in order to excuse self-indulgence, cowardice, and laziness.

Take for example a lion which kills a gazelle. A life form stops another from living. Isn’t that cruel? Just so that the lion can keep on living, another creature has to be sacrificed? At least we know life doesn’t have the morals we have. Therefore morals must be a concept that our brain has created to stay alive more easily. — Captain Homicide

Life is only morals. Your confused points are not able to be united in any way.

Evolution allows that the more successful pattern can consume the lesser ones. In some cases, if the greater pattern is not careful, it can be consumed by the lesser. None of that disavows morality in any way. In fact, it underscores moral truth. Proper effort is required of choosers at all levels of the moral hierarchy. Lack of effort or reasoning is immoral weakness.

Whenever the hard determinist view is brought up in online discussions there is almost always someone that says no free will or genuine moral responsibility logically entails fatalism and nihilism. — Captain Homicide

Wow! So that is a very improperly loaded question there.

So, you equate 'no free will' with 'genuine moral responsibility'? I find that deeply immoral as an idea. Free will is the only thing that exists in the universe. And the reason free will does exist is because morality is objective. I can explain much more deeply and thoroughly, if needed.

If everything that happens couldn’t help but happen and people’s choices aren’t truly free then somehow life is meaningless and morality doesn’t exist. — Captain Homicide

Effectively, that would be true. If choice is predetermined there is no way to be immoral. It's a a laughable position, despite what some very well educated cowards like to propose. Both the left and the right have a vested interest in pretending that people's choices are not their own fault. It's all comforting lies, so everyone is in line to get spoon fed the Kool Aid.

What is your opinion on this common claim in response to hard determinism? — Captain Homicide

I agree that it would be true if determinism were real and accurate, but, it is not.

My opinion is that it’s completely wrong and a fundamental misunderstanding of the matter. In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide

You mention here desire (chaos) and practical (fear) side interests and ways of thought. The truth is though that the balance between these two emotions and also a third emotion, anger, CAUSES the balance that supports free will. This precarious balance denies any possibility of determinism.

It can easily SEEM like determinism makes sense. It is of course highly probable and deterministic models are more true than most others. Why then do I dent it as truth? That is because it's a practical short-cut to truth that is effectively an awareness failure. Certainty is not possible. We cannot actually objectively know anything. But even math short-cuts the process describing the limit as x approaches 0 as 0. That is even though we 'know' that the relationship is asymptotic and the limit NEVER reaches 0. So, with that kind of accuracy, finally, the conclusions drawn are not moral, not accurate.

It does not matter that people still have desire to do immoral things and have fear to restrain themselves to practical immoral matters. The RIGHT thing to do, to believe in, is perfection as a goal. We should aim at ideal circumstances and keep adjusting based on consequence patterns. But that is NOT Consequentialism, which is reversed and immoral. That is Kant's Deontological morality, where intent is the what is judged, NOT consequences. THAT is moral.

People still have to do things for things to happen. Very few people would be content or able to lay in bed and stare at a ceiling their entire life because their choices are technically predetermined going back to the beginning of the universe. Choosing not to do anything out of fatalism is still a choice and a very miserable one. — Captain Homicide

I agree with your final statement, but, ALLOWING the idea of determinism to stand as 'fact' or 'knowledge' is immoral/irresponsible.

In reference to nihilism I think meaning and morality aren’t dependent on hard determinism being true or false. — Captain Homicide

Yes they are. If you have no free will it robs your actions of meaning. The only and all meanings are predetermined. You do not matter at all. Your choices do not matter.

If you are trying to say something as relative and weak as 'we can still, some of us, have some fun' tell that to the Palestinians or any of us that suffers so much even before they become self-actualized in any real way. Determinism is mostly a delusion used to avoid responsibility for weak choices. It is a fear-side trap most often that ignores the central function of fear itself, limiting and separating.

Things still have meaning and value to people if only in a practical sense even if there was no other way for things to happen and you couldn’t possibly make choices other than the choices you made. — Captain Homicide

This misses the real point, the heavy point. That is that unless choices matter, there is no reason to make the right one. You can murder with impunity, because you were clearly predestined to do so. It opens up a STRATEGY for devious minds to do whatever the hell they want and expect no punishment because you can't punish someone if their choice is not there, if free will is not there; or you SHOULD NOT punish them for that.

Depending on your philosophical views this is likely the most contentious part but I think people would and can still have value and rights that shouldn’t be violated with or without determinism being true. — Captain Homicide

Yeah that is deeply immoral thinking, subjectivist nonsense.

Objective rights and value may not exist in a tangible, scientifically provable sense but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all. — Captain Homicide

I agree, but, that statement undoes your whole argument.

Pain and pleasure are still very much real things whether they’re determined to happen or not. Whether or not someone like Hitler, Osama, El Chapo Bundy had ultimate control over their choices doesn’t make them any less morally abhorrent or their actions any less evil or harmful. As hotly contested as the topic is I can’t recall a philosopher ever using the deterministic nature of the universe as evidence that good and evil don’t exist and the lives of sentient beings have no actual value. — Captain Homicide

Yet your arguments negate one another, logically and idealistically. So they are just horrid, all the way except that you still seem to pine away for morality while denying it, effectively. Determinism is a cheap fear-based failure of awareness. Robert Sopolsky needs to go back to school!

Without trying to describe or justify a whole politcal or philosophical system, I'd like to ask a question. If we could improve equality, is the question below what needs to happen?

Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy

When you simply say the word 'equality' you leave the audience with no idea what you mean. We can all read into what you mean, but why do that? You SHOULD have started with a very specific definition of what equality means to you for this question.

So, ALL, yes ALL efforts towards equality of outcomes are doomed as ridiculous on the surface of the idea.

That is because reality itself does not support the idea. All aspects of Consequentialism, and judging choices by their outcomes is only that, are immoral/deceptive.

BOTH political parties are deluded about the issues surrounding equality for one specific reason. That is as follows:

Right wing order-apology or fear-side thinking conflates inequality of function with inequality of intrinsic worthiness. They are wrong to do so. We all are intrinsically equally worthy, and what we do, our function, DOES NOT morally change that value.

Left wing chaos-apology or desire-side thinking conflates equality of intrinsic worthiness with equality of function. They are wrong to do so. We are all capable of only doing differing things well, despite the truth of intrinsic worthiness. So, it's NOT true at all that just anyone can do anything well, like .,.. vote.

---

So, to finally answer your question, there is no possible MORAL principle that increases the prospects of others and not also me. So, your proposition or principle would have to be immoral to have that consequence.

↪Chet Hawkins
People use aphorisms incorrectly.
— Chet Hawkins

"That begs the question..." That is a phrase that has gained some currency, and it has been incorrectly lifted from the philosopher's lexicon. — isomorph

I agree. But in case you are asking, let's say for an example, life and reality are aligned and balanced properly amid morality by a radical polarization to spur action and flux. This dichotomy is seen throughout life and in every way at every level. From the balance of charges to include the neutral in atoms themselves all the way up to such 'enlightened' beings as humans, and AT NO LEVEL in this advance is the balance or morality ever abandoned (or can be).

That is to say, ... these days most people prefer or pretend to prefer sound byte sized wisdom. So, right there, on the surface of things, you see the immoral dynamic. It's deeply saddening. We have the ever short-cut-loving right wing order apologists fine SUDDENLY with imbalance and stating only their side's wisdom precisely because they are sick of the over-indulgence of the left and chaos-apology. These apology terms are my terms. They refer to fear-side Pragmatism (order-apology) and desire-side Idealism (chaos-apology). I consider the terms MORE, not less accurate than ... ANY other terms used because the stress is on the REAL issue, the underlying emotion in charge of the motivational narrative.

With attention to the three path and wise fourth path designations, we see whole wisdom MUST contain all three and equally stressed. This flies directly in the face of all polarized foolishness like literally almost everything we see on the news today.

people cloak themselves in that which they believe is wisdom, and all unknowingly, thus subvert wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins

Xenophanes - "But opinion is allotted to all." — isomorph

Agreed and yet ... not relevant. Do opinions matter to truth? No, they do not. So, amid the effort to uncover and understand truth, like in any other discipline, experts are advisable to lead the way. But I see expertise as compromised too much these days (as before). Money corrupts the issue largely and its pressure is unforgivable. Capitalism was indeed a better way once. But its use has passed, and we are all too unwise to see it now as the One Ring of Sauron that it always was.

Democracy likewise is immoral. Socrates himself explained this 2500 years ago and we are still ignoring his better wisdom. Just anyone IS NOT QUALIFIED to vote, to offer their opinion on what SHOULD BE the guiding light for the leadership of us all, wisdom. So the masses can keep their foolish opinions, frankly. They have proven without much doubt over history that their 'voting' is a horror show of mediocrity and random flippant pursuits. Although the root of the word is much maligned, in words like sophists, I prefer a Sophocracy. That means we need to GET BUSY defining what is wise and what is not, for real, best subjective guesses on objective morality.

Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money.
— Chet Hawkins

I say human because I want to limit the subject of this conversation to humans. I love my dog, too. — isomorph

Well, I think the limit to human is a problem, because it subsumes often enough a conceit that is part and parcel of the problem in question. Still, I am just making sure the scope of delusion of whoever I have dialogue with. People demonstrate to me all the time that they are incapable of entertaining other points of view for real. I suppose one might rightly accuse me of a shock-jock style of dialogue. So be it! Gadfly status is a hard cross to bear. 'Men of Athens! ...'

It is thus extremely accurate to say that inasmuch as most people were deeply unwise before, they have extended the capacity for a lack of wisdom to new and greater depths as time passes.
— Chet Hawkins

My idea is that there was more wisdom and invention in our prehistoric ancestors, otherwise we would not be able to talk about this on this contraption I am using right now. I have to think that they were smarter and more capable than we are. I will not name a recent example, but you must be aware of some 'geniuses' whose fortunes are built upon someone else's work. — isomorph

Aware of it? I lived it many times. I designed, wrote, installed, sold, and maintained many many software works (of art). In some cases my work has been sold to 500+ large businesses within one year and I got a pittance bonus at best. Investment money should not make such a share. Investment in people is when you support them making THEIR way in the world, not yourself, or not yourself alone or mostly.

But I disagree strongly that they were wiser than us per capita. In fact we are wiser in every way than they were, even per capita. The problem IS NOT that. The problem is the ease is now readily available as a temptation. And people grasp for that great wealth and ease, power of freedom.way way way way too much. The result of relative prosperity is that people's morals have slipped on average which is what offers you that impression. People are effectively EMPOWERED to be more immoral. Eat a whole bag of sugar doughnuts. In the past that was almost not available. Spend time as an activist out protesting while someone else pays the price. In the past that was much harder to bother with. Find your 'crazy' niche of others and get with them easily to sound your 'crazy' horns. In the past that was unheard of and much craziness was isolated and easily maintained.

Humans are worth mentioning as greater sinners than animals (or rocks). What evolves past humanity will have even more negative or sinful potential. It is a law of the universe.
— Chet Hawkins

From your speech, I see you take that as axiomatic. I refrain from words like 'sinner' and 'evil', because try as I might, I am not much of a poet. We make choices that can be beneficial, or detrimental, or both at the same time. I am not persuaded that it is a law that whatever comes next will have exceedingly 'sinful potential'. Is that entropy? — isomorph

So, refrain, restraint, ... these are fear words, order-centric. And the avoidance of discussion of morality or sins or good and evil, is just that, avoiding the truth. I am NOT religious, but was raised Methodist Christian. My model of reality, which I am writing a book on, is for 'generic' wisdom, free from any organized religion and focusing only on objective moral truth (wisdom).

Your statements there imply a kind of possible moral subjectivism. (It is) As if good and evil are poetic only. They are not to me. They are fundamental truths of the universe.

Moral agency is a scope that increases in amplitude. I already 'proved' it as a base. I mean you realize and admit, do you not, that the choice scope of a canine is less than that of a human. But it is both less good and less evil. That is a minor proof. What is next will BOTH be more good and more evil potentially in its choices than a human is. Or let me state it this way, increasing awareness and thus increasing belief, requires more, not less control, to be moral. If for example, atomic bombs had been used with the same sort of abandon as guns, well, you know the rest.

Still my model shows clearly that conflict is unavoidable and wise in general. The peaceniks are badly wrong. Change is synonymous with war, really. I am NOT saying that unnecessary violence is a good idea, but I am saying that necessary violence is morally good. A wide swath of people will not regularly maintain society's rules if allowed unforced choice. So force it is and that force is wise.

I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution.
— Chet Hawkins

I do not think the situation is worse than it has been. I am constantly echoing Confucius' 2600 year old cry, "We need a rectification of names!" Heraclitus moved up to the mountains because he did not want to listen to crowd anymore, if I am reading it correctly. — isomorph

I agree, it's always been RELATIVELY the same. That means because it is better now, it's also worse now, but the same relatively. Empowerment of leaders and speed of human civil awareness growth BUT NOT WISDOM, in fact one-sided or RELATIVELY less wisdom, we are in more trouble.

If chaos (freedom) increases, order must increase to wisely balance it.

Utopia is REQUIRED to be moral. That is not extant Utopia, as in realized by humanity or other 'thinkers', but Utopia as a dream, as a goal
— Chet Hawkins

Utopia is not required to be moral. Living together successfully requires ethics for living together successfully. I am not a German Idealist, however I think Kant had some understanding of things required for 'us to just all get along.' And the US Constitution is aspirational, but no utopia. Utopia is an idealist concept, as opposed to aspirations towards getting along with one another and not killing ourselves and others. — isomorph

These ARE NOT opposed to one another as you suggest. They are the same. Denigration of idealism as an aim is an immoral Pragmatic failure. This is nothing so much as order short-cutting truth via fear to be efficient and 'get er done'. It IS NOT a wise way to proceed and it never will be. The ideals lead the way. They steer the ship. The Pragmatists, like it or not, ONLY get to decide HOW to do what the idealists know WHY to do. I think it's important as well to say that the speed of change is relevant. In general the idealists are far too impatient. Change must be at a pace slow enough for the fear types not to panic.

It also means 'You are God and I am God and We are God together'. Maybe there was a song ...
— Chet Hawkins

Way to idealistic for me. Sorry! — isomorph

Ha ha! I figured. But it's less aggrandizing than is realized. We all have the responsibility of God as well.

Umqua and Hoo were just putting ochre in their hair man for the Wa-da festival, to impress the dudes. Then they smacked it on the wall. And life was boring so they had some drawing contests. Intellectual masters might be a stretch.
— Chet Hawkins

I would like to persuade you that your opinion of our predecessors is not true. Our cultural cloud has given us the stereotypical caveman, which I do not think is accurate. McLuhan in Understanding Media talk about 'primitive' people encountering technology and they assimilate it into their lives just as 'modern' people. From what I can ascertain in news reports, terrorists living in remote areas are more technically sophisticated than I am. They have used the internet, Facebook, etc. more than I have, and before I have used them. I have no test to show the intelligence of our predecessors. The experimentation and invention that were required to give their progeny a foundation required much luck and much genius. Mathew Arnold talked about "the power of the man and the power of the moment." I think that applies to our ancient ancestors. — isomorph

I disagree that they were any more capable. In fact, in general, the opposite. But I agree entirely that today's people use less well what is readily available to them. They simply follow their random pleasure seeking far too much and get locked into various patterns of addiction much more easily. It is the rot of ease that is costing us now. We do not understand that ease is effectively immoral.

You wish to speak and reason in the realm of actual infinities when you cannot do such a thing. Reasoning fails there. So your tool of reasoning is the wrong tool. Well done.
— Chet Hawkins

I don't think you understand my position. I'm playing in the "paradise" which Cantor created (involving infinite sets) not because I believe in it but because I want to convince others that it's a mirage (at least in my view). — keystone

But it is no mirage. The same difficulty arises in math with limits and with the repeating value of constructs like Pi. These are NOT mirages. They are actual and demonstrable within reality. So much of reality answers to the limit functions that their utility and probable inclusion as meaningful and dependable is a great practice. If you wish to dismiss them, I must report that you'd need some fairly compelling, next to miraculous new ways of looking at the entire universe in order to approach success.

