The answer is 42

General discussion about the Elder Race, Life, the Universe and Everything.
User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:07 pm

Raytrek wrote:I came to an understanding of Nihilism, and doing so found it a liberation of attachment. In being free from the values of everything, which is an interesting state,
Didn't you just shift your values to those held by Nihilism? By accepting the tenants of Nihilism, you must therefore be giving them a "high value" in your consciousness!
Raytrek wrote:I found I was free to assign any value I want to anything I want and remain able to dissolve those values at any given time. Of course I could remain in the pure Nihilistic state and be free of attachment, pressure and the need to justify anything to myself or others, but I found after a while that it was monotomous, lacking zest.
Sure that you're not confusing the state of nihilism with the state of denial? :D
Raytrek wrote:Yet knowing my kind acts are motivated by a selfish gain does not diminish the fact that kindness is performed because of it, so it still seems justified. In this sense, selfishness is truth and selflessness is a delusion.
So now you know "conditional" love. There are acts of unconditional love, which are performed with no personal gain, whatsoever. Just as you need light to create dark, you need selfless to make selfish.
Raytrek wrote:So even though I know my values are artificial, they afford me a satisfaction and pleasure that is unattainable in the pure Nihilistic state and it is all a value that I have designed for my own personal comfort, rather than an aquired and obligatory value system that I have been groomed and culture to dictate me over my life time.
There are both natural and artificial values. I submit you have identified your artificial values, but have yet to discover the natural ones... those things that you will always hold true, that form the essence of your identity.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Thu Aug 02, 2012 4:35 am

Didn't you just shift your values to those held by Nihilism? By accepting the tenants of Nihilism, you must therefore be giving them a "high value" in your consciousness!
Well in the pure Nihilistic state even Nihilism has no value, many Nihilists understand this contradiction. But I am not a Nihilist but understanding it has shown me the value of values, because a state without values affords no satisfaction. Contradictory because the value of satisfaction should not even apply, nor should the sense of bordom or monotomy. But as I said, why waste freedom on nothingness when you are free to anything, even if it is illusory?
Sure that you're not confusing the state of nihilism with the state of denial?
Possibly, maybe even probably. I know one thing, the search for complete psychological balance continues.
So now you know "conditional" love. There are acts of unconditional love, which are performed with no personal gain, whatsoever. Just as you need light to create dark, you need selfless to make selfish.
Whenever anyone gains from anything I do, regardless of personal cost to myself, I feel like a nice person and it validates that I have a value. I have never encountered a situation where I have done what others benefit from and not felt good about it.
There are both natural and artificial values. I submit you have identified your artificial values, but have yet to discover the natural ones... those things that you will always hold true, that form the essence of your identity.
Do you mean like the compulsion to add value to morality when I am free to add value to anything I want? Why do I naturally take that step when I have no reason and no way to conclude it a superior way than anything else? I think it is a way to optimize bliss, the whole construct is designed to do that and currently seems to work.

If that is not what you mean can you provide examples so I can clarify, to myself, your points?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:36 am

Raytrek wrote:But as I said, why waste freedom on nothingness when you are free to anything, even if it is illusory?
So make it a healthy illusion--and reality will follow.
Raytrek wrote:Whenever anyone gains from anything I do, regardless of personal cost to myself, I feel like a nice person and it validates that I have a value. I have never encountered a situation where I have done what others benefit from and not felt good about it.
Have you considered you may be confusing "value" with a natural, biological response? I notice that when I'm sick, I feel terrible and when I'm healthy, I feel good. There is no "value" to it, as my immune system doesn't go out and party after kicking some microbial butt. When you do something nice for someone, and that person gets all charged up in response, it is a natural consequence that you'll pick up some of that energy, bringing you more into harmony, and spiritually healthier.
Raytrek wrote:Do you mean like the compulsion to add value to morality when I am free to add value to anything I want?
Would you, as a knowing an conscious act of the result, deliberately refuse to add value to morality, when the choice was presented?

If not, then you have found one of the defining aspects of yourself.
Raytrek wrote:Why do I naturally take that step when I have no reason and no way to conclude it a superior way than anything else? I think it is a way to optimize bliss, the whole construct is designed to do that and currently seems to work.
Understand that there are two ways to interact with the system:

Rivalry: Optimize bliss by causing despair to others. (Win the battle)
Rapport: Optimize bliss by the feedback you get from helping others obtain bliss.

Artificial values are usually based in rivalry; natural values are based in rapport (harmonic amplification).

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:53 am

I look at it this way: Regardless of the behaviour of everyone else, you introspect and find the will to be kind, kindness is the only true value/principle in the universe and all wisdom is built upon it. The thing with the ignorant is they lack this most basic piece of knowledge and intern know nothing, they certainly think they do, but without that fundamental guideline, they interpret absolutely everything wrongly.

This is a disability far worse than any intellectual disorder, such as down syndrome because you will find that D.S sufferers are mostly kind and empathic, but these people have an intelligence which can translate to wealth and power, all coupled with ignorance. Despite the danger they frequently prove they are, these are piss-poor excuses for human beings, a cause to be pitied not hated.

The thing with people of understanding is that none of them are divided, but every single ignorant person conflicts with each other. An ignorant person has no power of words to harm an understander, because their lack of credibility is evident in the way they speak derogatively. The only threats they pose are physically, and that may be by violence or finances.

But the hope of humanity has absolutely nothing to do with the ignorant, how could they be a hope in any fashion? So don’t look to them because you only lose hope that way, look instead to the understanders because all hope resides in them. However, kindness does not mean turning the other cheek to be bitchslapped by bullies, it is a kindness to protect those weaker empathic people by standing up against ignorance and to make all kinds of attempts at jogging understanding into those of influence. It also means supporting understanders where ever you recognize them.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Raytrek wrote:I look at it this way: Regardless of the behaviour of everyone else, you introspect and find the will to be kind, kindness is the only true value/principle in the universe and all wisdom is built upon it.
Interesting statement with your new avatar icon... the Defiant blasting away! :D
"Love thy jem'hadar, as thyself?"
Raytrek wrote:The thing with the ignorant is they lack this most basic piece of knowledge and intern know nothing, they certainly think they do, but without that fundamental guideline, they interpret absolutely everything wrongly.
From my life experiences, it is not the individuals (ignorant or otherwise), but when they get together in groups under a common flag... then they find the need to inflict their views on everyone else and assimilate them into their way of thinking--or else!

