Yeah, hilarious. 
What next? The letter ‘o’ is too feminine to be used by a man? 
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.
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!
I actually only read until Uccisore’s post about his worries regarding the precepts.
I actually associated the ‘real men’ talk to you, and my interpretation regarding your will to power and such.
Somewhere along the line you must have said something that hit that nerve, or stepped on that trap.
I remember…kind of…
The fact is we have a bunch of moderators on there who really aren’t agreeing with each other on a lot of things. They have conflicting values and conflicting approaches. I had NEVER met anyone who could see eye to eye with another one philosophical issues entirely. But VO is changing that.
- Joe, I suspected as much. That’s just bad bad reading man. There’s nothing I could begin to do about people putting words in my mouth.
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?
^^^
Is that not basically agreeing to Uccisore’s representation?
Not putting words in your mouth.
Okay, yes that’s fucked up. Suffice it to say that I was very far from sober yesterday, and made a really dumb decision to make this thread. Joke’s on me, everyone. Forget about it, go back to your tents and dreams.
I take that to refer to the philosopher as the most/only complete human being.
Obviously the term Humanarchy presents a problem, in that it means “The Rule of The Human”
First we had “advancing human values” as a slugline. But what are human values? I mean, is Auschwitz not also a human value? There never was any non-human that worked on that project.
I am content not having resolved this problem, as it is the central moral problem of this time. We make claims to “humanity” and “inhumanity” and it seems quite arbitrary what that means. In one country, to be human means to be an obedient drone zapping between porn channels, in another it means to be a rugged bushman guerilla reading Tolstoy while he’s shitting in the woods, and yet another is a human because he drinks wine under a statue of a man nailed to a cross. It’s all pretty arbitrary, so far. And yet we have “human rights”. What does that even mean?
The only thing it really means is that no man shall be granted the ownership of another man.
But then, these laws are commanded by the state, which is an institution that can claim ownership of all men born within its borders.
Humanity is a giant clusterfuck. Humanarchy would mean a certain degree of logical control.
So Uccisore - you can substitute “Real Man” with “Real Human” or even “Real Being”.
I wonder who here has understood value ontology -
who has understood that a being is nothing else besides its capacity to value in the terms that keep him an autonomous entity.
Moreoever, who here is an actual entity. I know I am struggling to manifest my philosophical understanding in this pre-defined world.