The sides should be of the same length.
— Chet Hawkins

Isn't the concept of an infinite-sided die that could fit in your hand intriguing? It’s impossible to construct a die with finite volume if you insist that all sides must be of equal length. — keystone

So YES, it is intriguing and also impossible. As for your second sentence, no, not at all. Unless you misstated what you were trying to say, all regular shapes of equal sides are easily of finite volume at any n where n = length of a side. {picks up D&D dice to prove it. Yup, finite volume. }

And since infinity extends in both directions, or all directions, and not just one direction your arbitrary single bound of natural numbers is yet another nonsensical limit that does not help in any way.
— Chet Hawkins

Do you not believe in natural numbers being bounded by 0 (or 1) on one end? And regarding time, isn't it widely believed that time had a beginning (meaning one boundary of time is t=0)? — keystone

Belief in such a concept has no relationship to stating that the concept is not useful in the example given. In REALITY the infinity goes, BOTH, MULTIPLE, OR ALL; ways at the same time. So, offering examples that do not match reality is ... a mirage ... which I thought was what you were trying to avoid or point out.

The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus

So this is ad hominem. I clearly state that I do not know things in many posts, so you're accusation is not only ad hominem, but also just wrong.

Further, I have given arguments in many, many posts, meaning you are racking up quite a list of decidedly uncareful statements of wrongness.

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.
— Chet Hawkins

This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. — Janus

I am taking the word 'undecidable' to mean what it should mean, and does in some ways, even colloquially. That is that which cannot be decided upon. We are able to decide. So you're wrong. This does not mean that decisions cannot be wrong, as you just showed. The matter IS NOT confusing to me.

Again, if you wish to break out some esoteric knowledge, even if it's academically narrowed or specific, that is less available to colloquial understanding and so hurts in helping people to earn wisdom.

We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time. — Janus

No, it does not. That certainty is not possible. That is my point.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did.
— Chet Hawkins

You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. — Janus

No, as mentioned many times I do not know anything. I believe I was aware of your incorrect turn of phrase there, yes. But my confidence IS NOT certainty, so you're wrong again.

Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other. — Janus

If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). You're much more akin to the likes of Boromir who thinks he can know things. It's ok! I have a few decades on you in all probability. There is till time for you to visit the snack bar and come away enriched!

I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems. — Janus

Yes, they are. And I can agree with you that the Enneagram intelligentsia itself is often not quite ready to stand up properly for their system. They are loathe to put the system in moral terms because they want a new secular faith to take the place of religion and also they want to make money at it. Mixing moral and immoral concerns muddies all waters.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know?
— Bylaw

The irony is that Chet Hawkins constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth concerning them, while refusing to use the word "know". — Janus

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did. So again, your precision is incredibly bad (kind of my point overall). The precision of 'knowing' is relevant. The implication and the way the public (and even you guys) treat the word 'know' and its derivatives is not as functional as you all believe it to be. Instead, it causes problems. The more precise truth is that knowing is only belief.

Others addressing like questions will acknowledge they are just expressing their opinions and will reserve the word "know" only for those (countless) mundane cases where we actually do know. — Janus

No, you actually do not know. And every time you claim to, you prove that point.

I think the intellectual honesty belongs to the latter group. — Janus

If the word 'intellectual' means deceiver and or delusional, sure. But I have met quite a large class of people that are what I call 'intellectual' and they are more dedicated to truth, you know, wisdom, ACTUAL philosophy, instead of the stuffy academic version, a deluded stiff interpretation of what is and is not intellectual. If you believe you are on the honest side of that debate, it will be very hard to help you.

I prefer to proceed properly from assumed casual ignorance rather than delude myself that I 'know'. Even in trivial matters this stance makes a fine and useful difference. But in serious matters it blows away the conceit and 'assumed objectivity' of people incapable of being objective.

All Theory of Knowledge (TOK) statements on this issue are just ridiculous, as is the philosophical treatment to date for the difference between belief and knowing.

Otherwise respectable 'intellectuals' post and defend pointless arbitrary designations for words such as 'opinion', 'belief', and 'certainty'. It becomes increasing obvious reading their tripe that they have no idea and cannot agree between them on anything, except this:

Some words in language SEEM to mean CURRENTLY less certainty, and some words SEEM to mean CURRENTLY more certainty. That is just hogwash. Stop drinking it and the Kool-Aid.

There is a logarithmic function to awareness. There is no arbitrary line/break ANYWHERE on that line. The line is asymptotic to truth. It never arrives. This means you cannot know anything with absolute certainty. This means that to claim you do is very problematic, conceited and rather dully situated in terms of ACTUAL awareness. Speaking and acting in accord with truth and ACTUAL awareness is BETTER morally than not. Thus confusing people with arbitrary designations that then get interpreted by people vastly differently.

This DOES NOT empower used car salesmen to the careful observer. In fact, quite the reverse. Listeners will be more on guard now if knowing with certitude is off the table. Such types, used car salesmen are paragons of speaking in absolutes that are never realized (AND YOU AND OTHERS ARE DEFENDING THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO).

The world is risky and unsafe. Cling to your delusions at not only your peril, but the peril of us all, and ultimately the whole universe's purpose. That is my belief.

↪Chet Hawkins Thank you! I chose isoporph because I was tired of choosing a name and the machine said that name is already taken. I've put my own name in sometimes and I'm told , "That is taken!" So isomorph it is. I will have to take some time to let your post percolate before I can comment on you wonderful observations. As far as quoting religious texts, my belief system is I like reading old literature. I can't say I ascribe to any one. None would have me after getting to know me, and the feeling would end up being mutual. Years ago, Wilt Chamberlain was being interviewed and the Olympic committee had bad things to say about him. His response "Their opinion of me is probably higher than my opinion of them." — isomorph

Love it! I look forward to the stimulants that come from percolation!

This is a very cool post. Thank you for posting it!

By the way, your shape changes every day, in many ways, and time removed as a factor means even evolution denies quite thoroughly that you are isomorphic. Just sayin ...

Our Idols Have Feet of Clay

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had a dream. “The king ordered the magicians, exorcists, sorcerers, and Chaldeans to be summoned in order to tell the king what he had dreamed.” Nebuchadnezzar was a true sceptic and required the interpreter to tell what the dream was before he made an interpretation. The Chaldeans engaged in obfuscation in an attempt to garner enough information to do a cold reading, but the king was having none of it. — isomorph

Within the standard cultural lexicon, it might be impolite to assume people know what a Chaldean is.

Daniel had a vision before he was summoned to the king, and when he was brought to the king, Daniel related the dream and the interpretation: — isomorph

When quoting religious text or translations it is a good idea to state your belief set overview.

The head of the statue was of fine gold; its breasts and arms were
of silver; its belly and thighs, of bronze; its legs were of iron, and its
feet part iron and part clay. As you looked on, a stone was hewn out,
not by hands, and struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and
crushed them. All at once, the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold
were crushed, and became like chaff on the threshing floors of
summer; a wind carried them off until no trace of them was left.
I do not want to consider Daniel’s interpretation, rather I want to consider the common phrase used today, ‘feet of clay’, how it is used and suggest it is an erroneous gloss. People often say, “All of our idols have feet of clay”, meaning we all have flaws, we should not get too disappointed when our heroes fail us, etc. However, in Daniel’s story, it was not only the feet of clay that were destroyed, but the entire idol, gold, silver, bronze, iron, and clay all became “like chaff” carried off by the wind “until no trace of them was left.” — isomorph

I have been aware of this for a long time in my life. People use aphorisms incorrectly. There is a whole chapter in my soon to come book about this very issue, near and dear to my heart.

Just like the flag, people cloak themselves in that which they believe is wisdom, and all unknowingly, thus subvert wisdom. I have come up with a fairly undetailed but accurate set of ways to examine arguments such that they can be tested for at least what I believe is actual wisdom.

According to Daniel’s telling, the idol was destroyed entirely without any trace left. People today do not usually want their idols destroyed completely, but want to assuage their disappointment in a person with a phrase, but this meaning has drifted from the original story. This illustration of semantic drift shows something about the development of human thinking. — isomorph

Don't you mean the LACK of 'human' thinking? Thinking is just thinking. There is no reason to say 'human'. My border collie of years past could give many humans a run for their money.

Thinking and Pragmatism as a whole is only a fear-based certainty-seeking calm-state-preferring addiction. They spout one-sided aphorisms as wisdom and turn such statements into anti-wisdom. Such users of ideas are not anywhere near the discipline of the original speakers of these ideas in acumen or intent. It is thus extremely accurate to say that inasmuch as most people were deeply unwise before, they have extended the capacity for a lack of wisdom to new and greater depths as time passes.

This is obvious, really. That is to say, with greater moral agency comes the realization that agency is an amplitude only. It has BOTH positive (good) and negative (evil) sides. The agency value is an absolute value. Dogs can only sin just so much. Humans are worth mentioning as greater sinners than animals (or rocks). What evolves past humanity will have even more negative or sinful potential. It is a law of the universe.

Along with semantic drift, there is also misprision through linguistic interpretation as Macintyre points out, “there is no precise English equivalent for the Greek word dikaiosune, usually translated justice.” Hall and Ames deal with the problem in translating Confucius: “the most accurate picture of Confucius can be obtained if we reject the possibility of such a reconstruction and instead attempt to change lenses and sharpen our focus in such a manner that we enhance our vision of Confucius from the perspective of the present.”As languages drift and develop, not considering the Tower of Babel, humans are able to add technical sophistication to their communication, e.g., Hegel’s thesis/antithesis/synthesis as a technical development of Heraclitus 46, — isomorph

I agree that language and most poignantly, its use by the common man, is becoming a problem, rather than a solution. As mentioned in other threads and again underscored in my last comment on this post, cultural agency has increased, but that means the number of misuses and ... immoral ... interpretations has also increased. The artifacts of that increase and then the number of choosers of immoral paths will begin to pile up.

Since more and more moral choices are harder and harder to believe and to act upon, it stands to reason that the Fermi Paradox is likely no delusion at all. Most high minded moral agents will sink into immorality rather than face the ever mounting difficulty of making more and more moral choices when ease is so deeply craved.

and, also, convoluted errors are added to our thinking, e.g., pick any conspiracy theory. — isomorph

Lol! Nope! Some such theories are now 'proven'. But I have no desire to derail and your main point is still greatly worthy. So on-on!

Technical sophistication, misprision and convoluted errors characterize the development of civilized language and thinking, but it might be hubris to believe that modern humans can think better than our prehistoric ancestors. — isomorph

Well, yes, think better is probably a stretch. Still aware of more and thus able to use the same mechanisms of thought and thinking to arrive at better AND WORSE conclusions, yes.

Again the dynamic truths I related about moral agency are the greater issue here. Language, like thought, evolves and faster than the machinery of the mind-body connection. I think it's fairly well admitted now by science though that evolution is done by fits and bursts. So, prepare to have prosthetic foreheads mounted on your real head.

We should reconsider this metaphor of the idol and consider that our idols are provoking us to think, not telling us what to think, since our language and perspective are different, even from contemporaries using our native language. Our idols, in whatever genre, should provoke us to thought without dogma and erroneous semantic drift, or fetishes, or dreams of Arcadia or Utopia. — isomorph

This is wildly incorrect.

Utopia is REQUIRED to be moral. That is not extant Utopia, as in realized by humanity or other 'thinkers', but Utopia as a dream, as a goal. You failed in this paragraph because of this wise maxim invented by me:

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation.

It is a Pragmatist immoral delusion that we should take no steps towards Utopia because Utopia is impossible.

I think humans evolved to see existence as a surd and all of our idols are attempts to square the irrational , but, like Nebuchadnezzar’s dream idol, they will all end like chaff on the threshing floor and be dispersed by the wind as idol replaces idol and our knowledge moves asymptotically toward the nature of reality. Humans depend on intersubjectivity as confirmation of our perception of reality. — isomorph

I agree that this tendency is out there, mostly on the left, chaos-apology territory, where everything is a fungible orgy of rot and self-indulgence. Great ...

In a private conversation, Roger Ames tried to dissuade me of the notion of finding parallels between western thinking and the “classical Chinese mind.” I fully understand his point, but, as Confucius said, “By nature we are alike, by practice we have become far apart.” I think there is an atavism in our nature as modern humans that ties us to all cultures and time periods. — isomorph

"No matter where you go, there you are!" - K'ung-fu-tzu

I think you and Confucius were both right and Ames was wrong. Culture and language both are delusions we put up as walls to what is otherwise a whole lot of the same stupid and wise stuff going on.

Nothing amid all of wisdom is more compelling finally that the oneness idea, that I call the Unity Principle, which is, 'you are me and I am you'. It also means 'You are God and I am God and We are God together'. Maybe there was a song ...

Our prehistorical ancestors had thinking capacity equal to ours, maybe greater than ours, and this can be seen in prehistoric cave art created by intellectual masters. — isomorph

'Well, watery tarts throwing around scimitars is no basis for a system of government!'

Umqua and Hoo were just putting ochre in their hair man for the Wa-da festival, to impress the dudes. Then they smacked it on the wall. And life was boring so they had some drawing contests. Intellectual masters might be a stretch.

Propositions:
1. As we progress, our idols are destroyed and replaced, e.g., Ptolemy/Copernicus.
2. Improved instrumentation allows us to verify our perceptions and correct our thinking. Aristarchus saw a heliocentric universe before Ptolemaic geocentric universe was replaced by Copernicus’ heliocentric universe.
3. History can be an idol to be destroyed as in the case of Pythagoras and his theorem, which was known in other cultures long before Pythagoras. Also the victor usually wipes out the history of the vanquished.
4. Our historical idols did not spring up by the prowess of their own genius, but stood on the shoulders of giants as Newton said.
4. We should be conservative in accepting changes, but remember the priests have always had a vested interest in maintaining status quo. — isomorph

I like all of these 'maxims'. The flux of progress requires fear (status quo and conservative nature) as well as discovery and following of desire to a point. The trick amid the truth of the word WISDOM, is balance. In other words, balance order and chaos.

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone.
— Chet Hawkins
You're making me responsible for everything. — Bylaw

Well, yes. VERY indirectly we are indeed responsible for everything, each of us, as in we are all each other really, when the objective truth is uncovered. That does not mean of course that subjectively some of us are not more responsible than others, especially in the case of their own personally scoped immoral choices.

That is tucked into the word 'it' above. — Bylaw

Well! When I see formulations like this sentence, I know (ha ha) that we are in for a real treat. Let's see where this goes.

You are hallucinating a future where you and like-minded have managed to change everyone's mind about the use of those words AND you believe the consequences of them doing this, should you succeed, will be the ones in your mental images. — Bylaw

Yes, that is what imagining a better future is about. It's important not to dip into Consequentialism in either way amid this endeavor. I admit that this is only my belief at present and I have stated my case as to why. This has advantages. That is, until society tries IT (<--- the terrifying it) my way, I can kind of stand on ceremony and keep appealing for sense and wisdom. If - all of society (a bit more terrifying for real) - were to adopt this idea theory and try it, they would either become enamored of it in short order as the right way mostly, or they would all be like, we prefer being foolishly certain, ... please bring back 'porch monkey' as a thing. No monkeys nor porches were harmed forming this paragraph.

But I would be remiss, if, in seeing a better way, I did not engage in the then morally responsible behavior of at least suggesting a better way be tried, DESPITE ANY AND ALL DIFFICULTIES in bringing that better way about. And further, amid this same thought, it is not required that such changes are immediate or all-or-nothing, because frankly that is the same stupid sh*t as the idea I am fighting against anyway, certainty, and it criminal order-apologist problematic nature.

You are then comparing this image with the image of what happens if this particular change does not take place and putting that on my table. k You have approaches to improving things. I have approaches to improving things. I haven't set of a pattern of continuous acceptable incorrectness. — Bylaw

I get it. Most of history is the blind leading the blind. Why should now be the exception?

Still, we try things and dare to take risks because that is the only way to confront mystery. We have to have the SPINE to do so and this spine is kept in good shape by testing its limits frequently. I played 23 games of volleyball yesterday, half on indoor hardcourt and then half later in the day on sand. Even in my prime that would have been a trick. And of course these games were not to that level of competition. But at age 58, let me tell you, my spine was tested. In some ways it was found wanting. But I made it through and oddly I am only marginally sore today. The point is proceeding apace with what is 'known' is a disaster in most cases, because what is 'known' IS NOT KNOWN. And growth lies in the direction of that which is UNKNOWN always, anyway. So backing off on any and all importance of 'knowing', especially since that 'knowing' is delusional, is wise.

We find ourselves in the middle of a situation, with an incredible array of causes and systems. We can choose to reform or revolutionize or adjust or....and so on......different parts of the whole, putting our energy in those parts and in those ways that match our values and where we can have the most effect, in the direction we want things to move. — Bylaw

Our 'values' are mostly horridly polarized foolishness. One has but to take a casual cursory glance at todays court proceedings (if the term proceed means anything other than 'get er done') to witness the rather pointless chicanery that passes as 'leadership' in the United States.