Many, many years ago I read a book called, "The Crowd" (Gustave le Bon, 1896). It was definitely an eye-opener for me. I recommend it highly. It is also curious that the French word for crowd is foule, from where we get the word, "fool." That about sums it up! (Found it online here: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3l ... Crowds.pdf)
Raytrek wrote:But the hope of humanity has absolutely nothing to do with the ignorant, how could they be a hope in any fashion? So don’t look to them because you only lose hope that way, look instead to the understanders because all hope resides in them.
I always found Delenn's comments to Earth reporters of the future discussing Babylon 5, to be right to the point with those who claim "to know" things...

"You do not wish to know, you only wish to speak.
That which you do know, you do not understand.
That which you do not know, you invent!"

The only thing I know for certain, is that I don't know anything for certain! And that's the way I lead my life and my research. Always considering new ideas and updating my world view to encompass what I can. That's why I've never been able to write a book on the RS2 research, or even the information on this site. It is never to the point of "this is it"... I found in this last attempt to write the RS2 book, was that I was doing a complete rewrite every month. Of course, the process in trying to write the book was what spurred the revisions! Trying to do a formal presentation in writing really makes you think about the way you think.
Raytrek wrote:However, kindness does not mean turning the other cheek to be bitchslapped by bullies, it is a kindness to protect those weaker empathic people by standing up against ignorance and to make all kinds of attempts at jogging understanding into those of influence. It also means supporting understanders where ever you recognize them.
I have found there are only three virtues needed: kindness, compassion and moderation.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:16 pm

Most of this is taken from a post I started, no one else really got involved.

Kindness does not mean turning the other cheek to be bitchslapped by bullies, it is a kindness to protect those weaker empathic people by standing up against ignorance and to make all kinds of attempts at jogging understanding into those of influence. It also means supporting understanders where ever you recognize them. So is kindness violated by this idea, because the feelings of the ignorant are hurt when you stand up to them? The thing is it is kind to protect the weak from the ignorant by standing up to them. There is nothing an ignorant person can say to harm a wise person because the credibility of the ignorant is taken away by their own derogatory words. However, everything a wise person says cripple an ignorant person, that the only retort is violence or subversion.

Kindness always applies, even in enforcement you never need malice. Yes, it is not only a kindness to those you protect but also an opportunity to get the offender the help they need. But not all confrontations will have a pleasant ending, ignorance IS a principle on its own, not a true one like kindness, but one strong nonetheless.

There is no right or wrong, good or bad, but there are these two distinct factors about everything: Contructive relationships and destructive forces in nature are the fundamental manifestation, but as that translates to human beings is as empathy/apathy, kindness/ignorance and love/fear. (to name the key factors)
In the causality of everything, we have what I think is best described as Yin/Yang because it does not place a possitive/negative connotation on anything, but they all correspond in the order I placed them because fundamentally they all share the same characteristics.

As in nature you can see that there are “bad” contructive relationships, an example would be cancer, and likewise there are “good” destructive forces, certain treatments of cancer could be interpreted as such, or how tornados wipe out trailer trash. (there are heaps of real examples of this, you may be able to think of some yourself)
But as there is this flip in the benefits of the roles of these things on in the natural world, it would only make sense that the same is true regarding the human aspects that I mensioned. But as we take explosives to destroy a building (you may be familiar with) in the early days of this technology the results were chaotic, but in time we discovered ways to control the blast in a way to have less collateral damage at the site. So it would make sense that we find a way to focus the destructive forces of the human aspect appropriately also.

Why kindness is preferential over ignorance is obvious, but for the hell of it: We as humans are a constuctive relationship and as long as that relationship is constructive, we would not want to destroy it. Then when you look at our very nature, you see we respond to those key emotions love and fear, that for the most part we find things like babies and puppies a passive and nice sensation, whereas regardless of the exhilirating enjoyment fear often brings us (an aspect of that flip in benefits, as before) a threatening situation is usually tense, heightened, alarming.
(I also seen this video on how most of our 52 genes are inactive but the emotion of love touches down on more points in the sequence than fear, as though we some how get more out of our dna by love than we do from fear, I suppose more does not inherently suggest “better” but it makes some kind of point on an emotion/science level)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XF8BsJ ... re=related

I know we all hate the idea of forcing anything on people, and you are absolutely right, I don’t object to that. But every philosophy you currently enjoy as a free right is being taken away from other people who deserve it.
This thread is not about forcing anything but only about coming to reasonable conclusions to provide everyone with the same freedom you enjoy. It is bad to enforce but it is empathic to try to find a way to appropriately justify everything our civilization enforces and ignores.

Any suggestions of what is a right, is enough. You can also add if you think it is a basic or an earned right and why you think that so others can discuss it to see if we can conclude it or reasonably define the responsibilities that come with it.
For example, people say freedom is a basic right, but if that were true we would have no justification for prisons and generally seperating certain people and animals from other people and animals. So freedom is a basic right as far as you meet the responsibilities to keep it, but what are they?

The responsibilities of freedom depend a lot on not hurting people, but if that were the only factor then we would have no powers to stop others who hurt people. This is a big key to it all. All situations vary, some times you have options to stop people from harming others, evident because we actually have prisons and generally certain people and animals seperated from other people and animals. Other times killing is the only option, but this is not always strait forward either because everyone makes mistakes on judgement calls.
So then we have to establish the intent of force, malicious or human error, deliberate or accidental, if the person paniced, was neglectful or was in clear sensibility.
If they were clearly sensible then we establish motive, was it justifiable or excessive, then deem accordingly.
But then we have cases where the cause of harm is not dirrect, that people make various decisions everyday, if they know who and how it will effect others must be established. Then we have the motives for the decision. The scope of the decision determines accountability for the micro-management of the effects, and if the person in question cannot manage that area appropriately then the area must be divided into areas that are manageable.

Then you have the fact that some areas are more profitable than others and you have areas where the responsibilty to manage outweigh the resorces that area provides to manage it. So generally, all areas cannot be completely independant of each other but the profits of one area have a certain responsibility to the management of other areas. That is where we as human beings and a civilization are neglectful and deny liability.

It is called subsidiary rights and responsibilities and every buisiness, every individual person in the world is liable to it, and deserve it. No one is perfect and we can never expect them to be, but what we can do is provide the environment for people to be imperfectly free. We are imperfectly free, well at least a lot of us are. Pretty much everyone I know has the opportunity to be self-sufficient to their greatest potential an therefore become self-determinate. Should that be all that counts?

