RichardY

Well the NAP is axiomatic, so you are arguing against something taken to be true. So in order "argue against it" a better way has to be put forward instead. --------------- Rational ---------------- Whether that is UPB; which to me looks like a re-work of Kant's Transcendental Idealism. Replacing God with the Self(or Self Ownership). Kants categorical imperative, applied to the state and taxation. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The imposition of order on the world perhaps. I was put off by Kant when I heard "Philosophy is worse than usless", when referring to his pure aprioi cognitions. I remember Stefan saying knowledge is empirical, Tabula Rasa(Blank Slate); rejection of apriori information. One other thing, I think as to whether a person acts virtuous or malevolent is dependent on their "Goodwill" according to Kant. It is after all possible to be passive aggressive without ever intiating the use of force, to effectively block someone, possibly endangering their survival or to act recklessly, which may cause others to calm to harm, not necessarily through no fault of theirs. Another thing I think might happen with Kants Transcendental Idealism is a splitting of consciousness, despite Kant's Categorical Imperative. Like When Stefan mentioned "Makers(Good) & Takers(Bad)" in a recent video, which I think is a false dichotomy. For instance; in the movie "Instinct" starring Anthony Hopkins, the word "Takers" is used to refer to the human civilization. In contrast Maker is never used, instead the point is that people lived in nature and were a part of it, rather than the rationalisations by civilized society. The word "Maker" is a rationalisation ex post facto and adds nothing. Instead I think the "Haves and Have Nots." as the original saying is a better way of consciousness. Something more in line perhaps with Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle or the Bible perhaps. Evil or the Bad being a deprivation of the Good, and not something externalised on to others. ----------------------Arational (Conjurgation of Opposites) ------------------------------------- What I'm interested in, is whether there might be a way of resolving various opposites as a way of thinking, a kind of fuzzy logic perhaps. The resolution of dualistic lines of thinking into a more monistic undividied consciousness. I think there are a few texts that deal with Monistic thinking the, Tao Te Ching being one. Dichtomies between Stength and Weakness, Rich and Poor, Chaos & Order, Good and Evil, Yes & No, 1 & 0. I'm interested in texts related to non-dual thinking.

I don't think the NAP is something you can argue against, I think it comes down to whether you want "a floating point" principle (an approximation) or something more real like UPB. Or perhaps to act to act in a non-dualistic way.

The justification of a principle, such as the NAP debases it, and the NAP is based purely on justification. Does a person decide to feel aggression towards someone drug dealing to kids, or do they just feel it, whether they act on their aggression or not.

Well if you want to invest your resources in rehabilitating Pedo's, Rapists, Murderers and Thieves. Good for you.

Sounds like that Star Trek Episode Time Squared where there's the "negative(past)" and "positive(future)" Picard.

Inferred when you said the stagnation of physics until the mid 17th Century. Maybe there's philosophers or scientists other than Descarte, perhaps just the spirit of the age? Not sure if people would have been openly atheistic, with a pure focus on materialism, and taking consciousness as not a part of an immaterial and permanent soul. The whole subject object dichtonmy.

Monarchs were murdered in Early Roman history, given a mix of italic races and frequent immigration to Rome. Monarchy is dependent on family & clan loyalty. One major reason they had a Republic more often then a Monarchy. The Emperors had moral authority (imperative), but there was still a Republic, before it was gutted. France for example was a Republic under the Emperors. If you take Iceland as an example, having a monarchy would be stupid. What is actually going to fund the monarchy? Monopolies are impractical there if enforced by a monarchy. And there is no local or regional threat. Monarchies need high value(addictive/corrupting) goods, Ivory, Gold, Oil, spices, premium alcohol, manufacturies, in order to grant monopolies to leverage any power. For instance, Drugs in Morroco (Monarchy). Drugs & Child slavery, Thailand (Monarchy). Plus it's a death sentence to criticise the King in those countries. They're backed by the USA, so any dissent has no chance. Besides the Monarch is often corrupted, addicted to something or blackmailed in someway. Probably pestered for no end of favours or "protected" for some benefit. Best they can do for themselves is keep out of the way, and live it up, probably. Carthage Republic Dutch Republic French Republic Roman Republic Republic of Venice England. Often governed by a Regency Council.(functionally a Republic at times) Republics literally kick ass pound for pound, in flesh. Monarchies have to be genocidal to sustain themselves, otherwise they're just a figurehead, may have eugenics benefits in terms of physical fitness. No state would be best, even Plato says so in the first few pages of the Republic, stopped reading after that. Though with tribal loyalties and conquest & domination, highly prevelant in many human hearts, you're not going to get rid of the state, unless you get rid of or manage that first. Personally I think the state should involve open payment in blood or self-funded. Skin in the Game type of thing. Either way, why watch soap operas or horrors when you can read about people getting chewed up for real, as entertainment?...no, Black humour. They should have a way of overcoming things though, otherwise that's just boring. Played too many videogames perhaps. I wonder if it is a good idea to try and plumb the depths of a "heart of darkness". Musing perhaps. Peace is preferable, not worse then zero sum, though if backed into a corner, who loses least badly and survives over who does not, prevails.