There are so many levels of immoral nonsense piled on top of one another in any 'system' of today, that to suspect something as clearly esoteric as 'proceeding' or 'progress' is the height of reckless optimism.

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none
— Chet Hawkins
I haven't weight in on cultural differences. — Bylaw

I know (ha ha). I am aware of that (better). Please forgive my fit of whataboutism because I think it's clear neither one of us is convinced by the arguments of the other. We have both stated our case in many ways. Whataboutism is all thats left. I'm looking into the well dressed strawman closet at this point. Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?

Your example is horrendous and not relevant.
— Chet Hawkins
It's extreme. I often use extreme examples to get a foot in the door. In the realm of epistemology, of self-awareness, or introspection, of intuition and so on, there is an incredibly vast range of skills sets and approaches. I am not going to follow rules, unless the consequences of breaking them are so negative, that are put in place for people who are far away from me on the spectrum in the relevant skill set. — Bylaw

Amen brother Bylaw! Preach! Rules are for order-apologists. Real beings take responsibility for all their actions and beliefs and therefore are free to break poorly conceived or situationally inaccurate rules. Isn't having a spine wonderful? Has mass, occupies space. Yep! I guess it matters. Even a chihuahua can stand its ground with a mean loud attitude. And that IS real.

I'm not going to stop using metaphors or analogies because many people misuse them. As a kind of parallel example. — Bylaw

Yes, they allude to a strawman with a strawman analogy. Great ... delusional presentation of other delusions. Where does it end. Just give a machete! It's getting to be too thick up in this jungle.

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here.
— Chet Hawkins
What some idiots do is part of the real world where I live. This is not a side issue. — Bylaw

It is though. Despite protestations to the contrary, the idiots WILL GO where various pipers lead them. The smart and wise among us ARE INDEED capable of steering them wisely or not. The trouble is now meta though.

That is that these leaders are INTENTIONALLY steering into stupidity. And we all know how hard a house of cards is to build. It's trivial to knock it down. We are thus beginning to realize that the infrastructure of wisdom must be addressed. That is what my book is really about. We need a new paradigm that shows clearly what wisdom is, objective, and we need to develop clear and procedural steps to arrest leadership on the left (chaos-apology), the right (order-apology), and the extreme middle (anger-apology, or laziness).

As is both sides are conspiring to keep idiocy safe. Thanks so much! Where was that machete again?

And to be less harsh... — Bylaw

We need more harshness, not less. The delusions of pleasure and peace are costing us dearly right now, and will continue to be a increasingly difficult problem. See the enlightened visionary future of Wall-E as a footnote of likely dystopian scenarios. Idiocracy was a little too street/stupid.

the real world includes what happens when people are given cosmetic language based changes but don't really change. I live in that world. I am skeptical about these kinds of language-based reformations, for reasons given in previous posts on this specific language reform you are proposing. — Bylaw

I am skeptical as well because we have not really tried all that hard, ever. This is new paradigm territory. I admit it. As OneMug mentioned, the problems of today will take better, as in meta level better solutions. Muzzling sheer forms of stupidity is probably required. That is not a full on muzzle. We love the puppies. But if they keep biting themselves or others, they get the cone of shame.

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.
— Chet Hawkins
My point was that I think it is misleading to propose this kind of reformation since it is not the source of the problems. — Bylaw

Yes it is (one source). You just do not want to admit that. It's ok. It remains a big source of the problems. Fear's need for certainty in so many ways is a/the fear problem. Its manifestation across all behaviors is similar in pattern to JUST THAT.

Even the epistemological naivete is not. — Bylaw

I agree there. We are talking about intent and intent led by over-expressed fear. Naivete is best discussed as an innocence of sorts. That is balanced as a default. So, I am NOT talking about naivete when I speak of order-apology or fear over-expressions. I am talking about living in fear such that you need to know and prefer to speak as if knowing is a good idea, as opposed to accepting the risks of life and living it that are required to be wise. In humility, we assert that we cannot know, so we proceed then carefully. Those wanting to say they 'know' are those wanting really NOT TO KNOW, finally, so that they can effectively pretend to know and mess things up without ... care. It's a baked in short-cut aim. Fear does not want to admit this.

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
Are there language-based reformations that have eliminated evils? — Bylaw

Pre-1900 citizen(idiot): 'Has an airplane ever flown?'

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.
— Chet Hawkins
The point we agree on. — Bylaw

We cannot KNOW. Therefore a statement or assertion is only a belief. If we agree on that point the thread is mostly concluded (and not to be a stickler for reality checks but, in my favor).

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.
— Chet Hawkins
And here you are making my point for me.
'It's bound to come up.' This is an expression of certainty. — Bylaw

You're only comical at this point. 'Bound to ...' is certainty? Not at all. It's like saying 'highly probable' or 'I believe'. So, no, again, I am not proving your point, but you are proving mine, again and again.

'everyone's life'. You can tell me that 'really' you never mean 'know' but I experience you are exactly as certain as the people who do. — Bylaw

I've aready taken great pains to explain the difference between anger-confidence and fear-need-for-certainty. Either you get it or you don't, but, no, you're again wrong, it is a casual thing for me to admit as I have in so very many posts that I KNOW nothing. I have only belief. I speak confidently, yes. Do not confuse confidence with certainty.

Saying 'I know' is the fear types way to stand with the confident anger types. It doesn't work really. Ask most females. BEING (anger) and risking the bad confidently, IS NOT the strength of fear. Digging into every detail properly is not the strength of anger. But since reality rarely requires extreme over-expression, and in fact over-expression is actually by definition unwise, anger is a BETTER default case than fear is. Anger is the emotion of balance wherein risk is accepted in the present moment of now. That is where we are by the way. What was 'good enough' in the past, what we 'know' amid delusion, is not proper for a more moral footing. It lacks spine, in general, and attends to a laziness actually of awareness based in already-knowing (delusional).

In response to my saying the mind reading is unnecessary you use bound and everyone.

Will my interaction with you have any effects?
Will my interaction with someone who uses 'know' have any effects? — Bylaw

Only time will tell. Assuming I hold true to patterns of the past and place emphasis on and participation within a community of people that at least pretend to understand my arguments, we can revisit the question in 5 years and that would indeed be interesting.

How often? Has the likelihood increased because of your attitudinal change and no longer using 'know'? — Bylaw

Almost (<--- pay attention to that word) certainly! Attention to detail (fear side value) is something I do have, despite it being perhaps less formalized than some classical philosophy academics here. That is in fact endearing and proper for a more balanced approach that allows said supposed philosophy to reach the general public. So, by all means, continue with the fear-side separation and be separated thereby. That is at cross purposes to the aim of wisdom.

You might argue that my wishes for the change in language are the same. But they are not. One is doing what is hard for wise reasons. And the other is doing what is easy for unwise reasons. Again, either you get this, or you don't. That is in the nature of wisdom and next steps. Next steps always seem 'too hard' to the weak. I am ALSO sometimes the weak, so this is not an admonishment to be taken too much to heart. I'm just not weak on this issue.

Has the attitude actually changed and in what way do we see this change in you? — Bylaw

You have but to re-read this thread and even this post in it to discover, if you really look, at how carefully my words are chosen. I am adept at this and post extremely detailed (elongated lol) posts that actually explain my arguments but in plain English so everyone can understand. I am no ivory tower academic or Pragmatic sell-out.

If you are asking how I feel about this the answer is as strongly as I have felt about anything in my life. I have not had children though so, some feeling strength may be beyond my ken. But having interfaced with vastly differing seas of humanity over 58 years of life, I admit in my defense that I rarely find others as passionate as myself about things they supposedly care deeply about, including their own children.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw

I venture to say frankly that most people who have interacted with me here consider me in some way different than almost anyone else they have ever had dialogue with. If not, well, that still speaks volumes about ... them, and their observational powers.

I can certainly find people who use 'know' who mind read
and stand by their mind reading and present their positions without qualification and who in response to my criticism or questioning start to tell me about my emotions and how these lead to my not accepting the truth of their beliefs. And I can find people who don't do this who use 'know'. — Bylaw

And missing the point or trying to label my admitted guesses as to your future as 'bad', just cuz is not an argument either. What is qualification to you? What level of acumen must be shown that can transcend some external third party certification or credentialing? I have made an extensive career out of beating the many Phds I work with, not by intent, but by blunt force trauma, as in they could not solve the problems, so I was called in to do so. As few of them were worth their papers. Most by far were not even close.

To boil that down. I can't even tell if it's cosmetic in you. — Bylaw

Well, again, time will decide. Risk is acceptable. Opinion does not really matter. Truth does.

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.
— Chet Hawkins
I thought you believed this but it's good to have it clearly written. — Bylaw

I have been fairly clear throughout this dialogue. Many would call my clarity blunt even. It has been fun.

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.
— Chet Hawkins
There may well be an example in the past, but if you have a specific one, share it. And, of course, even if there isn't one in the past, I'm not ruling it out, but it's not my main objection. — Bylaw

My great intuitive leap on this issue would be that the military mandates much of its chatter. The reason is that lives depend on the second by second efficiency of what they say in the field. If you watch Star Trek Discovery its so comically bad in that way. The original series had military adjacent speech and was therefore far more accurate and sensible. The foolishness of blather seen even on the last few shows would have them all dead in nanoseconds in that future world. But luckily for those bozos the writers are infinitely powerful and on their side, as a pandering group of sycophants. In roleplaying games I had to put segment limits on the syllables of soliloquies for the carebear drama lovers of today's roleplaying world, because if they said one tenth of what they say in combat situations they would lose initiative, suffer several surprise attacks and be dead and bleeding on the floor or gassed out on the ethereal plane before anyone understood their ridiculous self-indulgent nuances.

(easing off the trans-axle now. I'm just grinding metal)

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion.
— Chet Hawkins
I agree with this. But what this actually looks like and if someone is, as a specific individual evaluating themselves correctly...that's a different issue. — Bylaw

A matter of debate for sure. And here we are.

So, to focus on what we seem to agree on, we both seem to see positive things about fear, desire and anger. We wish to have these in balance. We also value intuition and my sense is we both see intuition where others think they are going on some intuitionless immaculate logic unsoiled by intuition - and likely have poor intuition about what they actually are doing in their minds.

These are not small agreements, so I think it's good to emphasize them. — Bylaw

I must agree. Thank you for stating that. Yes.

Intuition and emotions are often denigrated in philosophy forums, directly or implicitly. — Bylaw

I would say the culture in such lofty forums is decidedly order-apology, foolish in the extant need for certainty, devoted to rather pointless qualifications, and entrenched in esoteric language that is a balzing impediment to their de-facto goals as 'bringers of wisdom'. But, ... yeah!

And there can often be this implicit or explicit post-Enlightenment judgment that really it's best if these things are weeded out of everything from epistemology, science, politics, interpersonal interactions, discussions and so on - and with some real-world horrible trends where actually modifications through social pressure and even technology are trying to be put in place to eliminate emotions and intuition. — Bylaw

Exactly, and the HUGE, world-shattering truth is that logic and thought are all fear-based. Fear, last time I checked was not only an emotion, but it is properly and very improperly denigrated. If thought were properly understood as a manifestation of fear, their bulwark of delusional certainty would properly collapse.

Let's end this here, and I know you still disagree with 'only' and my language oversight suggestions. But we really have hashed it out well.

If you would please, take the final word on this to which I will not respond (unless you lose all perspective and go full nutcase). I have faith!

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation leveled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way.
— Chet Hawkins
And you haven't said I am throwing up my hands or suggesting we should. But just to be clear, I am not saying that and. — Bylaw

So, yes, you are saying that, as I define it. That means anything in the same pattern as 'but saying know or knowing is useful and understood by most' is effectively throwing your hands up and taking a short cut for efficiency and fait.

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone. It's similar but not quite of the same flavor pattern as setting a speed limit so low on a road that the statement innocent until proven guilty gets flipped whether people realize it or not. It's either intentionally wrong (pure evil) or accidentally wrong (dumb evil). It would be far better to say, 'I left the lever in the up position.' as a claim, an assertion, rather than to say, 'I know I left it in the up position.' There is no need to make such statements that definitive anyway. Likewise to say 'I have 6 years of experience with programming in C# is better than saying 'I know C#'.

You are effectively saying, 'get er done'. Use that word I 'know' what you mean. But you really don't. It's all a matter of best precision.

If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think we may be close in approach when you say something like this. You are using intuition, perhaps even, for example, Interoception to do an ongoing monitoring. Fine. I appreciate when people can be up front about this. I think it is a problem when people think there is no intuition involved in their reaching of conclusions. That somehow they manage to do deduction, only, for example. Some kind of clean bird's eye view logic alone. — Bylaw

I mean, of course. I am the one advocating for intuition and desire as EQUAL to logic and reason.

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow.
— Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take.
— Chet Hawkins
No, it would be immoral to pretend that guidelines and rules must be universal. No one should drive because some have Parkinson's (metaphorically speaking). — Bylaw

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none.

Your example is horrendous and not relevant. You are being specific with your clauses and not making the moral rule generic enough to fit. The rule would be very general like,

One should only engage in tasks being aware of the risks involved and both being capable of performing to a minimum standard and being tested and certified by society as such, unless the activity is new and unknown which takes a much higher level of expertise in many areas.

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model.
— Chet Hawkins
Right or wrong it is present. So, you come out with your prescription. Some follow it. Now other people hear wisdom regularly instead of knowledge and the same problems arise. Or the problem is driven underground: correct words are used and the exact same interpersonal, intra-personal dynamics continue. You can wag dogs in the short term, but you're not really changing anything but the surface. And wagging parts of the body is actually more intimate than wagging the choice of words. — Bylaw

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here. I am trying to get non-idiots to agree to a better truth approach.

The same problems seep out of the undealt with unconscious patterns and imprinting. — Bylaw

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.

Perhaps you have a program to deal with these also, but so far I see a focus and to me fear of certain words. They can certainly be problematic, but changing them is consmetic. — Bylaw

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. Probability of what, however?
We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. — Bylaw

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.

It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure, that's a given in my outlook. — Bylaw

I know we agree on that point.

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.
— Chet Hawkins
I think predicting my internal states - so, not even mindreading me in the present, but telling me what I will be thinking and feeling - is unnecessary and, in specific often confused. — Bylaw

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.

You seem to have met certain kind of resistance to your ideas and then assume you understand what anyone is like when you encounter them. — Bylaw

Granted, I, like everyone, makes assumptions. The difference is that I call that awareness and belief and not knowledge. You should to.

There are people out there who use the word know, but also rapidly realize that what they thought they knew they didn't.

So, when I encounter then, sure, they come at me with assumptions, but then they have feedback loops which lead them to rapidly get off their positions. — Bylaw

And I encounter almost nothing but that. Meaning the word know is no more useful in reality, and actually less useful in almost all cases than them saying they believe. I mean, really, you are proving my point over and over again. Don't you KNOW that?

You can have people who religiously avoid 'know' for example. But end up continuing the pattern of assumptions. They don't recognize anomalies very quickly, despite their epistemological position and use of language. — Bylaw

Some do and some do not. But neither one of them actually knows.

This is sets off warning bells in me. — Bylaw

Just like the word know does for me whenever I hear it. It becomes a lesson in humility for the speaker in almost every case. Nope, you didn't know did you?

I appreciate the situation's effects: online, words on a screen, philosophy forum - the last entailing tendencies to have positions on logic, reason supposedly versus intuition, what parts of the brain are honored and so on. — Bylaw

It's much less 'parts of the brain' and much more intent.

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.
— Chet Hawkins
Completely missing the point.
They do not have the same beliefs and this is reflected in their language.
To me it's like you want to teach used car salesmen (taking that metaphorically) NLP and more cognitive science.
And given that those people already exist, I get my warning bells despite whatever cosmetic dress up they are wearing.
To me focus on the dress up is fear based because it assumes we need people to use certain words. I get it: raising the issue around words may help some people begin to notice a pattern you and I notice. It can be a starting point to question not just practice but what is going on in them. — Bylaw

I just want them to understand two points really:

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.

But the project is not actually noticing what is going on. It presumes this kind of reformative dialogue could EVER get at the roots of the problem. — Bylaw

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.

I don't think you understand the fear not being noticed in your assessment of the situation. This approach is not going to get at the roots of the problems. — Bylaw

I believe that you are right in that. But that is not the point. The point is that my point is better, even if it will not be useful enough to work (and it still would slowly).