Every country that has these opportunities for their citizens has a sustainable population growth, some of them actually have a negative population growth. Sure culture plays its part in that but culture primarily depends on the education level of the citizens. The trends of the group mentality deminish as the people become more independant and free to make their own choices.
It would cost the world a lot to do something about this, but the benefits would mean that we become more sustainable and as we do, the quality of life improves for everyone and we actually start to pay back all that it cost us to do it. But most of all it means that an uncountable number of people need not die in poverty every day and this reduces the global crime levels, including terrorism, uncountably.
Last edited by Raytrek on Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:25 pm

LoneBear wrote:The only thing I know for certain, is that I don't know anything for certain!

Funny you should say that, I said that myself not long ago. Yes it is the main difference between something being a theory and an absolute scientific fact, in a lot of cases.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:58 pm

You don’t have to enforce a thing by law, it is about every one of us just saying it is ok, its a right, its not my place, someone being a dick is fine until it happens to you. So you ignore it? Yes that is nobel, but cowardly, grow nutz and stand up to ignorance, lest you want a cesspool society.

Plenty of people stand up for ignorance all because nobel cowards decide its their right.
Forget about beliefs, what do you need them for when you have natural and REAL empathic sensibilities inside you that YOU are responsible for standing up for as a principle.

So people have the right to be a dick, that’s fair enough, but you have the right to call them out on it and the right to refuse deflection of responsibility for their own actions.
If you are not comfortable in your power and authority then sub-contract it but take on subsidiary rights and responsibilities with it.
Ask yourself whos freedom is greater than their duty or liability? Each of us equal in that relation from bottom to very top, we have accountability to our own behaviour in each our designated roles. Individual cells of the one organism, any entity outside of this principle is cancer. Each of us an independant identity within a collective identity, Humanity, each of us with freedom, duty and liabiltity.

You are always free to make judgement calls on your own behaviour but just remember the equal measure of duty and liability that comes with that right.
Don’t confuse understanding with demands, there is opportunity for both empathy and pure logic in that reasoning.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:48 pm

Raytrek wrote:Plenty of people stand up for ignorance all because nobel cowards decide its their right.
Intelligent people do not need others to tell them what to do, nor how to behave. In a fear-based society such as humanity, ignorance is bliss--and very easy to manipulate--so it is promoted.
Raytrek wrote:Forget about beliefs, what do you need them for when you have natural and REAL empathic sensibilities inside you that YOU are responsible for standing up for as a principle.
Not everyone has those empathies. I'd bet that most people cannot see outside of their own ego.
Raytrek wrote:So people have the right to be a dick, that’s fair enough, but you have the right to call them out on it and the right to refuse deflection of responsibility for their own actions.
You have the right to do (or be) anything you want, providing you do not infringe upon the rights of others. That was what made Dick Solomon so funny on 3rd Rock--he was a dick to everyone, by constantly infringing upon their basic rights to things like privacy, humility and the pursuit of happiness.
Raytrek wrote:Ask yourself whos freedom is greater than their duty or liability?
If you want to rate freedom, you'll have difficulty because it is not a "counting" system. Freedom is relative, and if you have relatives, you know how little freedom you have when dealing with them. You freedom ends where another begins. It is more of a field effect than a value.
Raytrek wrote:Individual cells of the one organism, any entity outside of this principle is cancer.
Cancer is an internal body thing... you don't catch it. A virus would be a more appropriate analogy.

But even with an internal cancer, if the entity has value to continue on, then eventually enough antibodies get together and eliminate the cancer, sort of like what is now happening, worldwide, with the "get rid of corporate government" movements. Tea parties are antibodies.
Raytrek wrote:Each of us an independant identity within a collective identity, Humanity, each of us with freedom, duty and liabiltity.
"Liability" is imposed on a person by another. Is that what you mean, or are you talking about "responsibility", a self-imposed condition?
Raytrek wrote:You are always free to make judgement calls on your own behaviour but just remember the equal measure of duty and liability that comes with that right.
If it is a liability, then it is a privilege, not a right, as it is granted by another. For example, you do not have a right to owe and pay taxes. But a liability can be imposed upon you for accepting a benefit from another, with the resulting liability.
Raytrek wrote:Don’t confuse understanding with demands, there is opportunity for both empathy and pure logic in that reasoning.
It was once explained to me that there are three levels to understanding: apprehension, awareness and comprehension. Not sure how "demands" fit into that.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:16 pm

"Liability" is imposed on a person by another. Is that what you mean, or are you talking about "responsibility", a self-imposed condition?

My point is that people only seem to have two concerns, freedom and liability. They are free to make money but they have certain limited liabilities with that right. Once their liabilities are met, their only duty is to more freedom. Duty is not really something you can enforce but we have certain responsibilities and if we do not meet them, despite if others object or not, we ruin things but not just for ourselves. So in the case where harm is derived for not meeting certain duties, are people not liable?
So basically our rights include the responsibility to focus destructive forces toward a productive end, to minimize collateral damage.


But I mainly want an opinion on this idea, flaws and merits.

The key point is that you take the money you need to fix the world up, this not only includes implimenting greener technologies but providing people with the means to become self-sufficient. The fact is that people who are self-sufficient, therefore countries with a high self-sufficiency rate, have lower population growths. You do this and we have a manageable, even sustainable, global population growth.
Then we don’t feel like jack-asses for poverty mortality, which is completely disgraceful of us, but you have a larger consumer base, which equals profits across the board. So what, fossil fuel industries decline? That is the point, but you would think that all the money they made they could invest in the profit making areas of the future, you gotta know when to cash your chips and start betting on a different pony.
Sum total: We take money from business in order to fix the world to increase business, sustainable and justifiable business. Where is the problem in that? It is simply a business opportunity and you get all the bleeding hearts and radicals off your back (or they find a new cause).


If every company in the world submits financial data, then a global economic map can be made. An idea, the economic mapping is freely accessable on the internet and anyone in the world with accounting and/or economic expertise can study it and make sure nothing is overlooked or mismanaged, suggestions with reasoning can be offered by anyone as to how the system can be most efficient. Gives those in the organization every opportunity to approach every situation fully informed, and people can see where they mess up and how that happened.
There are also super computers, like the climate change modelling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
That we can feed the economic mapping data into so as to run simulations. This is not a perfect thing but it can help iron out a lot of forseeable issues. (apparently I stole that idea from the Zeitgeist movie which I don't recall seeing)

So it is not so much about forcing any business to give up money for some kind of tax, but it is more the idea of a business proposition where business has the oportunity to make a profit, an investment. It would cost at first and probably for some time, but as we start to get on top of world problems you see a marked improvement. Once all the issues are solved, there would be very little reason for it still existing, it would only take what it reasonably needs, that would not be more harmful to the world than good in the long run.
Last edited by Raytrek on Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:01 pm

But this is not about forcing any business to do anything they do not want to do. So get that out of your head, this is not a suggestion of dictatorship. In business you make investments, some work out, others do not. This is a reasonable suggestion of how we can increase the consumer base, meaning greater profits to business, and eliminating the horrendous attributes of our world in the process.
Yes it costs, but as does every single investment one can gamble on, this is no different from a typical business opportunity, a calculated risk, but it is a risk we are taking on providing a kindness, that simply sweetens the deal. It is not about forcing anything but showing people the benefits of focusing forces in a reponsible way, a simple duty that we have. Duty has never forced anyone but the person with it, and how that has manifested is key.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:53 pm

My dad made a good point, that it was about self-interest, a business would not do it unless everyone else was doing it, but if enough others are doing it then the one who does not contribute could benefit from the larger consumer base anyway, without spending a cent. But why isn't there some kind of national government "Kyoto protocol" type of signitry that nations can subscribe to? I mean for poverty?