Ok so metaphysical Dualism between mind and matter. Allowed for an objective approach to science, a seperation of the material and spiritual, with increaesed focus on the material. Understanding the fragments to better understand the whole. Though from that mindset you could say that god intelligently designed the heart and all the organs. As opposed to the organs being, various refinements of adaptations to the environment. Though the inital fragmentation required to understand, perhaps that is not possible with a purely teleological mindset. I wouldn't say the organs act in a teleological way, merely that they are. For example, I think many insects like wasps do not have hearts, instead they have holes in their exo-skeleton that allow for the diffusion of oxygen. Not necessarily new ideas as such, Democritus being the noted orign of the atomic theory, followed by Epicurus. Though I read that even his theory was changed to account for chance, by Lucretius. Materialism leading to either hedonism or nihilism, kind of the same.

I was actually skeptical of Truth being an Architectronic good. Though I didn't want to say consciousness/Idealism as I don't know what I mean by that. I mean it would be fair to say that the MSM doesn't pursue "The Truth", but "their version of it". Instead of a focus on "The Truth", perhaps a focus on consciousness would be more beneficial. The ability to incorporate various aspects into a greater consciousness, to explore the unknown, self or the undiscovered country. I think there is a tendency for the truth to get emmaciated. The whole truth... I posted some quotes from Nietszche in the thread "something rather than nothing at all" Truth as "Being" Ontological. Perhaps a kind of psychological "truth" Truth as "Becoming" Teleological. Aristotlian. - I think Stefan would be somewhere here. I remember him saying Truth as a process in "On Truth the Tyranny of Illusion" so perhap a seperate category. Probably will re-read and take notes. Truth as flux. Uncertainty, Nietzschean. No truth in particular. "There is no Truth". Truth as Objectivity. Ayn Rand. Truth as Subjectivity. Berkley, perhaps. Or throw the concept of truth out completely, perhaps a kind of Pantheism or Idealism. Although I still consider myself to exist as a subject in some form.... Not necessarily, you might be inclined to cause as much destruction as possible, how much destruction can I cause? Murder could still be carried out as an act. primarily of vengence, even if perhaps some justice were involved, perhaps to rectify a perceived miscarriage of justice, or alternatively a development of a blood feud. It might be consistent with the truth of survival, which overules morality? Though what survives, could that be called scarcily worth it. So if your son or daughter are in a house fire and you do nothing, but freeze or panic. Could it be said that you don't really value them? I don't think there is a paradox between happy and unhappiness. As happiness or unhappiness still implies you have a goal, a child could be ill and you would be unhappy or they could be really healthy and that would make you happy. If you are unhappy and that helps you to act better, well and good. Maybe if you are happy, you may act more inclined to try other things to see what is possible and prepare for the future.