In part because they are not going to listen. But also the why, the what is going on ontologically that keeps them from listening AND why if they listened we just get a new layer over the problem. We get slightly more sophisticated problem makers. — Bylaw

Yes, but progress is incremental and we need to start taking steps.

I hear a lot of 'this is your fear'. But I experience someone who has not even faced certain fears, lecturing about fear. Fear denial is a problem. — Bylaw

I have no idea what you are referring to now. I embrace fear and since I have great anger, I can balance a lot of fear so it does not get over-expressed. Over-expressed fear is what I am arguing against. That is a fear approach with not enough balancing anger or desire.

And yes, I see that you are confident in you system of feedback. You'll hear those warning bells from fear also. But the denial is built into the model your presenting. And then the moment you are denying fear you are also denying anger and desire. For example. I am not saying that is the only direction these denials flow. — Bylaw

You are entirely incorrect about what I am denying.

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion. That part of the point of my model. And this higher fear, still in balance, is better. It IS more critical and more expectant, as you perhaps rightly point out. I am challenging people to be ... BETTER.

None of this means that I think nothing can be done or hands have to go up in despair or a sense of futility or that mine do. — Bylaw

If you give in to 'how things are', human delusions, as opposed to truth, that is exactly what that means.

If it is not the certainty part of knowing that you are advocating for, and instead only that this 'knowledge' thing is 'special' in some way, then what way is it special? To me the idea that we (anyone) should credit anyone's knowing with something more impressive than only any other belief is dangerous and so prone to error that I almost can't believe I am having to defend the notion.
— Chet Hawkins
But you are prioritizing assertions. You choose a set of assertions that you send to me. You even called some of it wisdom. You may not label that group, but you have a group. You consider that group of assertions more likely than others that you or someone else might assert. — Bylaw

Yes indeed. And I understand why you think/believe that is a relevant response to my statement.

My choices are informed equally by anger and desire; relative to fear, because my model and beliefs show that to be more proper, more GOOD. So, the point I am making underscores that while fear and logic are useful, their very usefulness is often used as an immoral excuse, when other emotions and approaches to truth SHOULD be informing you that this need for certainty is leading you astray of truth and wisdom. This balance is actually logical, but only finally. Until that final step is realized, logic seems to fight against the truth of balance.

The label I used and I already DID use it, is the GOOD. Wisdom has resonance and equal resonance for all three approaches to truth. If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.

An example of a low hanging bell is the need for certainty. A higher hanging bell that answers the same general problem domain within reality is the increasing awareness bell. This is why increasing awareness is BETTER than certainty.

It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
In my world 'wisdom' is at least as loaded a term as 'knowledge'. — Bylaw

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation levelled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way. The word way of course, is the root of the word wisdom. The range or domain of ways (that are right) is way dom, wisdom. Otherwise just means other ways, of course. Other wisdom.

I use that one also, but I notice a lot of people have a hierarchy belief, knowledge, wisdom. With the last term being the best. — Bylaw

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model. That fear admits to desire and places it lowly. Then it sees itself in the middle. It does not even acknowledge that anger is what finally causes wisdom in that progression. And keep in mind the error structure of that progression is still including all the elements in my model, just incorrectly juxtaposed.

Of course this is not necessarily a spectum of certainty and an indicate type. But It seems to me allowing oneself to categorize 'my beliefs X and Y are wisdom' is as easily misused as doing that with the category knowledge. — Bylaw

I agree.

But to say that some statements purported as wisdom are less correct, less wise, than others is agreed upon. So, great. Now, in with the real game. Are my statements of wisdom more or less wise than .. yours ... or the prevailing wisdom, and why?

You should not morally conflate the general case with this specific case. That is chaos-apology. From the order side that is over-expressed humility then broadcast back to the universe. It is the immoral assumption that because we are quintessentially equal our assumptions and beliefs are equal as well. That is the fungibility error of the left wing, of subjective morality. It is a anti-wisdom.

So the conundrum is solved by anger. We must do ... SOMETHING. Risk must be taken. The foolish believe that because power corrupts, all power is evil. The wise realize that power has only a tendency, a strong one, an exponentially strong one, to corrupt. And the trait least likely to succumb to that corruption is wisdom. Anger demands being. And there is no escape from it. You cannot actually be made to un-belong to reality. Time passes. A choice must be made with any assertion or set of assertions. Is this wisdom, or not?

We are guaranteed within humility and probability alike that we are wrong. But that wrongness is relative to each assertion set made by others. Therefore we can be wrong finally, and still BETTER than all other contenders for what is wise. This analysis must be rigorous. And it can never just throw its hands up. A choice must be made. And the goal amid humility is to get closer to the objective moral truth, perfection, the GOOD. We are not allowed to pretend that all choices are equal in moral value.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled.
I'm not close to anyone who does this. Assume it is settled, period, shall not be questioned. There are many situations where I just move forward with what they've said as the case. And I like having, for example, my wife using think and know - or some other similar categories. I don't assume when she says know that she cannot be wrong, but I work with it in a different way from 'think'. I think I shut off the stove. I know I shut off the stove. Yes, she might have hallucinated or shut off something else and been confused. But she's got a great record when sure and I find the distinction useful. I certainly don't want her walking around saying I believe regardless of her certainty. If she says she knows, but I am aware of things that put this in doubt, well, I may well go back up and check. She just got terrible news. She's had a couple of shots - she doesn't drink, but just showing some obvious examples of things that might affect me - and also might keep her from saying she knows also, given her self-awareness. — Bylaw

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.

The GOOD is the most improbable thing of all and it is truth. So at some point, seeking probable outcomes is a short cut that is immoral. This is either understood and admitted or the belief is immoral.

If you want to trust that which is merely more useful over the truth, you may do so. It WILL cost you.

We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect. It is in fact a suggestion that acknowledging this truth means questioning everything, and as we get closer and closer to truth, perhaps questioning EVEN MORE CLOSELY that which we trust. We are ALWAYS partly wrong in every belief. That means we are always partly wrong on what we choose to trust. The percentages LIE or seem to, because the good is so hard to get to, so highly improbable. This is the trap of fear.

The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is - Chet Hawkins

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow. — Bylaw

That is a horridly immoral position to take.

Also I think if most people stopped using those words, they wouldn't stop thinking they knew, nor would they stop conveying that they are right and you go against their belief at your own danger. — Bylaw

I agree. More errors on THEIR part.

The idea is the request from me, allows them to consider the failure inherent in the use of the word in the first place. I think that warning is wise and will continue to be, as a tautology. That is until some truly greater truth overturns that idea when we are well past being so silly that we clam to 'know' anything.

I mean, you responded to me by saying that in the future I will suffer if I don't do as you believe we all should here, advice you categorize as wisdom. — Bylaw

Indeed, an idea and assertion that I maintain. I have defended that position in the words of this post.

So, while adhering to your own guideline you spoke without qualification what you classify as wisdom and predicted that I would suffer in the future. — Bylaw

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.

I mean, honestly. I'd rather someone said 'I know.' I don't assume either one of you is correct, but in a sense of I feel like the other person is being more honest even if they are incorrect about being right and infallible. — Bylaw

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.

Instead choose to be uncomfortable, because it is harder and wiser. Do not be foolish with this pursuit either, like wearing a hair shirt.

You just honestly admitted your predilection for that immoral need. I get it. That is why I am adding the challenge of my warning. The trap of fear is hard for a fear type or even a person who is, in this specific instance, adhering too much to fear's approach, to admit, to avoid.

I will first say that I am attempting to 'adjust' my approach here. Even though there is one right objective way to proceed, some may not be ready for that. So here goes.

To reframe this to see if I am getting it right this would be something like: "I find all these murders unpleasant, you all do too. So let's not murder."

But then this seems to circle back to individuals' desires, or am I missing something? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No! You are spot on. Freedom is just another word for chaos and desire. So then, the only question and I do mean only in this case, is, can it ever be that all desire is moral? I think this is low hanging fruit, obvious, and deeply obvious, all at the same time. This answer has a lot of resonance.

But then we have to stop and actually think. Thinking is order. The combination of order and chaos is ... balance. I submit that the concept of balance as being 'more right' is correct. That is because it's low hanging fruit, it obvious, and deeply obvious; all at the same time.

Balance is wisdom. But dead with nothing happening is also balance and we would venture easily to say that such a state is not good. So we need balance in our final set of good things, but there is another factor that must be included.

Examining the 'dead' state, and that word is in quotes, we get the impression, right off the bat, that there should be more 'life' involved, more activity. What causes that assumption, that observation? Let's talk about why dead was in quotes. Dead was in quotes because the dead I am talking about is everything, all at once, the ALL is completely dead. 'God is dead'. And where have we heard that before?

So, rather than the 'dead' state, what should we prefer? The very living state. I mean we could infuse as meta gods that pile of dead balance with energy and start things popping. But more seems to be better, yes? SO, more, more, more! Pile in on. But there is now a firm caveat. Balance it!

What is it we want more of? Well we like this silly freedom idea. So let's start with more desire. We know desire is chaos, or you know, maybe we don't. We should, so I will continue as if. Desire can go in any random direction. We know people can want things that are 'wrong'. So desire is not only good, it is also evil. But in what percentages? It's balanced, of course, 50/50.

So we want more desire. What else? We like the idea of order balancing chaos so now we have to do that. Order as you probably know by now, in my model, is represented by fear. Fear is really all logic, all reasoning, all thought, all structure. All of these artifacts are limits. They behave according to the limit function in their use. Define a category, draw a line that otherwise does not exist. YOU, the chooser, is making this distinction. This restraint 'appears' because you imagined it exists. Thus YOUR order is born. Others may agree. The fact that they do so is problematic. That is because others may not agree. So, order is in many ways delusional. But for now, without getting too much deeper, we will add fear into the list of things that we need to have more, more, more of.

SO if we increase fear and desire they polarize rather quickly. And never the twain shall meet. The universe would be destroyed in the false duality. More and more individuals would add their choice to one side or the other creating something. That something is a 'mass effect'. And in this case we have some split universe of fear types and desire types. This is what happens. Even in something as real to us as politics, we see this dichotomy, thesis (desire), antithesis (reaction-fear). Something must exist as a force to cause synthesis. What is that force?

That force is anger. Anger says 'no' to fears. It gets big and it gets loud to push past fears. Anger says 'no' to desires. It gets aloof and unresponsive to desire. It says 'we do NOT want this, because we are already sufficient unto ourselves. We belong and we cannot be made to un-belong!' Anger stands its ground. But the trick to realize is that anger causes that ground to exist.

The mass effect of polarization of fear and desire is only undone with anger stepping in. Before anyone objects, there is anger led by fear and anger led by desire. That anger is impure and imbalanced. It is immoral. The purpose of the pure anger is to bring balance and of course it then cannot be led. If we arrive at the point of balance there is harmony and no is leading or following. The decision is agreed upon and followed by all. And if that following is not in action yet, then the first step is belief, the precursor to action.

So now, we have found a third to add into our more, more, more list. And this time we see how and why the list must needs be complete. Intuition 'feels' like this set is complete. The duality has become a trinary relationship. Fear, anger, and desire together, balanced and maximized. The word and concept and all of its procedural glory , 'maximized' was missing previously from our balanced idea.

So, the good, is balancing and maximizing fear, anger, and desire. Which is order , chaos, and the balancing force between them.

Please note that desire and fear must be balanced. That is level 1. But also anger must be balanced within itself to half support and half resist each. That is level 2. But DO NOT proceed. Why not? Why not suggest that there is then a third balance? That is because we already decided, or did we, that good is only in the direction of the maximal emotions. Why should be not talk about the level 3 balance? That is because the level 3 balance is the balance between good and evil. We do not want more evil. We want only increasing good. Is this possible? If we add in the third balance we become terrified that perhaps it is not possible and we just start grasping for the desire side more, more perfection, more good. But these both are imbalanced reactions, again imbalanced = immoral.

If we draw a line along the good evil axis and a line on the order chaos axis, what is the third axis to allow us to add equal volumes of fear, anger, and desire into the system mathematically? It is just an axis that contains the amplitude of each of these emotions in ever increasing amounts. (the third axis is also likely TIME. That is to say, as time increases evolution works its magic and more of the GOOD prospers, but that seems overly warm fuzzy). And the high side of the amounts is what is properly called GOOD. That 3d map is THE map of all reality. It is the emotional map which in turns out means it is also the map for physical reality. Why is that?

That is because with the addition of anger to our more more more list, we have created balance. The tension of balance is something we see in nature in every way. Functions come but then they must go. The tides come in and they receded. Apogee gives ways to Perigee. Intensity gives way to calm. The waves have troughs and crests. Passion comes and goes. Understanding is solid for a time and then overturned or a new depth of possibilities discovered as always present, meaning we never really understood in the first place, finally.

So, anger is responsible for the tension, the balance, between fear (order) and desire (chaos). This tension causes what we refer to as physical reality to 'spring' into being. I would say 'thus our universe is born' but that is not as cool as we would believe. Clearly these truths and forces predated the universe or let's say this, 'they always were the universe'.

So, what is takeaway from this ... 'thesis by accident' I just wrote? None of it is accidentally observed, I promise you. Only I just started to answer this post and accidentally was compelled to write it all by way of interaction.

The takeaway is that desire alone is an immoral leader to the chooser. The choose MUST morally include EQUAL amounts of fear and anger to arrive at the most good.

So, that being said, on we go.

What do we say to the sheep who says, "I personally enjoy the murders. Why should I follow this rule?" That is, what is the answer to the nihilists' question: "why is bumping bad?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Progress along the desire axis IS NOT NECESSARILY progress along the good axis. The question IS properly answered. Is there understanding though? What force is needed to push the result, the consequences, of choices, into the good direction? More anger and more fear are always the only right answer.

And in the practical sense, that we can better relate to, what is an example?

The addict is tied to their desire of 'one more hit'. The feeling that is had by 'a hit' is misrepresented as 'good'. So, desire can lie. Supposed happiness is not actually happiness. What is it? Why is it? Well, we already know (not really) but we are working on a theory that we need more fear and more anger. How does that translate and why? So, we can take several angles on this. First let's decide, using our model, that the happiness we feel IS NOT full happiness. It is some lesser variant at best and maybe even not happiness at worst. But it is compelling in the same way as desire. It is desire somehow. So how can this trouble be solved?

We must think. Thinking is ordering, adding fear. What is the danger? What should we be afraid of? Is following this desire bad/evil in some way. You bet it is. Addiction is destructive, rotting the self, and this is easily observed. Observation is awareness is fear. Logic is fear. Restraint of all kinds is fear. Thus we counsel the addict to stop wanting the drug. We make a case for why it is bad. I want to mention here that ALL desire follows this pattern. The drug addiction angle just makes it clear. There is only one desire that is objectively aimed properly. From any point in intent space that choice, that desire, is the one perfectly constrained (almost imprisoned but by choice) to the single line between the current state of the chooser and perfection itself. That is the OBJECTIVE GOOD choice. There is no other choice possible that is as good.

So we have made the case for fear. Yay! Even if you do not believe this rather free flowing non proof of these ideas, it can still be compelling to you. Compelling enough to suggest the cracks in other models, other confusions, of reality. This is a majestic observation I am about to make. It occurred to me just now, writing the above gerund, that gerunds themselves are a map to truth, in a special way. They remove the subject and object from the statement. They resonate truth in that way because subject and object are changeable, and the same; at the same time. Gerunds thus represent what properly of balance I am now going to say is necessary to make the model work.

The balance between order and chaos AT ANY POINT is just a first step in balance. Why? It is because we are not making ANY progress towards the good. The level 1 balance is static in relation to the GOOD. We already discussed that a prospective level 3 balance was a bad idea. That would just add more evil. So where is our progress?

Progress to the good is only possible if we can add more fear and desire. It appears, on the surface, that fear and desire are disinterested in that progress. It's only an illusion like all fear and all desire is. But, with skin in the game, with mass, something to feel the loss and the gain, we can proceed. In order to break the tie between each of these forces, fear and desire, they must be made to feel the overall trouble, good vs evil. They must be made, FORCED, to understand and want the right things. And the greater level 2 balance of anger shows these truths to them.

As anger rises, it can help fear hold immoral desire back, not by restraining it, but instead by forcing it to realize its own mistakes. Likewise we can step into the great mystery of the future by suggesting to fear that being calm and unafraid is just the right way to be, even in danger. So, get over your panic when facing the unknown. And since fear gets trapped into what it 'knows' (like a bunch of clowns in a clown car) when it really knows nothing; with anger balancing fear, we can proceed.