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:37 am

Raytrek wrote:My point is that people only seem to have two concerns, freedom and liability.
My concerns are duty, honor and responsibility. Freedom is a consequence of those concerns. But you have a point. From what I've seen, particularly in the younger generation, is that they want "freedom FROM liability" so they can act irresponsibly, without consequence. And they seem to be doing a pretty good job at that, hence the increasing demand for the police state.

Which do you see more of, when a person volunteers to do something?
1. They do it, in an effective and timely manner.
2. They just make excuses for not doing it, and it never gets done.
Raytrek wrote:They are free to make money but they have certain limited liabilities with that right. Once their liabilities are met, their only duty is to more freedom. Duty is not really something you can enforce but we have certain responsibilities and if we do not meet them, despite if others object or not, we ruin things but not just for ourselves. So in the case where harm is derived for not meeting certain duties, are people not liable?
With liability also comes punishment. So let's take a quick look at the justice system... every crime has its punishment, along with a buyout clause. "One year in prison, or a $5000 fine." Do you think Donald Trump would care about a $5000 fine? He probably spends more than that on dinner. For you and me, it would be as the law said, "One year in prison, or a $5 fine." Where is the deterrent there? So liability does not apply to the profiteers of business.

And, of course, corporations are artificial people, designed to protect the owners FROM liability of their actions. When they cause harm from not meeting certain duties, do you think Monsanto will go to jail?

IMHO, before you can address duty and liability, you will first have to address the equity in law, as it is the law that imposes both duty and liability.
Raytrek wrote:This is a reasonable suggestion of how we can increase the consumer base, meaning greater profits to business, and eliminating the horrendous attributes of our world in the process.
That's exactly how we got into the mess the world is in right now... putting massive profits into the hands of a few.
Raytrek wrote:that it was about self-interest, a business would not do it unless everyone else was doing it,
And there you have it: business is the problem, not the solution. In order to fix things, there must be an interest beyond SELF. I have noticed a direct correlation between the rise of business and the rise of ego-centrism over the last 50 years. Business preys on the ego to consume and ignore the repercussions of that consumption--such as the mountains of waste it produces. More ego, more self-interest, more profit. Good Ferengi motives!

Something else that people do not consider is that the resources of the Earth, the water, minerals, etc., serve a purpose to keep the Earth alive and healthy. They are extracted en masse, well past the ability of the Earth to replenish those resources, yet nothing but poison is returned to the Earth. We're supposed to be here to take care of the life of this world as good stewards, not to devour it and move on to another world like a plague of locusts.

Businesses have converted everything to mercantilism now... governments are incorporated, towns and cities are municipal corporations, heck, even PEOPLE are now legal corporate fictions known as a strawman that is created at birth along with the natural birth. If I look around and ask if the world is a better place than it was, 50 years ago, it doesn't take but a few milliseconds to conclude, NO, it is not.
Raytrek wrote:but if enough others are doing it then the one who does not contribute could benefit from the larger consumer base anyway, without spending a cent.
Business is consumption-based, hence requires consumers to consume far beyond the necessities--like cancer eating away at the body. Business has two outputs: profit for the few, and waste for the many. (See: "planned obsolescence", the deliberate design of products to fail so they have to be constantly purchased.)

I should also point out that consumerism is contradictory to self-sufficiency.
Raytrek wrote:But why isn't there some kind of national government "Kyoto protocol" type of signitry that nations can subscribe to? I mean for poverty?
Have you ever noticed that only people have poverty? It is an unknown concept to the billions of other life forms on the planet. Why is that?

User avatar
Gopi
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Gopi » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:37 pm

LoneBear wrote:The only thing I know for certain, is that I don't know anything for certain! And that's the way I lead my life and my research. Always considering new ideas and updating my world view to encompass what I can. That's why I've never been able to write a book on the RS2 research, or even the information on this site. It is never to the point of "this is it"... I found in this last attempt to write the RS2 book, was that I was doing a complete rewrite every month. Of course, the process in trying to write the book was what spurred the revisions! Trying to do a formal presentation in writing really makes you think about the way you think.
Isn't the starting statement a contradictory one? With that basis, one can learn a lot, but apply very little as application requires certainty. It brings to mind an image of an airplane that can fly all over the place, but is incapable of landing... that is the logical consequence of thoughts on that basis.

IMHO, it can never be "this is it", however, that does NOT mean that certainty has to be sacrificed. The things that are certain remain certain, only more certainties get added on.

I think the error crept up when the human experience was being differentiated: thinking and feeling. That is true of the soul and spirit alone, but the body is left out of the picture. It is only when thinking, feeling and ACTION is put into harmony that the thoughts gain full ground, and can actually lead to action. Else, all action would be circular, precisely what is being described by:"... doing a complete rewrite every month. "
It is time.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:19 am

Gopi wrote:Isn't the starting statement a contradictory one?
You're kidding! How DID I miss that??? :D

I was paraphrasing a famous quote by the Greek philosopher, Plato.
Gopi wrote:With that basis, one can learn a lot, but apply very little as application requires certainty. It brings to mind an image of an airplane that can fly all over the place, but is incapable of landing... that is the logical consequence of thoughts on that basis.
That's why the Chippewa call Aquarians the "butterfly clan," always bouncing around from flower to flower. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it!
Gopi wrote:IMHO, it can never be "this is it", however, that does NOT mean that certainty has to be sacrificed. The things that are certain remain certain, only more certainties get added on.
I"m not certain about that. Once something is certain, it cannot change and therefore cannot grow. Compounding "certainty" is like freezing to death.