Will to Power - Nietzsche 616 (1885-1886) That the value of the world lies in our interpretation (--that other interpretations than merely human ones are perhaps somewhere possible--); that previous interpretations have been perspective valuations by virtue of which we can survive in life, i. e., in the will to power, for the growth of power; that every elevation of man brings with it the overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every strengthening and increase of power opens up new perspectives and means believing in new horizons--this idea permeates my writings. The world with which we are concerned is false, i. e., is not a fact but a fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth." ---------------------------------- "there is no truth". What I think Nietzsche means is: "no truth". Would suggest a singular particular kind of truth, through the "no". Where as in principle truth, should be be all encompassing and universal. Where as we are "in truth" and truth is therefore relative, and nothing in particular. The use of THE Truth suggests a seperate object. Instead of the Truth, perhaps a certain striving for an increase in consciousness, maybe more appropriate. An individual exploration of the unknown, as opposed to a comparison of the known. ------------------------ 617 (1883-1885) To impose upon becoming the character of being--that is the supreme will to power . Twofold falsification, on the part of the senses and of the spirit, to preserve a world of that which is, which abides, which is equivalent, etc . That everything recurs is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being:--high point of the meditation. From the values attributed to being proceed the condemnation of and discontent with becoming, after such a world of being had first been invented . The metamorphoses of what has being (body, God, ideas, laws of nature, formulas, etc . ) "Beings" as appearance; reversal of values; appearance was that which conferred value--. Knowledge-in-itself in a world of becoming is impossible; so how is knowledge possible? As error concerning oneself, as will to power, as will to deception. Becoming as invention, willing, self-denial, overcoming of oneself: no subject but an action, a positing, creative, no "causes and effects." Art as the will to overcome becoming, as "eternalization, " but shortsighted, depending on the perspective: repeating in miniature, as it were, the tendency of the whole. Regarding that which all life reveals as a diminutive formula for the total tendency; hence a new definition of the concept "life" as will to power . Instead of "cause and effect" the mutual struggle of that which becomes, often with the absorption of one's opponent; the number of becoming elements not constant. Uselessness of old ideals for the interpretation of the totality of events, once one knows the animal origin and utility of these ideals; all, moreover, contradictory to life. Uselessness of the mechanistic theory--it gives the impression of meaninglessness . The entire idealism of mankind hitherto is on the point of changing suddenly into nihilism--into the belief in absolute worthlessness, i. e., meaninglessness. The destruction of ideals, the new desert; new arts by means of which we can endure it, we amphibians. - Presupposition: bravery, patience, no "turning back," no haste to go forward. (N. B. Zarathustra adopts a parodistic attitude toward all former values as a conseguence of his abundance.) ---------------------------- Like a gyroscope. If there is no fixed point, one must adjust to the event horizon. Not to combat it, against a tide of chaos against which you can never prevail. But to accept what chaos you can, and change the rest. ------------------------- Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus. When the rest of the philosophic crowd rejected the testimony of the senses because it showed multiplicity and change, he rejected their testimony because it represented things as if they had permanence and unity. Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence. "Reason" is the reason we falsify the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The "apparent" world is the only one: the "true" world is merely added by a lie. ------------------------------

@Mole "So I should do Science(Knowing)." Perhaps truth is not an Architronic good. Baring in mind Aristotle says action and not necessarily relfection, implied by should or could. So by Architectronic, we basically mean an overall interconnecting good, that provides structure? If truth is not considered to be an Architectronic Good. Then perhaps consciousness (or Idealism) is.

@Mole So could truth be considered the "Architectonic" Good?

It's not like people are sealed in a bubble, and even if they were, there could be no context to their communication or action. What I mean by "the lag theory of freewill" (out of sync) or moist robot hypothesis is freewill occurs as some kind of error or due to a gap in space. "Nature abhors a vaccum" - Aristotle (didn't know the quote initially was Aristotle). Wikipedia - "He also argued against the void in a more abstract sense (as "separable"), for example, that by definition a void, itself, is nothing, and following Plato, nothing cannot rightly be said to exist." Conscious memories perhaps. Though there are instance that show the retainment of unconscious ones, language is a clear example. Though perhaps in theory if would be possible for an organism to function to a certain extent if it were to copy or use instinct to function. Whole undividied consciousness is not necessarily a necessity, as far as human experience understands it. What is perceived as whole by consciousness is really a construction of consciousness. It's still acknowledges matter to be first, whether it could or not.... It's not Physicalism then, but Neutral Monism or Property dualism. What makes the brain special? Why wouldn't smaller organisms have a very limited sense of consciousness, from their nervous systems. Planarian flatworms can regenerate from thin slithers and grow into a worm with a head, initally thought maybe earthworms. Makes me think of the movie "Men in Black", the regrowing head scene.