Each of the three emotions, and there are only three, works this way. In balance and with MORE of each we properly aim at the GOOD.

How does this finally relate to your murderous sheep?

Any self entity has a peer group. That peer group is equivalent roughly to it in terms of how it grows morally. There is balance. Disturbing balance, even on the surface, is something we just discussed as fairly suspect as wrong morally. The investment in time to arrive at any state is epic. And it does not matter what the embedded immorality of that state ... is. To deny that investment by eliminating a peer is immoral because it is an act of bad faith in the system of morality itself. By contrast, treating less evolved entities with too much preference is also ill advised. If the moral state of the new entity, new set of peers is superior, that greatness must be respected in some ways. This does not mean we treat non peers with immorality. So, we are then tasked to say amid peers and morally less advanced entities, which one is on the RIGHT path? So here again is the need to differentiate between desires, and not just the sheep that have them.

Your murderous sheep offers us no greater insight into its desires than 'it feel good'. Any truth can be taken to its limit and remain true. Delusion cannot. If the murder sheep represents good then its murdering ALL THE OTHER SHEEP has to be good. Is it? The non-murdery sheep if taken the same way has counseled 'don't murder other sheep'. If taken all the way that has to be GOOD. Is it? Notice that we are not talking about natural death here. Notice that living sheep can evolve and become even more than they were. It is ostensibly objective that same species murder is immoral. The temporal investment by evolution in that entity type is being disrespected. They who are thus afflicted are not 'paying it forward' properly.

And on we go ...

Is the answer "because that's what makes the most sheep happy?" But then why is this good? We could be like Nietzsche and denigrate the herd. Is the answer in human nature? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, not at all. The answer is an equation, a law of the universe, the GOOD, perfection, and its many ramifications if it is properly considered.

Human nature is just one of many such plateaus. It is special but humans are far too likely to treat it with too much specialness. When something becomes 'my precious' it can lead you to immorality very fast. here again is seen the delusional nature of many forms of desire, many aspects of so-called 'freedom'.

I guess an example for contrast might be helpful. Consider Plotinus. The Good is the first principle above intellect, the first principle responsible for (although transcending) being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This statement is dangerous. Notice how in Plotinus' case he mentions intellect which is fear. He mentions being, which is anger. And he places the GOOD as transcendant. But since desire is not mentioned the risk is run that the immoral elements of desire are not properly treated by his far weaker model. If desire is not simply held as synonymous with the GOOD, the model is ... BETTER.

A sunset's goodness and beauty are according to its participation in being, rather than anything related to individuals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a very weak statement. It has some elements of truth to it. And its a warm fuzzy, so people like to glom on to it. But it partakes of the same error as Plotinus' dangerous model. It venerates desire at the expense of fear and anger.

If I were a real teacher, I would ask for an essay into all the ways that the setting of the sun was good that are not merely related to its presence as beauty. In fact I would ask specifically that at least some of the work shown clearly relates directly to individuals to DISPROVE your assertion here. Such a task is not actually difficult. That is how weak the statement was.

Or we could consider Aristotle. There is a human telos, but rather than it simply being the ground for our preferences, it is also defines the perfection/actuality of a human life. Actuality is better than potentiality, so the life of theoria is higher (more divine), a greater actualization of freedom and purpose. However, this would remain true even if we had a horrible society, maybe something like A Brave New World, where no one agrees with this claim, because it isn't grounded in the individual(s). That is, what the sheep are currently saying doesn't determine the good. It's possible we could have a bunch of very vice addled sheep after all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly! Aristotle is much more correct.

What is must partake of the good in many ways, but devotion to the good is choice only. And the good remains objective despite any and all choices we or anyone else makes.

If this is true, then faith is a belief in objective morality. Bad faith is a belief in anything else. And these beliefs are both by degrees. So, a person's belief is either moral OR NOT. At any time the state of any entity in belief is merely a summation of moral and immoral beliefs. We are not perfect. So we are non zero on our immorality. Judging what is objectively moral is the ONLY real worthy goal of life and this belief is the precursor to action, to being. Your murderous sheep is in more bad faith than the other sheep was. But that supposedly good sheep still spits its cud at little lambs while they eating ivy. I mean, the nerve!

There is more to the discussion on desire. Obviously the desire gives us some consequential feedback such that the murder sheep is claiming to 'feel good' about murder. The non murder sheep presumably 'feel good' as mentioned about refraining from murder. This causes confusion. We must clear that up to proceed.

All virtues are part of an emotion. In general, the classical virtues are born of one emotion mostly. But each emotion, and each virtue offers each of us, all entities, a result, a consequence of choice. And these offerings, these consequences, are additive. In other words each entity experiences happiness differently. And achieving one's desires in general IS A PART of happiness. But, if an entity is relatively unaware it will not realize that 'things are not as good as they could be'. Or maybe that entity does realize this and simply does want to put in the effort to make things better. Here we see again the relationship between happiness and effort.

Both desire and fear tend to seek ease. One seeks more of itself, the other less. And both call that ease. The beauty of these two statements is not easily understood fully. Anger also falls prey here. And anger is already different than the other two emotions in that it does not partake of the first duality, the delusional duality that still runs the show in today's world. Anger is better than that. But, it still falls to immorality here. In fact, anger causes this problem. That is to say, the sin of anger is laziness. What could be more synonymous with ease?

Thus we are led to a scary truth, a great truth, and a hard truth: A moral choice, the choice that shows us the most GOOD, is the hardest choice in all cases. The seeming does not matter. The seeming is your fear and your desire and anger even, lying to you that there is an easier way.

So each virtue causes this seeming with its normal contribution to happiness. If that happiness is still the most happiness an individual has ever known, they will kill, steal, cheat, do everything in their power, to keep it. They are unaware that there is a better way. We see this in movies all the time when an individual from a less moral culture joins or is captured by a group of a more moral culture. It takes time, but, the resonant happiness of the new more moral culture begins to sink in. And this is no guarantee. Some really murderous sheep will realize they 'just can't' be so moral. And they will still, even knowing they should not murder, murder. But that is a deeper level of bad faith, resigned to evil. Many and most will at least try to resonate the greater happiness within the new more moral group. What is this called, this 'greater happiness'. I call it GENUINE HAPPINESS.

Genuine happiness is the full or total happiness, all of it. It does not happen. But it does come by degrees. The more and more moral your choices are (and there is only one objective path to the GOOD ), the more of genuine happiness you will experience. It is true that many divergent paths are long and meandering ways to get to the GOOD also. But they are LESS THAN BEST and should be challenged as such. So, subjective morality is immorality.

By contrast, even the Kantian deontology seems to me to be grounded in the individual. The unconditional good is the good will of the individual, acting in accordance with rationality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true, but, it avoids some of the point.
You only allude to anger here, balancing desire and fear. Your word 'grounded' is that allusion. Mass, matter, being, all are anger.

There is an overlap with the earlier, dominant tradition in that there, good behavior is also in accord with reason, but there is a strange flip where it is no longer necessarily the case that being good is good for you. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is not true.

The reason it is not true is that GOOD is universally GOOD. It is our awareness of it, desire for it, and embodiment of it, all three, that are constantly in error in some way.

For example one huge statement of challenge to fear, to Pragamtism is this statement that is true:
'It is better to die than to be immoral in any way and spread that corruption.'

A pragmatist almost cannot deal with that truth. In this lack of compliance fear is immoral.

Likewise desire has tests of equal truth and dread for them:
'What you want is not relevant, unless it is the GOOD, and that is one and only one thing, finally.'

These are paramount statements of truth that literally slap both fear and desire in the face. 'What you want, and death; neither of them matter unless they are in support of the only thing that does matter, the GOOD.'

Indeed, you sort of end up in a place where you're most praiseworthy when you are doing things you hate out of a sense of duty, which IMO is an indication that we sheep have begun stumbling down the wrong path. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, this is the flip side of the ideas that I am discussing. It is a great Pragmatists point of view towards all of these things, pesky moral questions, and living. That is be afraid when you do not desire something at all. And want more from your ideals than just a sense of duty. I like it.

I have heard the argument before: moral principles are simply an emotional reaction - just a sophisticated 'grunt' toward certain behaviours, all without having any real logical basis in itself.

I have a different answer - I liken it to cooking; in terms of what 'tastes good,' or 'tastes bad,' there are a range of possibilities. For instance, someone could literally find that a 'Big Mac' tastes better than a burger from 'Five Guys' - even though people generally prefer Five Guys to McDonald's - maybe even something like 10 to 1. This is simply a relationship between things like permutations of taste buds, or the release of brain chemicals that makes one 'prefer' McDonald's to Five Guys - or vice versa. — jasonm

Hilarious and flippant, but no.

Morality is an objective scenario. Perfection as an extant thing in the universe is the source of the emotion we refer to as desire. This is what pulls us into the future, all things, via evolution, it mechanism.

Opinion and subjective experience do not matter at all to objective moral truth. Truth does not change. Subjective human experience is still informed by objective reality, including morality.

The reason that people believe in subjective morality is essentially self-indulgent immorality, mostly.

This topic can be discussed much further, but effectively subjective morality is delusional and cannot exist. The 'proof' is a rather complicated thing. Happy to discuss if that is something you'd like to go on about.

In the same vein, whether abortion or euthanasia is right has a range of possible answers, and it is hard to say that such things are any less subjective than food, and might depend on things like brain chemistry as well. — jasonm

Not at all. Again, morality is objective. I am not saying I know the right answers about every moral question, but it is my assertion that there is always a singular right answer.

Another reason we are deluded into thinking there are many possible right answers is because we are at different places in intent space as a state when any choice is made. As such, although perfection is a single predefined point in intent space, the path to it differs based on the starting state. This confuses some people into a foolish belief in subjective morality.

However, with food, every now and then someone serves up something that is rancid. In such cases, we are no longer talking about different combinations of taste buds or brain chemicals - such food is almost universally foul to almost anyone's taste buds. — jasonm

This is a horrendous and laughable way to treat morality.

This also applies to human behaviour as well; every now and then certain people 'serve up' ethical behaviour that is 'rancid.' Then it isn't just certain sensibilities that this irritates, but rather it is behaviour which makes almost all of us 'sick.' — jasonm

You make no sense.

If you believe morality is subjective then your opinions about it to others does not matter. They get to choose their morality in your pov. So you have no right to judge anyone that way. But you are lucky. Morality IS NOT subjective. It's objective, so, in that case, (the real case), you are then allowed to judge others. It is logically incoherent to believe that morality is subjective and that some morals are better than others. There is no basis for judgement unless morality is objective.

Such behaviour would then be far less subjective than what such camps would like to admit. — jasonm

Precisely. That is because subjective morality as a belief system is wishful thinking that is immoral.

There is no state of being that is inherently bad or inherently good.

Morality is only a resonance with choices made in the now. Choices are the only things capable of being good and bad (evil).

It is true that current states hold weaknesses and flaws based on all former choices since the dawn of time that brought that state into being.

The thing that has the state always also has choice. Humans are only one example.

So the state can make good choices harder, but that is only a delusion, a seeming.

Choice or free will is actually infinite in power. Our delusional or limited awareness (same thing) is self limiting and thus we deny ourselves SOME of the immense power of choice. Fear has a great role in imprisoning our choice, and it is our choice to empower fear with belief in such a way.

But all states and scopes are also part of delusional awareness. That means that the arbitrary decision to limit the scope of analysis to less than ALL, is effectively ... immoral. Proper awareness always factors ALL into the equation of analysis.

This eventually through some stuffy set of permutated assertions yields the Unity Principle, my label. This is the 'oneness' concept, or loosely, 'you are me and I am you and we are both cats, all cats, and the Swedish telephone system.'

So, if this universe has any purpose at all, it must be moral. That is the goodness of maybe even all choices is somehow relevant. And no choice is immune from participation in this effect. All choices are morally scrutinizable.

To declare or assert that any choice has no moral weight to it is ... immoral. This neat and tidy truth is no accident as it turns out the universe is quite an intentional place.

The balance of force impacting any scoped chooser is immense and infinite. This empowers free will and the infinite choice. But lacking perfect awareness, perfect form, and perfect desire we fail all the time and in all three ways. The nuances of each of these supposedly only three ways are infinite so you could be obtuse and say infinite ways instead of just boring old three. I am not good with holding on to infinity but three, yeah, ok, I can do three.

It is part though of the nature of perfection to permeate all reality in every way and to all depths. Therefore what color shirt you wear this evening is a moral choice. You can fail at that choice and your choice be less moral than it should be. No Godhead arrival for you. We will forgo the jail thing, because prisons are delusional, but go back two spaces, do not pass Go and do not collect 200$.

That is all (for now only, duh)

Like you, I usually read your response and answer immediately as soon as I "feel" the drive to answer. This time, sensing I had blind folded you early on, I collected a few related points to respond to at once. This time, too, I added this preface, written as an afterward.

Given I have afforded my self the breather of a preface. I'd also like to note how intriguing it is to me that we can share one principle concept, e.g. that we cannot hold to conclusions, that knowing is (or at least necessarily includes) belief etc. and yet express it so differently. — ENOAH

Vive la difference! Like you, I have to 'feel' the motivation, the welling up of the answer, to vomit it forth upon those expecting or otherwise.

By the way, did you know that poetry and drama are elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive? You learn something new every day! (That is only for a laugh. No public commiseration needed)

And as you justifiably pondered what my expression of that was, you overlooked one of its most "prominent" features. I.e., that it is inevitable that we will express differently, and that, in the end, it is not that one of us is correct (though as to presentation, I might readily defer to you as by far the "best"), it is that we are both ultimately "incorrect." — ENOAH

Damn! I sinned again. I cannot say I am surprised but I am mustering remorse, steadily if ambivalently.

And no worries, I already know you don't adopt that statement. — ENOAH

Hilarious because you know very well that I do. No claim to be the best, but we agree entirely without knowing for sure that we are both incorrect. I stand corrected! Wait I'm sitting! See, wrong again!

I've also answered ↪Kizzy below since there are intersections of thoughts.

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used
— Chet Hawkins

I agree with you regarding the word (hence I placed it in quotes, and often mix in "temporary." However I'm not meticulous. Perhaps I should be, at least, more meticulous). — ENOAH

Shame on you. I am Meticulon, fourth of his name, protector of The incomparable Deteriorata! All objections will be noted in triplicate. Invalid in Puerto Rico and Wisconsin (of course).

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth.
— Chet Hawkins

to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.
— ENOAH
No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure.
— Chet Hawkins

First, kindly NOTE whenever I write "misunderstood me" I fully acknowledge that it is because of my reckless use of Language. I've wondered half seriously if maybe I have a cognitive "condition" which causes me to think people can read my mind. — ENOAH

There are other such conditions to be observed in the self. My own is a natural ability to irritate everyone in some specific grating way. I now attribute that, of course, to wisdom. Wisdom has the unique quality that when we (anyone) sees it they are shamed and reminded of some weakness. So whether everyone admits it or not, philosophy is not a mainstream thing, not really. Happy strength promotion virtues are lauded without fail. But critical admonishments and warnings, well, lets table that for the year now+2011 years. You know make it the next Koyaanisquatsi! Wait! Cultural appropriation! Immoral failure! Release subconscious! (Drool)

I can read your mind and I invented pants!

So, I think you misunderstood me here. — ENOAH

That is at least my ninth sin so far. Meticulon will now move to the final form and finish him!

And this will illustrate how I must think you can read my mind. Because now I won't be so lazy, and I'll explain it. That was a foot note to the puzzle, how can we know we don't know what's real if we don't in the first place? I'm suggesting that there was a hypothetical first time the root "word" (I.e. "concept") now called "reality" emerged. And that in order for that hypothetical root to have emerged, it must have represented a thing "known" to its hypothetical first speaker. Did she know reality, and its been lost? Or is there no reality? ... but now you see why I added "this is beyond our scope here." But, the point is you can now see, I already agree. Truth can only, as you very nicely put it, inform subjectivity. So even that hypothetical first speaker of the hypothetical root for "reality" was already speaking a "lie"*

*I am being deliberately hyperbolic. Not lie per se, just "uncertainty." — ENOAH

That was a terrifying journey into your inner mind. Please refrain from sharing in the future!

Totally kidding! Loved it! 'Bat country!' (waves arms and looks skyward where there are indeed no bats)

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality.
— ENOAH
Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss.
— ENOAH
I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition.
— Chet Hawkins

Here I have definitely assumed you can read my mind. Here is what I was saying, now attempting to use plain English and where applicable your (better) language.

