Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislation

Editing this post. I need to get the principles examined.

[size=95]1. All beings are driven by their values. But all beings create their values in the core of their existence.

  1. The core of any being is its value-standard. By this standard it keeps itself in being. This “self-valuing” is the core value which all its other values reflect.

  2. A life lived according to ones deepest and highest values is a life of the greatest happiness.

  3. Power is the ability to set values and attain them.

  4. Power is there for the taking – for everyone. It will always resist being contained.

  5. Ideologies are systems of pre-set human value. To subscribe to them is to submit to an others power.

  6. The use of any ideology is whatever it accomplishes. There is no unquestionable truth (or value) to any ideology.

  7. Hope is destroyed when the ability to set values is lost. When all values have been predetermined by the outside world, the individual is gone.

  8. Society is its own reward. Society is the interactions of different self-valuings, a rich tapestry of comparable and contrasting values.

  9. Life has no other purpose than to set values and to attain them. All meaning, love, loyalty, goals –

  10. Humans can introduce each other to values – they can not set them for each other.

  11. Humanarchy is the rule of human self-valuing: of free and complete individuals. [/size]

humanarchy.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40

Whatever happened to ol’ Gobbo’s forum? If it was naturalworldorder.org… it is no longer there. Weren’t you one of the dudes there? To the credit of that site, you had Pezer there.

Anyways, are you starting a forum, or a fucking cult? What kind of forum lists its principles? What do you talk about? —About how you already generally agree?

Yes, when Pezer got on that site began to be cool. But Gobbo took it down in anger.

Seems like a good point, but we already need to agree on a lot to even be able to talk about anything - to talk at all even. We just slightly specify what has been agreed on by most people that we talk to on a daily basis. You don’t want to reinvent the wheel every time you build a car.

We don’t have a religion forum, for example.

No actually I am lying, or misrepresenting what it is. I’d simply like to isolate a certain type of discourse and make it more powerful. BTL worked very well for the people who wanted to develop those thoughts, now that group has grown and we need something less hidden to develop the same breed of thoughts. I notice their influence all around and I think, genuinely believe that it’s what the general educated public needs to sink its teeth in.

So do you agree with the principles?

Lists of principles like this always make me a little nervous, because of the pattern they always follow.

Precepts 1-3 are always abundantly obvious things that nobody can disagree with - humans have two legs, the sun is hot, truth is better than falsehood. But by the time you get to Precept 11, it’s like “And that’s why we need One World Government devoted to the transference of all human consciousness into machines.”

This one isn’t as brazen as all that, but still.

Anti-ideology is a nice position to have. You’ll see me advocating similar now and then. But it’s a dangerous position, too. Bonapartism was anti-ideological. Most cults of personality are, or claim to be. Precepts 6, 8 and 9 in particular seem to be the type that could lead to the bad kind if anti-ideology- the anti-ideology that ends up telling people how to live and what sorts of associations they are allowed to make, suspiciously like an ideology.

TO ME HUMANARCHY MEANS PHILOSOPHICAL SUPREMACY.

I’ll agree it’s very difficult to formulate anti-ideological code of ethics and truth… it’s almost a contradiction.
Still I think the list is quite un-forceful as to what it demands.

Could you explain how the precepts you mention could be dangerous, could be interpreted to become ideology?
The list can be improved, certainly, as well as added to. 12 is not some magic number.

Calm down, son.

This is hilarious… I just looked at the forum, and they have a subforum with a rule that every poster must post in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. It looks like they are shouting the entire time. What a ridiculous rule! That cracked me up…

…What did proper nouns ever do to you? Huh, Sauwelios?

Yeah, hilarious. :laughing:

What next? The letter ‘o’ is too feminine to be used by a man? :smiley:

Precept 6 seems to have an undercurrent of “A real man wouldn’t put himself in such a position”, creating the opportunity for a nationalized Right-Thinking-Man.

Precept 8 seems to be setting up grounds to indict religions, governments, and other civic organizations as doing evil to society, regardless of detail or intent, which could be a call to censure.

Precept 9 …eh, maybe I don’t have a problem with precept 9. First time I read it, it seemed to be encouraging participation in a Grand Project, but it doesn’t seem that way now.

Uccisore -

— Ideologies are systems of pre-set human value. To subscribe to them is to submit to an others power.

I am glad you feel that way but - that is not implicit in the text. I do agree with it though. So maybe it’s in there. Do you disagree?

— Hope is destroyed when the ability to set values is lost. When all values have been predetermined by the outside world, the individual is gone.

It is meant to encourage scrutinizing all organizations that dictate values, certainly. I think that is called for right now, very much. So… do you disagree? If so, why?

Indictment doesn’t mean Pol Pot.
I should probably - no really add a statement that we don’t mean to violently overthrow anything. I don’t want to be associated with the Joker.

— Society is its own reward. Society is the interactions of different self-valuings, a rich tapestry of comparable and contrasting values.

It’s not so much a call for that as a recognition of it. Mankind, this entire civilization is a grand project, sustained by itself, and we have to constantly examine the laws that it creates for itself, test its behaviors to our values.

It’s inevitable that a world government is constantly on the verge of being formed, but that is a formality. Within its boundaries, which are set by an extremely general consensus called ‘indifference’, a form of human recognition is constantly trying to assert itself. This is what philosophy is, and psychology in its wake - a counter force to strictly economically driven politics. The mistake has been to present the economy as the driving, “Masculine” force and the philosophy as the “Feminine”, receiving.

Well not so much a mistake as simply the fact that man was too confused by this whole ‘having a brain’-thing to possess his own ethics, to write philosophy because he exists, not because he wonders why he exists.

Oh, I dunno. My point right now isn’t to say whether the precepts are correct or not, it’s to say “This is how ideologies spring up from anti-ideological movements”. Off the top of my head, MAYBE real men don’t let other people dictate their values to them, but neither to rebellious children or crazy people, so I’d need some definition between the manly way to be independent vs. the immature way or the insane way.

Ha, no.  There's lots of things that need to be pointed out- equal and opposite things.     Questioning authority needs to be pointed out, submitting to right authority also needs to be pointed out. It's more about which important messages a group chooses to point out and which they don't than whether or not the words are wise.

Authority in general, the concept of it.

Man easily unlearns to think in terms of institutions, but the institutions still think man in their terms.

The capitals are extremely amusing and interesting, but I’d like to bring this thread back to the original spirit of the Humanarchy site. I think this post by the sites founder is a bit more up your (Uccisocre, Von Rivers) Alley.

On human rights

FC,

What do you do in the case of conflicting values? If we are to create our own values from within ourselves and to go forth and strive to satisfy them in the world, how are we, in your society, to handle situations where we meet up with someone whose values and objectives are at odds with our own?

Also, with respect to this:

if these rights are based on the values we create for ourselves (or am I wrong in assuming this?), then how are we to distinguish between what we actually have a right to and what we merely want but don’t have a right to?

I have a general rule of thumb where I don’t respect anyone who talks about being a ‘real man’.

Gib, we need laws, but less of them.
The laws that are in effect need to be traceable to the idea from which they sprung, and the idea needs to be verifiable.

That piece you quoted wasn’t written by me, I edited the original quotation so as to appear as a quotation.

Yes, Uccisore… go stand in the corner!