One of the things that clock time teaches, is not to be certain about anything.
Gopi wrote:I think the error crept up when the human experience was being differentiated: thinking and feeling. That is true of the soul and spirit alone, but the body is left out of the picture.
Hey... you've seen my body. Would YOU want to live in it??? :shock:
Gopi wrote:It is only when thinking, feeling and ACTION is put into harmony that the thoughts gain full ground, and can actually lead to action. Else, all action would be circular, precisely what is being described by:"... doing a complete rewrite every month."
The situation arises not because of a lack of action... I AM writing, which is action, but rewrite because of uncertainty in what I'm writing as an accurate representation of what I desire to express.

Well, gotta run. Another day busting my ass trying to make this insane dream I have about building an Institute and monastery where people can live together in peace and growth a reality.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:11 pm

Haha, yes, consumerism is contradictory to self-sufficiency, of course I mean it to the degree of social function.

I have been thinking a lot about the natural values that you (Bruce) brought up in my Nihilism rant. I came to realize that the concept of Nihilism applies to concepts, concepts have no inherent value, but animals display natural values such as constructive relationships, empathy, pleasure/enjoyment and an adaptivity toward what is easier. I came to the conclusion that far too many people make their conceptualizations their identity when in reality it is just a tool for inventing tools that maximize our natural values.
As concepts have no inherent value, by defining ourselves by them we are automatically disolving our natural value of being, which may well be no greater than any other life, or even any other manifestation of the universe, but at least it does have inherent value.

Another big fault of humanity is deflecting responsibility for our own behavior onto anyone or anything but ourselves. We blame books like the holy ones for example, we blame leaders, be they socio-political or economical, we blame deities and cause and effect, beliefs, cultural trends and all kinds of values. The fact is the weak deny their natural sensibilities because they lack the confidence in themselves, and the strong over-ride their natural sensibilities with egocentric greed and authoritarianism.

However, I came up with a nice little saying: "Wisdom is not built on observations of the negative, it can only be built on an empathic foundation, otherwise all information is automatically interpreted incorrectly"

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:17 am

Raytrek wrote:As concepts have no inherent value, by defining ourselves by them we are automatically disolving our natural value of being, which may well be no greater than any other life, or even any other manifestation of the universe, but at least it does have inherent value.
You should read some psychology, particularly concerning archetypes (concepts without inherent value) and complexes (projections of those concepts with values).

Or, if you prefer the computer programming analogy, the "class definition" is the concept / archetype, that defines the functions and variables, but they have no values assigned to them until they are "instantized"--brought into physical existence in the program and assigned values for those variables. As they say, "as above, so below."
Raytrek wrote:Another big fault of humanity is deflecting responsibility for our own behavior onto anyone or anything but ourselves. We blame books like the holy ones for example, we blame leaders, be they socio-political or economical, we blame deities and cause and effect, beliefs, cultural trends and all kinds of values. The fact is the weak deny their natural sensibilities because they lack the confidence in themselves, and the strong over-ride their natural sensibilities with egocentric greed and authoritarianism.
I believe that is human, social programming because of the high level of injustice in our system. Punishment has replaced restitution, so taking responsibility for a bad action is nothing more than sadism--you are asking to be punished. If the system were based in restitution, the concept of "you broke it--you fix it," then I don't think we would have all the blame.

Other life forms don't blame and try to avoid responsibility. If a dog poops on the living room floor, he knows he did it, and by his expression, does not deny it. He doesn't sit there pointing at the cat.
Raytrek wrote:However, I came up with a nice little saying: "Wisdom is not built on observations of the negative, it can only be built on an empathic foundation, otherwise all information is automatically interpreted incorrectly"
That's a wise saying.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Mon Oct 08, 2012 10:39 pm

LoneBear wrote:I believe that is human, social programming because of the high level of injustice in our system. Punishment has replaced restitution, so taking responsibility for a bad action is nothing more than sadism--you are asking to be punished. If the system were based in restitution, the concept of "you broke it--you fix it," then I don't think we would have all the blame.

Other life forms don't blame and try to avoid responsibility. If a dog poops on the living room floor, he knows he did it, and by his expression, does not deny it. He doesn't sit there pointing at the cat.

The weakness or strength I was talking about, is forged from concepts becoming our identity, and this causes us to deny or over-ride our natural sensibilities. My main claim is that if we were fully in touch with our natural empathic sensibilities the error would be much more minimal and any error that is made could be dismissed as accidental because malice is conceptually manifested and without any "conceptual identity" in us, we could never be guilty of malice. There would be no concept of blame.

The whole idea of us being accountable for our own behaviour is self imposed, a responsibility we each have to develope and return ourself full contact with that original pre-conceptual state. So not so much sadism as discipline and ultimately rising above punishment.

But to be sure, I am not talking about the complete eradication of our ability of conceptualizing, that would be ridiculous, but rather to place it precisely where it belongs, as a tool used to maximize our natural qualities, not as a foundation that defines us.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:34 am

This is a kind of sumed up conclusion of my point.




We have imagination, it is a virtual world we can run all manner of simulations in. If you think about a sleeping dog, you may have seen it behaving like it is responding to stimuli, perhaps some kind of dream chasing a rabbit. This suggests that the animal has some kind of rudimentary imagination, and I would presume other animals display this to certain degrees also.
This would mean that the imagination is a natural value, as animals do not display conceptual understanding but they exhibit a range of behaviours that correspond to known motivating compulsions.

There are two primary factors that influence the entire universe, constructive relationships and destructive forces. Everything is subject to these fundamental cause and effect phenomena and everything can ultimately be described as manifestations of these phenomena.

Humans display both, the ideal is that constructive relationships are considered benign and deserve freedom to prosper, but as we see in nature that destructive forces serve a purpose but they can also collaterally damage or destroy constructive elements, and so they require a certain focusing or control in order to acheive their purpose but not inadvertantly affect what they are not intended to.
The same is true of the destructive elements of human behaviour, as Edmund Burke has said “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites” that laws are not made for those who naturally obey them but for those who naturally would disobey them.

The “good” and “bad” is relative to each our interpretation, just as people find pain unappealing, yet you have those who engage in sado-masichistic sexual practices. Another example of flip in the value of those two fundamental properties is cancer, which is basically a negative constructive relationship, but ultimately may result in destruction of the host. Treatments for cancer are possitive and controlled destructive forces that may result in the survival of the host.

So these two universal factors are not fairly described as good or bad, but better designated as Yin and Yang, as such does not connotate. However, as far as the basing of ones identity, to lay it on a foundation that is of a conceptual nature is “bad” but to lay it on natural values is “good”. This is because concepts are a tool we use to enhance our natural values and to liberate them, we use concept to describe, understand and alter things for our advantage, this is called the skill of invention.