1. Reasoning is great. But assuming it is the "best" path to "truth" it cannot get you to truth. It can only get you to the furthest reach of "subjectivity". You will be at the edge of the cliff where there is an abysmal gap between you and actual truth, reality. It is a gap you cannot traverse.

2. Yet--and here you will not agree. It does not fit**. We human animals, meaning, the Organism, the conceited ape (not the minds where constructions are processed and moved only so far before it reaches an abyss), are already on the other side of that abyss. We are reality and truth. It's just that our organic consciousness our real aware-ing, has been hijacked by the Subject, the "one" who knows and believes, who concludes because it is functional and never because it is true. All the while the Real Being cares not for anything else but being. And that is truth.

**fit is what I mean by functional, and I will explain below. — ENOAH

I get it. The interaction is 'real'. The consequences are 'real'. But our intents are subjective, so we do not really know (ha ha) even our own selves. We clearly simply agree here in almost every way so not even really that different in approaches to truth. You make a mess of the presentation and I of proper decorum in the forum. But we can still both take a chalice to the palace and have a good drink and a laugh, all the while both being and yet knowing nothing.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'.
— Chet Hawkins

What I mean by Functional is a long and detailed thing. I feel hoggish using up too much space, and prefer to engage simply to see how my thinking might develop. But here goes something concise and thus necessarily vague. Best to paint a picture for now.

1. Our experiences are not of this real natural world, they are written, in Narrative form, by Signifiers operating autonomously and according to evolved Laws and mechanics or dynamics.

2. These Signifiers--primevally, images constructed by the brain to trigger organic response (feeling and action) evolved a "desire" to surface, as they "compete" they move by a dialectical process until finally "one" is temporarily settled upon, belief.

3. Functional is the mechanism which triggers the settlement upon. It doesnt mean usefull though it can. It means "fit for surfacing." So when I say I do not believe the "anger" portion of your hypothesis, it is ultimately because it was not fit for surfacing as belief in my current locus in History (all minds together as one) following a dialectical process of weighing the Signifiers competing to surface in my narrative.

That's why truth is only what is fitting. For all we know there is a remote Amazonian tribe who "know" stuff that would be easily
be adopted by us. But it's not in the local Narrative so it's not true here. — ENOAH

Well, the Amazons have something, that's for sure. I do want some of what they have, if they'll have me in return. But the nature of truth suggests as I am sure you are well AWARE that they to cannot really know. It's a good thing to because the thoughts in my head right now ... ugh!

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion.
— Kizzy

Is it just me, or do you see the uncanniness? I answered Chet first. Look above.

Yes! Exactly. Motion. Time. Becoming. In movement our Narratives only become, and we mistake them for being. Belief are those temporary settlements in the movement of fleeting becoming. — ENOAH

I have to add in here for no reason other than it struck me at this point, DESIRE, is the emotive source of any and all becoming. The moving target seems like an excuse. Everything narrows in the temporal sense to the only non-delusional time, NOW. So, you can forgive (barely) the fear tendency to short cut everything to 'get er done'. But that approach alone, as we both believe, is insufficient.

Wanting to become the right thing is so damn hard. But all the approaches, desire included, have that same asymptotic climb to truth, the abyss. When we get all three approaches right at the same time, the great bridge will magically appear. And it will not be magic at that time. It will be just the truth that was always there.

Although your intentions may be good, your responses are elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive; and I say this with all due respect, as a person that wants to see you both grow and develop into better philosophers :kiss: . Please try to see it from your reader's perspective: they are reading an essay which conveys a plethora of different ideas (all of which are unrelated to each other) in incredibly confusing, convoluted, and incoherent ways...all while hurling insulting comments at them. How do you expect them to react? — Bob Ross

The fact that you and other 'readers' cannot connect connected ideas is not the fault of the poster, in any case. That goes as well from me to them and vice versa. I can accept these 'rude' comments about my efforts in stride, a tactic I advise you and many other fear-bound intellectuals (scoff) on this and many other sites to earn as wisdom. I like it that you have the strength to say such things and ostensibly mean them. I do not demand that you stop. You should not either.

The fact that you describe my posts as 'elongated' is hilarious and in the next breath you say they are not rigorous. It is the need for complete rigor that requires depth and breadth in these communications. And besides, I like being elongated. It's readiness.

I do make every effort to see things from the poster's perspective. And when I understand the errors, not just of their post, but their general approach to the issue, which is the greater problem, I do feel called to step in and show another, an actual other, perspective. All of these fear-side perspectives you label as intellectually rigorous partake of the same (low) quality of failing as a pattern. That does not discount their positive contributions (high) from the same approach. You are absolutely failing to understand the value in the anger and probably the desire side approaches to truth.

Of course fear calls anger rude. Quelle surprise! But anger has just as much to offer to truth seeking. So if fear really wants to be aware, faite attention! I call you coward. You call me rude. So what? On we go and everything is fine. I am substantial and I can take the blow. Can you?

We are, all of us by turns, cowards, lazy, and self-indulgent; the three major immoral mistakes. Again, so what? Every single choice and idea or belief partakes in these types of errors without exception. Your post is rude. What of it? I am undaunted! What is daunting about my posts to you and why? Address the points that were made OR if you can't understand them or prefer to pretend that there are none, then simply go about your business. Without attention, I assure you, I will get bored and move on anyway, engaging with others that do choose to resonate.

Again, the fact that you refuse to understand my posts leaves me asking you to re-read your own admonition here. Your ideas are not 'actually rigorous' as opposed to intellectually rigorous.

Conformity is a path aspect of fear-based immorality. Reality accepts all comers. THAT is actually rigorous. Which are you representing? Truth and wisdom include all.

This forum is all about a congregation of people willing to learn from each other with genuineness, respectfulness, and intellectual rigor. It is completely fine and understandable to have different views than other people on this forum, but I would strongly suggest that you try to make your future comments more concise, respectful, and intellectually rigorous. — Bob Ross

That is the trouble with supposed intellectual rigor. It isn't, finally. You can argue then that my approach is not then finally actually rigorous, and I would simply agree. That's how compromise really works. We are both failing some and we both contribute some. It is not just my views that are different, but my entire approach in all ways, and THAT is still good. Or, let's say it's better than ostracism or dismissal, the classic retreat of the cowards. Fear guy: 'We cannot convince you of the lies we have all settled for, so, exit stage left, if you please!' So kind in this immoral act!

I strongly suggest you grow a spine. That is a respectful idea. This is a place where mere words and concepts are bandied about with ... apparently something less than reckless abandon and passion, with something less than an attention to the incredible difficulty of approaching perfection. That something LESS thing is the typical miasma of limits born of fear.

I am totally with you all in the love of wisdom. I venture to say it matters somehow MORE to me, as I am willing to fight through any storm to earn it. If I am qualified as a storm, the ones who label me as such are not paying attention to the dread dangers of real reality enough. My avatar says it all in some ways. This cartoon is deadly serious and yet finally rather innocent and harmless. I lost the Illudium Q-36 space modulator. And I never really fired it yet. But in theory, it works great!

And here I am trying to spread what I do believe is wisdom. Have I come to the right place? Do they love wisdom here enough to grow in a new way?

By 'intellectually rigorous', I do not mean that you need to have extensive knowledge of the topic-at-hand; but, rather, demonstrate in your responses that you took the time to reflect on the topic and the person's post you are responding to (as opposed to just ranting). It goes a long way, when the reader of your response can see that you took the time to genuinely reflect, dissect, and contend with their ideas. — Bob Ross

And actually I have. The fact that you again do not realize this because I still disagree is telling, but not really of me, if you follow. I find here, as usual, people cannot escape their cage of patterns. And of course fear is more prone to that error in the first place. But that is just hyperbolic unconcise blather to you, isn't it? Who is not taking the time to really research and consider other points of view here? It is not me, I assure you.

I will say, that even in this community I have found people who are willing to flow with truly new ideas rather than ones that conform to a fear based need for comfort and propriety. 'Stuffy' is really a good word for the typical responses, but it's ok, there are people who get it, even here. And that means, it must have SOME value. Or at least, some few people actually take the time to treat a new approach as valuable. Someone might say something like 'We are not going to solve the problems of today with the same (lack) of wisdom that created them.' But you know, that OneMug guy, he was just a poser; a janitor really, a clerk. And yes I paraphrased, so sue me.

I say none of this with any ill-will intentions nor disrespect in mind: as I said before, I want to see you both become great philosophers (: — Bob Ross

I could repeat the backhanded compliment to you. But why stand on ceremony? It is not disrespectful to state a belief that nonsense is nonsense, even if that nonsense is not nonsense. All we have is belief. If the intent was genuine, then that is still ok.

Great philosophers LOVE wisdom. They DO NOT have to be intellectually rigorous. They do not have to be polite, although I admit I appreciate politeness as well. Assuming you are the example of politeness here, I could suggest someone is elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive; and say that with all due respect.

We are all in the process of becoming better philosophers. That is at least a nod, albeit unintentional, to a better future together. I desire that as well, just intentionally, and for us all, admitting that work is needing from all parties, none of us having arrived yet at perfection.

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc.
— ENOAH
YES! This implements a great point here (underlined) in your shared thinking...."And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions." — Kizzy

To me and so many others, the word conclusion smacks of certainty too much. A function or use of something is ongoing. That is not to say the belief is not ongoing, but to warn that the knowing is complete and static, dead. Belief takes effort and knowing is effortless once accomplished is kind of the assertion. The lack of ongoing effort is a nod to laziness so fear and anger can team up in immoral aims in that way. We have to be careful.

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? — Kizzy

Yes and no. Time does eventually push things to a head, a fight, one way or another. And that is fine. But the perfect goal is always NOW, living truth in the present tense. So, time itself is only a reminder. If you let time push the process you are BY DEFINITION lazy. You be a godlike being and choose to push the process into the present at all times. That is the real goal, or let's say the BETTER goal.

I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project. I think intentions change in decision making moments, and can be re-purposed. See my comment here, [url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866500[/url].. im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. — Kizzy

I mean I do agree, but, the goal is to have a framework wherein these types of multi influenced decisions can be mapped and wisdom actually understood better.

So we have to become more aware of why things work the way they do amid choice. A lot of what you allude to in this paragraph relates to anger, intuition, body sense and muscle memory, making changes on the fly. It works similarly with social intuition, not being sniped, not being too much of any extreme way so that the 'loudness' of your approach, or its relative timidity, can be properly socially digested without emerging predatory or dismissive responses in the audience of note. Look at how everything collapses onto the present moment! So all is happening right now! In every now, all happens. It is either moral or not. And each aspect of morality, each virtue is part of the pattern of how and why we choose.

Morals are justification itself. — Kizzy

I kind of agree. There is no other justification besides a moral one. That is why I posted in the Leontiskos thread with his two thesis. He is chasing a delusional separation when he even suggests that humans are different, that there are human acts, and that there are any acts that are not moral. But rather than look past my energetic response he just calls me 'dumb' (hilarious) and puts me on ignore. He will not have the courage to look at that which is the real challenge.

I see so many mostly chaos-apologist thinkers that want so very badly, twisted by immoral desire, to declare that some acts and some beliefs are not impacted by morality. It's so sad and so obvious. They want any excuse to pursue immoral desire. So they pretend that morality is not a thing or a social construct or doesn't apply in certain situations. It's all just cowardly excuses. Morality is a law of nature that predates human existence.

I propose, "you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. — Kizzy

So, don't let recursion confuse you. An intent always has a goal by definition. Even if that goal is as simple as 'be good'. That can seem so vague that it seems like you would not want to say its a goal.

But it is a goal, and really the only one. Be as good as you can be. Be better. Be aiming at perfection. Because every other aim is intending to fail.

We get all caught up in short term goals that are just small state changes. In that it is sometimes hard to sense any moral differentiation. 'Should I wear blue today or red'? The path to objective moral truth is objective, not subjective. So there IS a right answer morally. We are just too unaware of all the threads of truth to make that choice properly. So we pretend there is no goal, or that the greater 'quiet' goal of 'be good' is not the goal we are talking about.

But that is the THING. That greater goal MUST morally be what we are talking about. Losing sight of it in intent is critical failure, in any and every way that it happens. Perfecting the pursuit of perfection is the goal of wisdom.

Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed? — Kizzy

There is NO vs in there. Planned, thought of, imagined, believed ... are all the same things. They carry the same type of weight. The purpose is still unified and MUST be so. That is 'be good'. It sounds a bit lame. But if it's understood the difficulty of it is profound. It's like saying, 'be perfect and pursue perfection perfectly'.

So, I disagree. Each and every intent MUST have a purpose. And that purpose, which is only another intent, either aligns with or is by degrees in misalignment with what is objectively good.

AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what happened in reality played out was very different" — Kizzy

All of this tack on things seems to be a nod to desire to me. It is very similar to what I was referring to with Leon, et al. Desire prefers to believe that its all fungible. That any path is an informative or 'good' as any other. But that is not true because morality is objective. Immoral actions and flippant actions are good examples in general, are bad choices that lead to less chance of moral growth because they are already surrendering to indecision and randomness up front. This is just self-indulgence talking.

The good is an infinitely constrained path. It is perfectly constrained. All constraints upon that path are valid. These constraints combine to make a moral choice the single hardest choice in all cases. Perfect effort is required.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good.
— Chet Hawkins
Proper use assumes there is one....are we users, consumers, creators? I believe we are both the creation and creators, the design and the consumers.... — Kizzy

Yes, there is a proper use. It is objective. These doubts are based in subjectivism. They are mostly chaos, self-indulgence.

We are indeed ALL. But that does not mean that the perfect instance of us, God, or perfection, the GOOD, is not ready willing and able to show us the path to the GOOD by letting us punish ourselves via bad choices. That is the definition of free will. Rest assured that perfection is out there calling to us, giving rise in us to desire. That is the pull of evolution.

But it's a deep mistake, perhaps THE deepest mistake, to believe that there is not a proper path. That is the chaos-apologist point of view, subjective morality. The largest fear side order-apologist mistake is the concept of separation, the limiting force itself, giving rise to things like ego, identity, and us vs them thinking.

Do all good things must come to an END, or do good things just tend to LEAD to the end? Good things eventually can leak into THEE END. That LEADS to a discovery, which doesnt always translate perfectly into knowledge...but how can we speak on anything we claim to be "perfect" what do humans know about perfection? — Kizzy

This is a great question. It has already been answered but it's so important that I will answer again and again if I have to. Genuine happiness is the consequence of aligning ones choices closer and closer to perfection. So we DO HAVE a demonstrable way of sensing that perfection both exists and that we are on the right path to it.

We can sense for sure that whatever this 'right' path is, it is damn sure hard to do. So, we can then speak of some far off, almost unreachable point that includes the concept of infinity as a target. This is perfection. That is how perfection is imagined. Then the mathematical limit function as x approaches infinity shows us the climb of difficulty in choice in reaching that aim. It is clearly asymptotic. That totally fits with what we experience in reality. Its just so amazingly hard to be perfect.

We are tempted by self-indulgent immoral desire to validate all paths. But that is not wise. The hard climb is there, taunting us. The origin of desire is perfection itself but the difficulty of the climb to it makes us very quickly seek skewed side directions that are immoral. It's understandable, but error.

The 'leak' you propose is a lazy drip, the minimum path, to perfection. Would it surprise you if that effort is insufficient finally to survive the 'end of the universe'. That is to say, tempus fugit! Get busy. The right time is now. The leak will fail and that fail will be FINAL. Active intent and choice is required of the moral exemplar.

What ended that is bad? What was bad that shouldnt of ended? — Kizzy

The threat of all forms of immorality is many fold.

Cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence are involved to some degree in every choice. They do not end because they are laws of the universe. The pressure is eternal and constant. Deal with it. Morality is forgiving! How does it do that? The balance of free will is eternally available in any moment. infinite choice is always there for you, for any chooser. That is PERFECTLY fair.

When should endings see the bad through to its possible goodness or is it not bad until the worse arrives...what if that chance was never an idea in mind? — Kizzy

We must explore and discover. We use imagination to go before we go. We test or simulate the worst outcomes to prepare. And then we try. That is all we have. We take the patterns of the past as lessons for probability only and we act in confidence with our beliefs. We are NOT saying we know. We are saying we believe this now. We try and we fail. We do that all over again.

The path to the good is thus beset with many failing choices. But that is no excuse to embrace abject and capricious failure amid that effort. No! Wisdom is not earned that way. We do not look for accidental fallout amid our choices. It can happen and we take that as grace. But that is NOT something we can claim. We must admit that that was our failure still and change.