So a person has "freewill" under physicalism in so far as their will, is out of sync with reality. Would be like if you were playing a First person shooter online, someone goes out of sync and you miss shooting them. The Lag theory of frewill? Or possibly the "moist robot hypothesis" Physicalism still does not explain consciousness. A person may act conscious as in after a major accident or sleepwalking, but not have consciousness. I guess it might be possible that only yourself has consciousness (solipsism). Trust me when I say I have consciousness, and am not a philosophical zombie.... Physicalism would hold matter to be primary and "consciousness" to be an after effect, materialism. I'm more in line with "Substance"(Aristotlian) rather than "Materialism"(Locke), which means my current metaphysics is Neutral Monism, which means that mental affects take equal precedent to the material, and consciousness as a whole is a construction of the interacting elements. However I would entertain the idea as "consciousness" as primary, being the mind of God idea, or Subjective Idealism.

Why not move out of NJ, New Jersey? At least you're not in South Africa or Europe. Got an entire continent to explore, if you're lost.

More that if you were frozen out of the social group in the past, you freeze in reality. Goes below -20c right. Not that the danger is as real now with modern technology, still, dependent on oil though. In terms of expense, things don't have to be monetary per se, it can be in terms of social cooperation, car pooling for example. What I mean is that any dissent is more difficult, when the cost of living is so high. It's not like you can effectively complain, passively resist, participate in the general culture when you have high expenses. You could still Gatecrash parties though, in a way you couldn't in other cultures. In India people could passively resist, the whole Ghandi thing, warmer climate. Yeah the welfare state in Sweden is huge, but that was only initially sustained by the manufacturing base built up by supplying other countries with tools & weapons, being a "neutral country". What sustains it now? I know that Swedes do work accross the border in Norway for higher wages, or many young people work in Ireland where the tax rate corporate and personal is much lower. Many companies are registered in Eastern Europe to avoid many of the regulations and higher wages in Scandanvia despite being based there. Like anywhere, if you have connections, you have have opportunity. "I am a rock, I am an Island...." Personally I think it's a behaviour to avoid inbreeding. Which would be much more devastating, to a lower birth rate. Given the scarcity, but even distribution of resources as well, introversion would have been selected as a more prevelant personality. See similar things personality wise in my own family. They are not particularly social, but need "independence". Was interesting the first interview Stefan did with Tommy Robinson, where he talked about middle class vs working class and the difference in socialbility. I did wonder if social activity groups might be successful, given the many small isolated villages in Norway. I still think Norway is more individualistic than Sweden. Sweden even has much of it government and military modelled after the French (more collectivist) Where as Norway is closer to the UK. Norwegian are also more broader and stockier than the swedes, given the thin soil and rocky terrain. The swedes are more slender and style orientated. Thought it was funny Norway didn't really have a set Alphabet/script, unitil fairly recent history, when they borrowed the Danish Bokmal. That's not really individualism, but hedonism. Individualism would be, if you have made a commitment to be a mother or a father, you are a mother or father; and not a careerist, pleasure seeker(hedonism) or scholar. What's lacking is perhaps self knowledge either through, community interaction, religion/psychology or philosophy. "The female-trap". Really women will work independently in Sweden, so a husband could put his feet up?

One thing is that if there is neutral monism and morality is dependent on Genetics (which to a large degree, I think it is), isn't this now in the realms of moral relativism? Why shouldn't consciousness take precendent to physical reality? Maybes it a Chicken and Egg scenario. Haven't read George Berkley's work on subjective Idealism, but it denies the concept of materialism, from talks I've seen. As long as the subject concieves of physical reality isn't this enough to do what is morally right, and whatever a person needs to survive a rule of thumb is generally good enough. The Lord will provide kind of thing. Interested in what some of the psychological affects maybe of having an implicit of explicit metaphysic, it might not even be correct but good enough. Determinism surfices for many. But like with what judegment you meet it shall be meeted you. If you're no different from a rock fundamentally, like a rolling stone.... what else is there.