Concepts are related to the natural value of imagination, but they are not the natural value themselves but a bi-product, a tool. I am working on a list of natural values, they are all with the goal of liberation for constructive relationships and the controlled focus of destructive forces.

1) Empathic Consideration: We naturally consider the overall effects of our behaviour automatically, as do animals, but the tool of concept and our imaginations allow us to broaden vision, anticipate factors that are not immediately evident. We have a common sense that tells us if it will harm others or ourselves, but the “conceptual identity” which is built on artificial values such as God, greed, rights, wrongs, malice, judgementality, freedom, all conceptual tools that are often used to replace our natural empathic quality. This evolves into ego and we either become weak and not confident in our own sense of correctness, or we become strong and over-ride those natural sensibilities for the sake of ambitions such as greed and/or power, some form of authoritarian dominance.

2)We have the natural value of Pleasure/Enjoyment. Purely this is what makes life amazing, ranging from simple sex, to entertainment, laughter, general happiness. But it even includes passions, be that for art or expression or be it for the relationships you have. It is a value that is misinterpreted as a baser quality, but with the correct application of concepts, it evolves into an ideal, but the wrong application of concept, again becomes ego and either weakness or ambition. (the ego is basically addiction, the misappropriation of placement and value of concept)

3) This value is the simple gravitation toward what is easier, it can be seen as walking the long way around a thorny bush to get your stray ball, or it can be evolved by the correct application of concept to pre-emptively arrange much more complicated issues. This is not so much a risk on ego becoming weak or ambitious, but it is used by the ambitious for their ambition.

4) My newest natural value I have identified is the Imagination. This is the ultimate awesomeness about us but it can also be our Satan. With it we have conceptualization, which gives us creativity, invention and this ability of vision for effects of our influence that gives us the option of anticipating and applying empathic consideration, but it is also where the confusion is. When we change out our natural values in favour of concepts that we have developed or understood, our natural value is dissolved. This is because concepts have no inherent value beyond their use as a tool to enhance our natural values.

A good explaination I have to communicate this ideal is a quote of myself “I believe in God but I do not define myself by any conceptualization of that phenomena” We do conceptualize our natural values in order to communicate them, to describe them and to understand them in order to use them advantagiously, but they already existed before, as I said animals display them. What did not exist before is the “conceptual identity” and this is the destroyer of our worth and the maker of chaos in humanity.

Animals do not display malice, judgementality or ambition, the three big bosses of war, murder, greed, authoritarianism and general harm to others and the environment. These artificial values, concepts, cease to be a tool for enhancing our natural quality identity and they over-ride them and are installed as our new and worthless identity.

We as humans have conceptualized everything, but the main point is to identify what existed before concepts, that we have just applied description to, and what aspects of humanity are born and bred purely of concept. As I said, malice never existed in the world until it was conceptually concieved. Empathy did exist long before the first concept was ever born.

So we find how to seperate the two, and where we have been failing is by trying to eliminate the “bad” conceptual identity while preserving the “good” conceptual identity. This is the big mistake, but rather that there should not be any conceptual identity at all because all concepts, good or bad, are artificial and have no inherent value. The only place concepts have usefulness is in maximizing the natural values I have described, not in replacing them as that can only make our identity have no inherent value also.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:11 pm

Raytrek wrote:This would mean that the imagination is a natural value, as animals do not display conceptual understanding but they exhibit a range of behaviours that correspond to known motivating compulsions.
It has been demonstrated with Chimpanzees that have been living and interacting with humans have conceptual understanding, a sense of "self" and imagination. I recall a public television series a while back where a chimp, using sign language, made the distinction between "a cup" and "MY cup", which shocked the researchers. If you know what is yours, and what is not, then you have a concept of self.

Question for you: why is it that humans spend so much time looking for ways to prove they are superior to the other forms of life on the planet? (Religious texts, in particular, put a lot of effort into making man superior to the animals.)
Raytrek wrote:The “good” and “bad” is relative to each our interpretation, just as people find pain unappealing, yet you have those who engage in sado-masichistic sexual practices.
Causing the body pain was an accepted religious practice for millennia, as the body was the source of carnal desires which interfered with religious doctrine. Sadomasochism is probably along the same lines: a disharmony between body, soul and spirit. I've never really looked into it, but it would be an interesting study because religions promote procreation, yet deny procreation to the clergy.
Raytrek wrote:1) Empathic Consideration: We naturally consider the overall effects of our behaviour automatically, as do animals, but the tool of concept and our imaginations allow us to broaden vision, anticipate factors that are not immediately evident.
So why is it that humans don't have enough sense to take cover before the storm hits, and animals do?
Raytrek wrote:4) My newest natural value I have identified is the Imagination. This is the ultimate awesomeness about us but it can also be our Satan.
Yes, imagination is a double-edged sword. It is also the one characteristic I have not really observed in animal life, with the possible exception of cats that imagine they are the overlords of mankind.
Raytrek wrote:A good explaination I have to communicate this ideal is a quote of myself “I believe in God but I do not define myself by any conceptualization of that phenomena”
My views on God have undergone a radical transformation these last couple of months. I am finding that, in regards to the religious gods, pagan gods, universal consciousness, etc., "all of the above" is the answer, not a single entity. I agree with you regarding not conceptualizing yourself with a particular image... that's like defining yourself in terms of a color: green Drazi versus purple Drazi. (Babylon 5: The Geometry of Shadows)
Raytrek wrote:Animals do not display malice, judgementality or ambition, the three big bosses of war, murder, greed, authoritarianism and general harm to others and the environment.
This is very true--I was just thinking about this the other day. Nor do animals make war on each other, or kill for sport. Only humans appear to have these traits, so I was considering the origin of the motivation: is it part of spiritual evolution, or an anomaly in the human makeup?
Raytrek wrote:So we find how to seperate the two, and where we have been failing is by trying to eliminate the “bad” conceptual identity while preserving the “good” conceptual identity. This is the big mistake, but rather that there should not be any conceptual identity at all because all concepts, good or bad, are artificial and have no inherent value. The only place concepts have usefulness is in maximizing the natural values I have described, not in replacing them as that can only make our identity have no inherent value also.
I refer to this schism as the differentiation of rapport from rivalry. It does not really matter if the concepts and values are artificial or natural... what matters is how we consciously choose to select and apply them.