All the time we give people WAY WAY too much credit for being born beautiful, for example. Or we think someone is themselves amazing for winning the lottery. That is just stupid.

What amazes me is witnessing a person that starts out less than attractive and with no resources and becomes a champion in both and in other realms also. That is wisdom and growth.

Mainstream success is almost something you should morally counter-credit.

'It is no measure of success to be well adjusted to such a profoundly sick society!' - Jiddu Krishnamurti

IS it bad or could it just be better? — Kizzy

Yes to both and that is always true.

You win no points by not realizing the error. 'good enough' is a lie.

Tailoring "an end" instead of "the end" to your liking means you may have a new unique vision, but how certain are you that your"ending" is less problematic then the one that was created, and not that easily, cheap, or without some sacrifice from the creator, the builder, the manufactor, the assembler, the consumer, and the consumer feedback considerations and accountability and acknowledging consumer, creator, and device relations....? — Kizzy

That was an odd aside tirade there at the end. You went from philosophy to marketing. I was like, 'What just happened?'

The 'leaf on the wind' philosophy is lazy and self-indulgent.

Well, probability is an issue.
— Chet Hawkins
Its more of a non-issue, for me. I believe I am free from a will to worry about such issues you see that I dont yet. — Kizzy

I am assuming that is two sentences.

This belief of yours is dangerous. It is the 'leaf on the wind' philosophy, ephemeral and blithe. I do not sense that from you all the time. There is worry in you and maybe your worry is what you are responding to with this dangerous wish.

Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. — Kizzy

Yes. It's delusional pretense. It CAN work for you, the dancing methodology is replete with 'leaf on the wind' thinking. But when the lithe dancer takes a real hit they are broken and forgotten. That is unless those that care about and for them can pick up the pieces because leaves just rot on the ground if left to their own devices. And the wind is random and sometimes uncompromising.

I'd like to believe. — Kizzy

Believe, yes. But you mean you'd like to believe in that purposely obstructed view, the short-cut truth. That will not help you. There is a valid reason that Sisyphus pushes the rock up the hill EVERY SINGLE DAY. Atlas probably understands. Try holding up the world. The GOOD is well beyond these small labors.

I'd also like to not worry. But trusting the fear is instinctive, letting the worry come and go is me being safe. being, feeling, in that i acknowledge, determine, doubt, value, verify, judge, confirm, care, consist, compare, believe, hope and love...resist, repeat! — Kizzy

And you see, do you not, in this, the subservience to pattern, order-apology?

Wash, rinse, repeat. Roll the rock up the hill!

I agree! trust the fear! Increase it, do not try to erase it. Seeking ease is unwise.

Yeah for me it is because its telling what we ought to not have to question...its confirmation, its useful, its helpful. — Kizzy

This is a great sentence to unpack. Worrying about what you should not question is 'staying in line'. Again with the patterning. But growth lies always in the direction of asking the hardest questions and thinking outside the box and THEN returning to a better box, the real box. Most limits are delusions and fear is partly informing you of delusion. That is what is missed.

Desire knows instinctively, hey there is a rule! Let's break it (and see what happens). In other words, we get the question now, 'is it a rule at all?'. But subtlety is not simple. Sometimes the rule breaking is ok, like when you are young and the torture you inflict on yourselves and others is worth the squeeze past that line. But the DAMAGE still happens. There is no escape from truth.

Its power is weak though, i believe in the larger scheme of "things" Its issue for me is wondering how important it is to learn as a concept to think its serving its functional purposes to any end that I can do anything about, let alone begin to attempt to care. — Kizzy

The power of choice is infinite. Belief in this truth is hard to come by. Fear would have us believe that we are only as good, as powerful, as our past and the patterns we 'know' (ha ha). Desire would have us believe that since we are not perfect, we are worthless. And if we are worthless then our chosen direction doesn't matter does it!? How freeing! How deluded!

Yes, the larger scheme as a goal is wise. Caring is wise.

I can try if its necessary. I doubt it really is for me. I should care, I do when it matters. But overall its value, its own weight holds up but thats just what it is/was/could be. Its a piece, it matters but compared to what? — Kizzy

This 'not caring' pretense, or even actual, is dangerous. Each part of morality is critical. No single part can be left out. The perfection of each virtue is required. What is perfect caring? It is caring about EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, ALL THE TIME. To not care in any way, is immoral.

Comparison is a trap. Be the best you can be. Yes comparison has a purpose. It's to see past your limits when another nexus of choice, another human being or even animal, or tree, does something you sense is both worthy and beyond your scope. You then become aware of (not know) that the possibility exists that you can grow in a way you were not previously aware of. That is the only real use of comparison. Adaptation to greater resonance with truth is wise.

Curious to see how you respond to the last question I proposed above ↪ENOAH given your similar curious nature to mine surrounding topics of function serving, "purposes". — Kizzy

For me the word function, as mentioned, is a red flag for order-apology. It means the person is Pragmatically attached to usability. They are willing to 'let go' of the ideals in order to 'get er done'. That is not wise.

For my view to be obstructed "on purpose" that would mean the functions of probability ought to be known BY ME,for me, to have reason to believe that....and I think I do enough to show its functions are at least as DELUDED as my own beliefs backed by real accounts of my experience in a comparable reality.... — Kizzy

No, there is that word again, confusing the issue. You said, 'known'. You cannot know. So you are instead aware of things as a set of beliefs. This awareness is flawed and that is ok. It is ok because amid effort and comparison to others' efforts you sense the amount of happiness or balance. We all have this moral sense. Much is made about sociopaths and their supposedly missing moral compass. But I disagree. A blind person still 'sees' the world via other senses. Eventually, if everyone was blinded, and the new children were born blind, as in the series 'See', sight would evolve again in record time. Awareness is a will of the universe, as a natural law.

So, you do 'see' some. Some probability is intuited. When you make ANY and EVERY choice probability is crucial. All aspects of reason partake of probability, by definition. All aspects of justification partake of probability by definition.

Things only really seem to 'break' when we talk about infinity and perfection. But that is only because we are unaware of the way that math works, the limits, and that that applies to all emotive acts, all choices.

The pursuit of the impossible is actually the pursuit of the highly improbable. That is wise. To seek the probable is not wise. That is the problem with order-apology. They would rather 'get er done' with cheap efforts at low hanging fruit than face the difficulty of the real task of wisdom.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.
— Chet Hawkins
sniffing this out, ill be back...release the hound dogs! Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. — Kizzy

This is getting to be word salad to me, I admit.

Reality is only one thing, and it is relevant. There are no other relevant realms. Imagination and all of its devices and objects are WITHIN reality, not, as most poor thinkers might think, outside of it.

Belief DOES have to exist in any choice, any act, any purpose. Either that or the definition of belief is wrong/not-what-I-mean-by-belief.

The outcome IS NOT EVER the cause and effect. That is because there is error in the choice. The objective nature of a consequence leave it surprisingly unrelated to the belief or intent. Your statements here are part of consequentialism, a deadly lie.

The cause is a belief, only and always. The belief is partly in error, always. But the belief side is informed by the ideal of perfection, sensed erroneously, but still sensed. Over time this process narrows towards perfection and that again is evolution. But the sensors and the choosers other inputs to choice, other beliefs, all causal, are all flawed and by degrees. They fail to care enough, to be aware enough, to be in harmony enough (beauty), and in being accurate enough. That is not a complete list of the virtues. It is only a set of examples. So the consequential outcomes IS NOT as predicted. If it is as predicted the prediction itself was flawed. It (the prediction) was too vague, too undemanding, too wrong.

But is this telling of ANY nature of the Universe? I dont think so.....you cant force the awareness you are not bound to obtain, thats your BLOOD...blame your ancestors for that lack or accept self in its own nature. Where do we belong to judge from rightfully? — Kizzy

Being in the universe you assert that your experience shows nothing of it? That is comically wrong.

Just by chance you will get some things right. Granted that is no credit to you. But over time, you intuit those bits and then in humility you step forward with awareness that was always there anyway. Just living, the rote force contained in the body, with its patterns of effort well known and unconscious to you, is still a very large portion of good baked in.

You can disrespect that effort of millions of years and people do it every second of their lives. Instead of investing by choice in what evolution and the call of perfection shows us, we work in the other direction with self-indulgence, cowardice, and laziness; in general. We do it intentionally and often. And still, the unconscious parts of us accept the limits of reality. They try to breath when we eat so much our own bodies are choking our lungs. The cells are still working, making their less scoped choices. If they had any sense at all they would let us die, right? But they 'know' (ha ha) that it takes time for the greater moral scope chooser to earn the wisdom not to make such stupid choices. Caring is an earned activity. Awareness is an earned activity. 'Knowing' is just lazy cowardice. If you knew that alcohol would dehydrate you, why the hell did you keep drinking it? Crossed virtues! Over-expression of some. Under-expression of others.

We are instead REQUIRED to judge everything. All intents and actions/choices of ourselves and others and in that judgment (belief) we form new intents that are hopefully better than those we have made up until now. THAT is growth.

Despite the delusions of all people, morality is the only thing going on. Morality is objective and true. All acts are only of course moral acts in that they SHOULD be judged morally. There is no act, no substantive state, that is not merely a succession of choices amid free will. This universe is alive. It emerges life as a natural law. The seeds of life exist as choice down to the sub-atomic level. Choice is effectively the only act thing in the universe. States are all the consequential arrangements of matter and energy and we will say consciousness as well. Really though we could JUST say consciousness because matter and energy are both just forms of consciousness.

These and other seemingly absolute statements seem sort of at odds with your prior claims that no one can know anything and that any pretension to knowledge is a sort of delusion/vainglory, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all. As I have already mentioned many times in this thread, stating things with confidence as a belief IS NOT stating that one has objective knowledge. The assertions are hypotheses only and anyone may argue against it at any time.

That is incorrect.

All morals are forced to be hypothetical ought-judgments. We cannot know. So all beliefs are effectively hypotheses.

But I take it you don't actually know if what you've just. claimed is true or not. Is it only a hypothesis? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, clearly.

Weren't you saying something about how people shouldn't speak/write in such a way that they seem certain about things, but instead should always piously acknowledge their ignorance. But then... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I did not say that at all. I said the use of the word 'know' and its derivatives is inclined in the wrong direction. People more often take that to mean certainty. Stating your beliefs confidently is not the same thing at all. And here I am again saying, 'everything I say is partially wrong, by admission. What I say is my belief only. I am willing to argue the points based on evidence and reasoning.'

Consequentialism is a dangerous lie. Deontological morality is the only thing that makes any sense...

The good is objective.

Etc.

look like knowledge claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't use the word knowledge and they are only beliefs. Still my belief is that KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY BELIEF. That's the thread title. Is there something I said that denies that belief? No. What it means is that the colloquial use of the term 'know' and 'knowledge' partakes in our culture of too much certainty when it is only belief. I again, despite my ringing confidence, claim to know anything at all. I do claim to have strong beliefs and speaking JUST FOR ME I do not confuse those two things. Others do all the time.

All thinking is incoherent.

You should have led with this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You do not say why. You leave others to fill in the gaps AS IF your point is merely obvious. You believe in certainty then, at least more than I do.

All thought is belief impelled. Fear is only an emotion. The patterns it believes it understands are NEVER understood totally. So all thought is belief and all belief is partially in error. Any error corrupt the purity of the belief as objectively proper, so, it is then improper in all ways, simultaneously.

This means it is a tautology that all thought is incoherent.

What a REAL Pragmatist philosopher Scotsman should say is that probability is very high on the side of the least incoherent thoughts in existence. And that probability again shows up to help us accredit sources of thought and thought statements as less incoherent. That is also something I believe.

But you didn't go there. You just wat to discredit the notion that I believe as a tautology with japes and saying I am rude. Imagine how rude I believe it is for everyone not to notice what I am really saying and how it does work. Your incoherence on this is greater than mine. That is a belief, not a thing I know. And in any case, knowledge is only belief.

Aside from the piety of declaring ignorance, you might want to consider not being so rude lol. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is often consider rude to stand in the way of stupidity, but, I find myself called.

I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really.
— Chet Hawkins
I have no problem with the scientific method as long
as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally
— Chet Hawkins


Understood and agree.

I'll admit I'm still pondering the role you place on anger. Alhough now your reasoning is clear, I am not as yet persuaded. I'll explain why, though in fairness to you, I (anticipatorily) don't blame you for not liking it. Your reasoning, I don't disparage. I even found it to be profound and interesting. Once again there is also latent, admirable, drama or poetry in your explanations. — ENOAH

It is the nature of truth and ever increasing proximity to it, that resonance, or drama/poetry will necessarily occur.

But your focus on anger, though impactful, doesn't have a function in my current narrative of thinking. And I also don't blame you for explaining that if your hypotheses are reasonable and moving, then I am compelled to fit them into my narrative; it is otherwise, to sum up, cowardly, immoral. — ENOAH

You have the final bit in sync. But you say you disagree and do not say why here. On we go ...

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. — ENOAH

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used. That is because if we conclude, we pretend that we are done, that the matter is settled, that we 'know'. This is a precise disservice to truth and the pursuit of truth.

So I will dare this statement/assertion: There is only one conclusion in existence and that is love.

In order to be proper morally all papers that end in a block of text should have that block be honestly labelled, 'Non-Conclusion', because that is the truth. This labelling reminds us that we are not properly done seeking truth. It does inform us that for now we are resting our arguments and assertions as is.

But it avoids the egregious assumptions of done work and certainty most commonly associated with order-apology and use of words like 'know' and 'conclusion'.

All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc. — ENOAH

Well, yes, sort-of. Again the absolute leaning terms like conclusion take away from any gains we think we made. It is in humility that we assert only a non-conclusion instead.

But your core point in that last paragraph I may have missed. I didn't quite follow the desire manifesting in experience or the competing expressions (of what) as experience. I would say fear, anger, and desire are all always being expressed to greater and lesser degrees. Still, in any expression one emotion will tend to dominate. Further, over time, as a personality, we manifest virtue patterns that correspond to each Enneatype. Any modestly capable observer would classify me very quickly as a challenger. It is what I do. That is Enneatype 8. The core of a type 8, their holy source, is innocence. Because of this truth they grow to despise weakness and challenge it. This is related to their own innocence causing them self-betrayal pains early in life. But that is itself a factor based on the light-hearted innocence that is core to the type. Animals and children find 8s MORE approachable than all other types for this reason.

You are blameless for pointing out to me how your categories, fear, desire, anger, balance, and so on (though we arrive at the same station) stand up to the test of reason etc. But nevertheless. Your protestations, if examined honestly, are based upon the deficiency in the use you have for the categories proposed by me. And I'm not complaining. Good for you. — ENOAH

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth. Saying WHY you disagree to anything simply has not happened yet. On we go ...

If you object that your rejection of an illogical position is not based upon the function of its conclusion, — ENOAH

The function of a conclusion is ONLY to conclude, that is exactly the problem. The real function that should be addressed, the thing itself, the matter the conclusion was about, gets lost. That is similar to the wording here in this sentence which again I cannot quite follow (what you mean).

My rejection of others argument or assertions is always argued. It is explained in detail each and every time. I will reiterate if I have to. It's not a problem. The goal is always just a better understanding. Clarity in word choice and expression is the greatest skill after genuine truth-seeking in these endeavors.

but upon the dysfunctional process. I'd say yes, function is the deciding factor all the way through. Nothing else in the end brings a conclusion to belief, not even some central being we call you or I. — ENOAH

IF and that is a big if, IF I understand you here, then no. Function the way you seem to be using it is almost like a synonym for the word usefulness. That emphasis would be order-apology only, a Pragmatic failure in understanding. It is fear side thinking and prone to that exact conflation. Correct me if I am wrong about what you meant.

Since we do not know what reality is
— Chet Hawkins

I agree with you. But tell me, how do we know we don't know what reality is when we don't know what reality is *? — ENOAH

Well some things are just obvious. Ha ha! It's always safer to assume you do not really know. Certainty is a really big fear side devil. Calming that fear is the coward's balm. Lock the doors! Hang the 'No Trespassing' signs up! Prepare your arguments and your loud chanting when the foe speaks! We are no longer appealing to actual reason. We are Trumping this scenario! Make philosophy great again!

Yeah so all of that is a joke of course. Don't do any of those things and you are better off. That means start from a position of humility and assert not knowing. You know like that yogi I quoted. He gets it.