Neutral Monism?, basically where I'm at. I'm going to go with oblivion, when you're organically dead as an entity. Although force powers and stuff under Idealism, would be pretty awesome. Haven't really looked into subjective idealism, but it looks more plausible than determininsm and less boring. Universal in morality, potentially as well. It's an ugly planet, it's a bug planet!!!! Nuke em. Rico. What if a tribes morality is more nomadic in nature. So theirs levels of hostility to defend hunting grounds, no private property as such, more of a cooperative. Would that potentially mean morality is dependent on personality? Would you say then, that morality is not universal?

Is some ways Determinism is true in terms of pure empiricism, but it is not, the truth. Good and Bad are statements of preference. What determines that preference? If you're a determinist, Taste or the Tribe. Good and Evil, however imply some interaction, which I would say occurs through choice in a persons morality. Whether Evil is taken as a deprivation of good, and therefore doesn't really exist. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotlian view. Or is a choice in a persons morality & Ethics where they chose to be evil for some pleasure, over acting morally, though it may have caused some discomfort. So you would say morality is a mixture of tribalism and genetics? But does being conscious of that, change anything? Would morality therefore not apply towards alien life or undiscovered tribes?

But if all causes are determined, how can something be good or bad behaviour. What defines the good or bad behaviour?

Ok so define morality.

So what does morality mean to you as a concept? Ok so who is the WE who determines morality? More an enquiry, generally prefer to hold thoughts in reserve and see how things unfold.

Well if morality is determined what determines it? How is it defined.

What determines morality?

Why not deal with what we know, rather than presuppose some creator? Is that necessary? I don't know, but what I do know is X, Y & Z. I do know there is a finite amount of matter in the univerese logically. Could it be otherwise? I don't know. The following is me musing on various metaphysical positions. To write all my thoughts out in full would take too long. To try and eliminate God, I think the most viable metaphysical positions are Subjective Idealism or Nietzschean Physicialism. --------------------------------------------------------- The Leibnizian Best of all Worlds (Monadology - Neoplationism), is kind of f*cked up, you could literally torture somebody, but in the end it'll all work out for the best. The idea kind of stuck after listening to "Bertrand Russel history of Western philosophy", referring to Leibniz corresponding with Katherine the Great, oppressing peasents. Basically "You're torturing them for their own good." - WRONG Absolute Idealism (Empiricism), Islam, (allah wills it), Determinism.(Collective Solipsism). Satre. Existence precedth Essence (The fact of being, comes before consciousness). While in some sense, this makes the most sense if you think of a person as a TV set. Also has Utilitarianism as an offshoot- WRONG Subjective Idealism (The Mind of God) Man is however, morally superior and morally worse than God. Only read some of Carl Jung's Answer to Job, which I think had a Subjective Idealist vibe about it- POSSIBLE Substance Dualism Perhaps possible, but irrevelant to consider if consciousness is acknowledged, rather than be put off to another dimension or universe. Iceing on the cake. Transcendental Idealism (Rationalism) Good people can't be fundamentally Evil. Evil people can't be fundamentally Good. Listening to "Kant's Critique of Pure Reason" he literally says "philosophy is worse than useless."- IRREVELANT. In the realm of Mathematics. Nietzschean Physicalism. (Imperfect Knowledge). Despite many people considering Nietzsche to be a Moral Nihilist, he is not a Moral Nihilist. Other wise he would not have wrote "On the Genealogy of Morality". Instead he chose to focus on amorality as opposed to morality. Through his works Thus spoke Zarathustra and the AntiChrist(though he went crazy shortly after). I think there is kind of a Sacred & Profane element to Nietzscean Physicalism. "Horah for the Pirate King!" Ecce Homo - Behold the Man. Rand Objectivism. (Perfect Knowledge) Rand is the moral nihlist, A is A. How can there be morality when you deal with perfect knowledge? "I am the very model of the modern major general" - Possible, but not human. Maybe even Satanic, the philosophical outlook was used by satanic orgaisations apparently. ---------------- Consciousness occurs before matter - God. Consciousness occurs during matter - A Person. Consciousness occurs after matter - A TV Set.