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Arcelius » Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:50 pm

LoneBear wrote:This is very true--I was just thinking about this the other day. Nor do animals make war on each other, or kill for sport. Only humans appear to have these traits, so I was considering the origin of the motivation: is it part of spiritual evolution, or an anomaly in the human makeup?
Part of me wonders whether it is an effect (or side-effect) of some of the genetic tinkering that went on man on Earth. In mythology, Kronos and Rhea rule over the Golden Age in the distant past. Why did this Golden Age end? Is there ever a single reason for anything? Consider that humans could easy reproduce such a Golden Age if it was in their nature to do so. Yet we do not.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:57 am

Arcelius wrote:Part of me wonders whether it is an effect (or side-effect) of some of the genetic tinkering that went on man on Earth.
I concur. One must consider all three complexes of the psyche, body (genetics), mind or soul (psychology), and spirit (philosophy). Each has degrees of dominance and influences the others. (I can go into detail in another topic on what I've found so far, as not to hijack the thread from Ray.)

I've wondered if non-humans have the same service-to-self or service-to-other bias? Just based on observation of other mammals, they seem to have about a 50/50 split--not a particular bias. But it still begs the question if it is the human spirit--the values we select--that is causing the deviation to one side.
Arcelius wrote:In mythology, Kronos and Rhea rule over the Golden Age in the distant past. Why did this Golden Age end? Is there ever a single reason for anything?
From my research notes, the Golden Age was the period from the expulsion from the Garden to the Flood, the rule of Saturn (Cronos). According to the information in the Apocrypha, Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, the age ended because the Nefilim (giants) were starting to overrun the Earth--not because man was evil, but the progeny of "the sons of god" and "the daughters of man" were evil.
Arcelius wrote:Consider that humans could easy reproduce such a Golden Age if it was in their nature to do so. Yet we do not.
That is absolutely correct. We have the technology, tools and means of communication and eduction to make the Earth a paradise for everyone. Great food, no pollution, peaceful coexistence... yet, we've got a filthy, disease and war-ridden planet run by a small group that wants domination over evolution, at whatever cost. Why?

User avatar
Arcelius
Atriensis
Atriensis
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Atlantic Canada

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Arcelius » Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:13 pm

LoneBear wrote:From my research notes, the Golden Age was the period from the expulsion from the Garden to the Flood, the rule of Saturn (Cronos). According to the information in the Apocrypha, Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, the age ended because the Nefilim (giants) were starting to overrun the Earth--not because man was evil, but the progeny of "the sons of god" and "the daughters of man" were evil.
I note that Zeus over-threw Cronos (Jupiter over-threw Saturn).
Plato's Symposium wrote:Now, they were of surprising strength and vigor, and so lofty in their notions that they even conspired against the gods; and the same story is told of them as Homer relates of Ephialtes and Otus, that scheming to assault the gods in fight they essayed to mount high heaven.

Thereat Zeus and the other gods debated what they should do, and were perplexed: for they felt they could not slay them like the Giants, whom they had abolished root and branch with strokes of thunder—it would be only abolishing the honors and observances they had from men; nor yet could they endure such sinful rioting. Then Zeus, putting all his wits together, spoke at length and said: ‘Methinks I can contrive that men, without ceasing to exist, shall give over their iniquity through a lessening of their strength. I propose now to slice every one of them in two, so that while making them weaker we shall find them more useful by reason of their multiplication; and they shall walk erect upon two legs. If they continue turbulent and do not choose to keep quiet, I will do it again,’ said he; ‘I will slice every person in two, and then they must go their ways on one leg, hopping.’ So saying, he sliced each human being in two, just as they slice sorb-apples to make a dry preserve, or eggs with hairs; and at the cleaving of each he bade Apollo turn its face and half-neck to the section side, in order that every one might be made more orderly by the sight of the knife's work upon him; this done, the god was to heal them up. Then Apollo turned their faces about, and pulled their skin together from the edges over what is now called the belly, just like purses which you draw close with a string; the little opening he tied up in the middle of the belly, so making what we know as the navel. For the rest, he smoothed away most of the puckers and figured out the breast with some such instrument as shoemakers use in smoothing the wrinkles of leather on the last; though he left there a few which we have just about the belly and navel, to remind us of our early fall. Now when our first form had been cut in two, each half in longing for its fellow would come to it again; and then would they fling their arms about each other and in mutual embraces yearn to be grafted together, till they began to perish of hunger and general indolence, through refusing to do anything apart. And whenever on the death of one half the other was left alone, it went searching and embracing to see if it might happen on that half of the whole woman which now we call a woman, or perchance the half of the whole man. In this plight they were perishing away, when Zeus in his pity provided a fresh device. He moved their privy parts to the front—for until then they had these, like all else, on the outside, and did their begetting and bringing forth not on each other but on the earth, like the crickets. These parts he now shifted to the front, to be used for propagating on each other—in the female member by means of the male; so that if in their embracements a man should happen on a woman there might be conception and continuation of their kind;
It's possible that the ancient humans sided with the Titans and this angered the "gods". The relative evilness of anyone needs to held against the path of the people doing the measuring. For the Daleks, asking "why?" instead of immediate obedience is a great evil worthy of death. The "gods" liked the "honors and observances" of man. To me, it sounds like they wanted slaves and not equals. The victors write the history as well.

User avatar
Raytrek
Cognitor
Cognitor
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The answer is 42

Post by Raytrek » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:15 am

Thanks Bruce, I got a kick out of your responses. I seen a youtube thing on a Magpie, they put a yellow dot where it could not see it, then put a mirror in, the bird then tried to remove the dot, scratching at it even though it could not directly see it, it must have recognized it in the mirror. They even did controls, like a black dot, just to make sure that it did not sense it some other way, and it did not try to remove the black dot, it could not tell it was there in the mirror. Few animals can actually identify that the reflection is their own, but Magpies can. I don't know if that has anything of relevance on this, but I thought it was interesting.

I want to add this adaption of my philosophy, here I change natural values to mean instinct and natural qualities, but it is the same idea really.


The way I see it, love and fear are the two primary emotions. Fear is subjectively bad, but objectively it is a natural value, and instinctive quality for survival. Love also exists on the instinctive level, both are present in animals, albeit in a more rudimentary form as humans conceptualize.

Hate is different from these, as animals do not experience it. You may have heard of “racist dogs” but this is just conditioning, not an understanding of the concept of racism. Humans are the only ones who experience hate, funnily enough we are the only ones who experience conceptualization, co-incidence? No. Hate is a concept that has been place in a superior position above our natural qualities, even replacing them, and when we replace our natural qualities with ANY conceptual value, we lose all inherent worth, things go to shit.

As I said, natural qualities exist in us as basic instinct, but concept is a tool in which to enhance them beyond the immediate use of them, not to replace them.