There are quite a few people saying things like 'Chet is so certain it seems, and he hates certainty.' but they miss that I also say I am wrong in some way about everything and that is fine. Its the RELATIVE correctness that matters in this case. We are both or all absolutely wrong in that any wrong is just wrong , finally. But between two wrong positions, one and only one is always closer to objective moral truth (a long way of saying truth).

*(to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP. — ENOAH

No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure. The discipline of balance and the humility of genuine doubt and a proper stance of NOT knowing is wise. The alternatives in any way are LESS wise.

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in
— Chet Hawkins

Like I said, I now understand, and you presented it with admirable punch. My primary original question, "why link anger with reason," is profoundly answered. Just as for Kant or Heidegger, those who argue in favor of your constructions have found them fitting, and settled for now. And they will go on constructing along side you, varying yours for perfect fit with their own. The others who cannot make a fit will not settle. Some may congratulate you and politely decline, some may politely present their own narrative disguised as a deconstruction of your flawed reasoning, some might find your constructions so unfitting to their own that emotions get the best of them and they demean you and your constructions with a shocking vigor. — ENOAH

Yes indeed and that is glorious! Peace was always only a delusion. And I welcome the times when the trenchers on one side call over to the trenchers on the other and declare a temporary ceasefire for tea and talk. Just watch out for those sneaky sappers that have to 'win' at everything because they will lie about something as innocent as a ceasefire to prove how hard and 'winning' they are. Those Enneatype 3s are some real jerks! Some few of them (like all types) are higher functioning though and they are grand to meet.

I realize for instance how my own proposal here would find few good fits with other Narratives, those whose structures have already closed the door on movements of the plot beyond certain--highly respectable--parameters. Or in plain English, those who can like great Doctors, quickly spot the holes in my logic and reasoning. — ENOAH

Well, not to be a jerk myself, but, there has been no argument yet. I still do not know your objections, if any. You keep alluding to your arguments but none is here.

But if we cannot know...and we ultimately believe...for a while. Then, who's to say it's only logic and reasoning? — ENOAH

I would not say that. Logic and reasoning are fear side. There also needs to be anger and desire side parts to any belief or choice. That is a big part of my position. Most of the 'knowing' types are fear side only or way fear side over-expression. That is not wise.

I am not saying they ought to be excluded and that we seek truth in one hand clapping. — ENOAH

I get what you mean, but, we can seek it there. Truth is unchanging and omnipresent.

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality. — ENOAH

Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss. — ENOAH

I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition.

So perhaps feelings might have a role...but I'm wondering into another chamber. On our side, function ultimately decides, autonomously too. — ENOAH

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good.

Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire
— Chet Hawkins

Ok, I didn't know that. Interesting. Neither more nor less compelling. But interesting. Are they somehow Jungian? Or is that a myth? Am I confused? — ENOAH

They are so not Jungian, at least to me.

The cognitive Jungian functions really relate best to HOW a person thinks and see the world. The Enneagram is BETTER, as a tool. It speaks to core motivation, the WHY, the wisdom of the chooser. That is far more important.

Introduction

What is the breadth of the moral sphere? The common view is that some acts are moral, such as giving a starving man food or committing murder, and some acts are non-moral, such as taking one’s dog for a walk.1 You should immediately notice that by “moral” I do not mean morally good; by “moral” I am not talking about the opposite of immoral. — Leontiskos

This is incorrect as a disclaimer. Even by your ensuing description you ARE talking about moral goodness. The word moral effectively means, good. If you assert otherwise, it would make no sense (to me).

Instead, when I use the term “moral act” I am referring to an act that belongs to the species of moral-and-immoral-acts; or an act that belongs to the species of good-and-bad-acts. More simply, I am referring to an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny, evaluation, or judgment. A moral act is an act that can be legitimately (and, thus, morally) judged good or bad; a non-moral act is an act that cannot. — Leontiskos

Exactly. So this explanation refutes your own assertion from before that you do not mean morally good. You DO mean that as explained here by you, just now.

There are two theses that I am prepared to defend regarding the breadth of the moral sphere. Both of them will clash with modern language and intuitions, for I am convinced that modern thinking about the moral sphere is confused and perhaps even incoherent. — Leontiskos

All thinking is incoherent. That is not the relevant point. The relevant point is intent. Indeed moral scrutiny should be applied to all choices, past and present. The consequential patterns of the past that lead to the various states of now are informative to new intents. Consequentialism is a dangerous lie. Deontological morality is the only thing that makes any sense.

Thesis 1: All human acts are moral acts

For Aristotle, virtue and teleology permeate all aspects of life. For Aquinas, any act that flows from intention is a moral act.2 In order to understand why all human acts are moral acts we must understand the difference between applying scrutiny to an act and applying moral scrutiny to an act, for above I noted that a moral act is an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny. Or in other words, we must attempt something that very few are willing to attempt: we must attempt to define the moral. — Leontiskos

There is no difference.

Despite the delusions of all people, morality is the only thing going on. Morality is objective and true. All acts are only of course moral acts in that they SHOULD be judged morally. There is no act, no substantive state, that is not merely a succession of choices amid free will. This universe is alive. It emerges life as a natural law. The seeds of life exist as choice down to the sub-atomic level. Choice is effectively the only act thing in the universe. States are all the consequential arrangements of matter and energy and we will say consciousness as well. Really though we could JUST say consciousness because matter and energy are both just forms of consciousness.

Defining the moral and acting morally is the entire purpose of the universe. Perfection is the end goal, and the good is the only right path to get there. That path is objective from any point in intent space.

Before we do that, what is meant by a “human act”? — Leontiskos

This question is ridiculous. The happenstance that allows us to take conceit in the moral agents in the universe with the greatest known scope of moral awareness is indeed humans. But to argue in any way that this situation is special is foolish and indeed conceited. The entire universe is alive and other moral agents across the universe are highly probably more advanced morally than even humans are. But even still, that matters not at all.

The GOOD is objective. So, human choice and choice of animals and indeed choice of rocks are all flawed by poor choice. Nonetheless the call of desire towards perfection is the guiding light as well as the genuine happiness that resonates from choices with more and more such happiness the closer those choices are to the path leading directly to the objective GOOD.

those actions are properly called human which proceed from a deliberate will. And if any other actions are found in man, they can be called actions "of a man," but not properly "human" actions, since they are not proper to man as man. — Leontiskos

This is only nonsense. There is no need whatsoever to separate acts by chooser type. That has no relevance to moral content or strength.

moral acts properly speaking receive their species from the end, for moral acts are the same as human acts.
— Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IaIIae, Q. 1, A. 1 & A. 3 — Leontiskos

I agree

A human act is any act that we do on purpose; any act that proceeds from a deliberate will. — Leontiskos

This is a fine thing to say. But I think when you say it you are not meaning it the right way and most people will also fail to mean it the right way.

What does 'deliberate will' mean? Is just living an act of deliberate will? If not then no, your definition is wrong. I say living itself is an act of deliberate will and that death in fact only happens because that will is immorally insufficient.

All weakness of any kind is immoral. It does not matter if this is offensive. The truth is often offensive to people that refuse it. So be it. Not being perfect is immoral. This state of delusional immorality is why, sensing the extant truth of perfection as reflected in the emotion of desire, evolution happens. All efforts towards perfection are finally about choosing to eliminate weaknesses.

Objection 3 to the first article gives the complement of human acts, “But man does many things without deliberation, sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent on something else.” In his reply to objection 3 Aquinas says, “Such like actions are not properly human actions; since they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the proper principle of human actions.” — Leontiskos

This is nonsense.

My model helps me to understand. Fear, anger, and desire are all three consciousness. They are all three involved in choice. The choice to be, anger, is still a choice. The choice to comply with instantiated patterns, involuntary acts, as you just gave an example for, are indeed still choices.

The power of choice is effectively infinite. But a weak will (desire in general) is hard pressed to carry out 'deliberate' acts that violate the tendencies of the weak current state. We are slowly evolving into more capable moral agents. That is a law of the universe. It is happening everywhere and it is, from what we can determine so far, reasonably rare that what we call life happens. As mentioned, that is a misunderstanding. The call of desire, the existence of nothing but consciousness in the universe, empowers free will for every particle in existence. The STATE of that particle determines the difficulty of choice. So it is nigh unto impossible for a rock to play poker for example. But that is only nigh and not finally actually impossible. Understanding and accepting these extremely rare cases of truth delving is a better way than what most people have of being aware what is going on.

Most people will not be comfortable discussing rocks that choose. But any other assertion is more than just incoherent. Everything in this universe is choosing constantly. And moral scrutiny DOES apply to rocks as well as humans. I realize I am probably alone in this assertion. No worries.

So what does it mean for something to be moral?3 In keeping with the foregoing, I will define morality by reference to a definition of moral judgments. A moral judgment isdf a non-hypothetical ought-judgment. — Leontiskos

That is incorrect.

All morals are forced to be hypothetical ought-judgments. We cannot know. So all beliefs are effectively hypotheses.

Strictly speaking, a moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, but for the pedagogical purposes of this thread I am primarily thinking of a moral act as, “an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny, evaluation, or judgment” (see above). — Leontiskos

Which is every single act in the universe that has happened, is happening, or will happen. No narrowing down of the scope occurred here. If you think it did, you are only deluding yourself and those that believe you.

Admittedly, there is a difference between an act that involves a moral judgment and an act that is susceptible to moral judgment, especially on non-Aristotelian theories. This difference should be largely irrelevant, although I will tease out some of the implications as we go.4 — Leontiskos

There is no difference.

For clarity:

A moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, or an act that is susceptible to moral judgment.
A moral judgment is a non-hypothetical ought-judgment. — Leontiskos

I disagree as mentioned.

What then is a non-hypothetical ought-judgment? An ought-judgment is simply a judgment about what to do, past, present, or future. For instance, “He should have done that; she oughtn’t do this.” But what does it mean to say that some ought-judgment is non-hypothetical? It means:

He ought to do X if he wants Y.
(including:)
He ought to do X because he wants Y.

A judgment that is non-hypothetical is not therefore a judgment that is necessarily non-instrumental. “He ought to do X because he wants Y,” is instrumental but it is not hypothetical, for it involves no hypo-thesis. — Leontiskos

That is blatantly incorrect on the surface of the issue. The ought word means the ought statement is by its very nature hypothetical.

The objective nature of morality cannot be known by us. We are left with hypotheticals only, belief.

A variant of this sort of judgment could be written, “He ought to do X because he ought to want (or attain) Y.” A non-hypothetical ought-judgment is a judgment in the simplest sense, a judgment “all things considered.” A hypothetical ought-judgment merely presents one consideration that is intended to influence the inevitable all-things-considered judgment which will eventually take place. — Leontiskos

These distinctions are not relevant, is my assertion. The one consideration is itself a belief. So, it is already hypothetical, meaning all consequences are also hypothetical, even after they occur. They are all hypothetical because we may experience them and they may be objective, but, we cannot know them objectively, so we are left adding hypotheticals to hypotheticals. There is nothing else going on.

Let’s take an example:

You ought to fix your car. (non-hypothetical)
You ought to fix your car if you want to travel to work. (hypothetical)
You ought to fix your car because you need to travel to work. (non-hypothetical) — Leontiskos

Incorrect. Both 'ought' and 'if' are instances of word use that show the hypothetical state.

Let’s focus on the latter two examples in this set of three. These two judgments are not saying the same thing. The non-hypothetical judgment involves a secondary judgment that traveling to work is necessary, and the hypothetical judgment prescinds from this secondary judgment. Only non-hypothetical grounds can result in non-hypothetical conclusions. The statement, “You ought to fix your car if you want to travel to work,” is hypothetical because the antecedent of the conditional is not being asserted. Therefore it is not a judgment about “what to do” simpliciter (all things considered). Instead of saying, “This is what should be done,” it says, “This is something you should take into account when deciding what should be done.” — Leontiskos

This whole process is messy and covered in errors to me. The definitions of need and want should be addressed. For example your second proposition should be reworded to say, 'you ought to fix your car because you ought to travel to work. There is no such thing as a need to travel to work. We speak incorrectly in so many ways that language is becoming a barrier to understanding in this case. We employ SO MUCH DELUSION on a regular basis that many and most here will rise up against me just for pointing out how insanely silly it is.

If you want to travel to work, then you should fix your car.
You want to travel to work.
Therefore, you should fix your car. — Leontiskos

Is it you that is fixing the car? Or would it be better to say, 'have your car fixed'?

The non-hypothetical judgment includes (1), (2), and (3). The hypothetical judgment affirms (1) but not (2) or (3). Those who are paying attention may recognize that on this account moral acts are bound up with normative ends. — Leontiskos

Moral acts are all acts, not just normative ones, but yes, all of those are included.

Note that this is a logical analysis, not a linguistic analysis. Sometimes in everyday speech people will equivocate between, “He ought to do X if he wants Y,” and “He ought to do X because he wants Y.” Tone of voice, for example, often indicates whether the locution is hypothetical. — Leontiskos

I think this is intentional semantic blather. The because of ... phrasing does not in any way remove the nature of the statement as hypothetical. The state transition from now to any future may have causes, but those causes are themselves hypothetical because understanding them as causes can be in error (and is always in error to some degree). You may prefer not to answer to my post because it is too disintegrating of many of the assumptions not mentioned that went into this entire formulation. I understand, but, presumably, we are after truth, hunting it, here.

Note that a non-hypothetical judgment is not the same thing as a categorical imperative. We could say that all categorical imperatives are non-hypothetical judgments, but not all non-hypothetical judgments are categorical imperatives. For example, “You should fix your car,” is not a categorical claim because it only holds given certain circumstances. — Leontiskos

Just more semantic blather.

What clearly stated to you determines a non-hypothetical state? I promise you there is not one. To any experience of any chooser, any act past or present is hypothetical only.

Acts and regrets are non-hypothetical

Following in the footsteps of Philippa Foot, many are accustomed to claim that morality is merely a matter of hypothetical judgments, or that non-hypothetical judgments are rare. — Leontiskos

Yeah they are rare alright. They don't exist.

5 To give an indication of how gravely mistaken this opinion is, consider the fact that acts and regrets are all non-hypothetical. Each time we concretely choose and act we are making a non-hypothetical, all-things-considered judgment. — Leontiskos

We have zero chance to make any all-things-considered judgements. We are weak and immoral in so many ways that all beliefs and acts are flawed in many ways at the same time. One of those ways that is always true is that we cannot consider all things, ever. So saying that, using that phrasing, is foolish.

As soon as I decide whether to fix my car all of the previously-hypothetical considerations become non-hypothetical, and this is a large part of what it means “to make a decision” or “to decide.” To make a decision is to gather up all the hypothetical considerations and render an all-things-considered judgment. — Leontiskos

This is nonsense. Choices all involve failure, and all states involve the failures of other previous choices. No state is known. Known means 'in its entirety'. Only an objectively perfect being, 'God' could know anything. So to us moral agents that are not perfect every act is hypothetical even after decisions are made and a new state is formed. We do not know the past. We do not know the present state. We do not know the future. All of it is hypothetical.

Similarly, when we regret some act we are also making a non-hypothetical judgment. — Leontiskos

No, we are not. There is no such thing as a belief that is held at or with 100% certainty. So even the holding of the belief is hypothetical, let alone the belief itself and holding a belief is an act.

To say that one regrets an act is to judge that they should not have carried out that act, — Leontiskos

No it is not. You can still regret an act and still believe that you should have carried it out. This is just all too messy.

and this sort of judgment is never hypothetical; it never means, “I should not have done that if…” Such a hypo-thesis would undermine the regret itself, placing it in limbo. Therefore the idea that one can get along in life with only hypothetical judgments is absurd. — Leontiskos

Welcome to limbo.

What are examples of non-moral acts?

As noted above, the only non-moral acts are acts that do not flow from rational deliberation, such as absentmindedly stroking one’s beard. Or if the doctor hits your knee to check your reflexes and you kick him, you are not morally culpable because the kick did not flow from rational deliberation; it did not flow from you. The difference in these cases is that I am not choosing to act in any way. My body is doing something of its own accord, and these things do not count as moral acts. “Deliberation” is not for Aquinas something that must involve taking time in premeditation. The split-second braking to avoid a pedestrian is therefore a moral act, an act which flows from our humanness, our rational and intentional nature. — Leontiskos

These are all moral acts and choices. Even unconscious acts are a choice, finally. The fact that we immorally allow the structure of the body to carry them out without our consent is a lie. We consent to live therefore we consent to all these acts. It is still choice.

I will stop with Thesis 1 to see how this is received.