Natural qualities start as love and fear but become things like empathy, pleasure/pain, fight or flight and a gravitation toward doing things the easier way. Animals have these traits also, but in humans we can enhance them or replace them, both of these options are done with imagination and concept.

A thing is to identify natural qualities, as I have done, but it helps to know conceptual values that are often misappropriated and substitute those qualities, here is a general list: Malicious intent, prideful ambition, over indulgence, deflection of responsibility, denial of a duty of care and judgemental superiority.

There may be, well probably is, more of both natural qualities and conceptual values involved in this mess, but those are key ones that I have developed thus far.

Of course you could argue, besides the obvious unattractiveness of those conceptual values, what makes them “bad”? Surely that is subjective. Well nothing is truely objective, in the Nihilistic sense, just as no concept has inherent value. But I would argue logic in this case.

Humans are a product of constructive relationships, animal community constructive relationships, genetic, molecular, atomic, energy, string theory constructive relationships right down the line to the quantum. As a product of constructive relationships, we naturally are constructive beings.

But we are also sentient and this means we have certain chores before us: 1) To protect and liberate constructive relationships, for their prosperity. 2) Control and focus of destructive forces, to minimize collateral damage toward that which does not require that effect.

When we look at the natural qualities, this principle conforms to every natural quality we have, but when you look at it in pure logic it also makes complete sense, it improves life and makes things easier.

So my Nihilistic modification is: “Concepts have no inherent value beyond enhancing our natural qualities” and even Nihilism cannot claim objectivity, so forget about objective/subjective and just do what is beneficial, natural, empathic, less painful, easier, logical and constructive.

User avatar
LoneBear
Legatus Legionis
Legatus Legionis
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:38 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Contact:

Re: The answer is 42

Post by LoneBear » Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:58 pm

Raytrek wrote:Few animals can actually identify that the reflection is their own, but Magpies can. I don't know if that has anything of relevance on this, but I thought it was interesting.
Dogs also recognize their reflection. But I don't think cats do! I don't think cats have figured out windows, either.

I do remember the first time my dog, as a puppy, encountered a mirror that I put on the floor. It was angled so he did not see himself, but could see his ball down the hall. A few noseprints on the mirror, and he wanted to go out. So let him out, and he was doing his "search pattern" behind where the mirror was, looking for his ball. Obviously concluded the mirror was a window, and he was looking outside. After a bit he gave up and came back in, to bark at the mirror for tricking him. I was busy with something, and he ended up just laying on the floor, looking at this strange "window." Then he saw me coming down the hall in the mirror--and I saw his ears pop up. Eyes were saying I was in front of him, ears were saying I was off to the side. I could sense those gears cranking away in his head, then he figured it out, ran down the hall and grabbed his ball. He was never tricked by a mirror again.
Raytrek wrote:The way I see it, love and fear are the two primary emotions. Fear is subjectively bad, but objectively it is a natural value, and instinctive quality for survival. Love also exists on the instinctive level, both are present in animals, albeit in a more rudimentary form as humans conceptualize.
So you're interpreting love-fear as yin-yang? Have you read the forum topic on Emotions, here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1295. You may find that PDF attachment on Plutchik's emotional correspondences interesting. Plutchik considers fear as a primary emotion, but not love--love being a secondary harmonic as a combination of joy and trust. (Though I have found over the course of my life that the word "love" is highly subjective, and means something different to everyone you talk to. Most have never read psychology, so they apply the word haphazardly.)
Raytrek wrote:Hate is different from these, as animals do not experience it. You may have heard of “racist dogs” but this is just conditioning, not an understanding of the concept of racism. Humans are the only ones who experience hate, funnily enough we are the only ones who experience conceptualization, co-incidence? No. Hate is a concept that has been place in a superior position above our natural qualities, even replacing them, and when we replace our natural qualities with ANY conceptual value, we lose all inherent worth, things go to shit.
If by "hate" you mean "loathing," then I'd agree--animals don't loath. Again, "hate" is one of those words that is subjective. You can hate someone over anger, which is rage, you can hate broccoli, which is disgust, you can hate your life, which is more along the lines of fear/terror.

Having worked with horses, I would not agree that humans are the only ones that conceptualize. Horses have quite the imagination, which results in the old saying, "Horses are only afraid of two things: things that move, and things that don't."
Raytrek wrote:A thing is to identify natural qualities, as I have done, but it helps to know conceptual values that are often misappropriated and substitute those qualities, here is a general list: Malicious intent, prideful ambition, over indulgence, deflection of responsibility, denial of a duty of care and judgemental superiority.
Take a look at that Plutchik emotional chart.

Though I do take your point. Man does seem to have emotional overloads, whereas other life does not. I've yet to see a cat on anti-stress meds, because it couldn't catch a mouse. Yet people have veins popping out of their head having to wait for a long stoplight.

An analogy I see in physics is that most life only operates on a single "wave," but mankind has two "waves." As a result, man can experience interference and points where the waves double in their magnitude, whereas single-wave life won't have that constructive or destructive interference.
Raytrek wrote:Humans are a product of constructive relationships, animal community constructive relationships, genetic, molecular, atomic, energy, string theory constructive relationships right down the line to the quantum. As a product of constructive relationships, we naturally are constructive beings.
Consider for a minute, the "world view" I am posting on the Monastery forum, "What does God need with a Starship?" If man, homo sapiens, is indeed a hybrid of the "sons of God" (saurians) and the "daughters of man" (Neanderthal), then you're going to have one heck of an internal conflict. Reptiles are known to be aggressive and violent, whereas the hominid line tends towards passivity. Or as they say in the old psychological model, the "reptilian brain" versus the "mammalian brain." Reptiles tend towards the yang--destructive, whereas mammals tend towards the yin--constructive. If both are present in the human psyche, then there will be a battle between war and construction. Perhaps those two "waves" I mentioned earlier. And depending upon which one is dominant, you'll get different personality types, including the extremes.
Raytrek wrote:But we are also sentient and this means we have certain chores before us: 1) To protect and liberate constructive relationships, for their prosperity. 2) Control and focus of destructive forces, to minimize collateral damage toward that which does not require that effect.
Or...
1) Mammalian brain.
2) Reptilian brain.
Both requiring a degree of intelligence to optimize.
Raytrek wrote:So my Nihilistic modification is: “Concepts have no inherent value beyond enhancing our natural qualities” and even Nihilism cannot claim objectivity, so forget about objective/subjective and just do what is beneficial, natural, empathic, less painful, easier, logical and constructive.
Or as it was said in the old days, "live and let live."

Post Reply