Examining the possibilities for non ideological legislation

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!

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.

What is a human Being and how does he rule?

Post Idea World

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.

I certainly haven’t. You’re much like obe, FC – very deep yet sometimes unintelligible (probably because of your depth).

You seem to have defined value ontology as

So you seem to be defining a being (a conscious agent, I take it) as a set of capacities. Since this is what defines the being, this is where you get “ontology” from. Am I correct? And it is a set of capacities to “value”. To desire? To place importance upon? To dictate a kind of morality? As it is typically the case with organisms, this usually keeps the organism alive, thus he remains an autonomous entity, but I take it this is more than just a happenstance side effect–it seems to figure into your definition in a highly important way. Am I right?

I think these attempts at defining “humanity” only result in the distortion of true humanness. I think true human nature only shines through when we get a glimpse of the individual outside the influence of culture and state rule (and even then, we’d have to control for exceptions and outliers). We band together into clans, and these eventually grow into societies, out of which grows the state. Culture, religion, and art grow along side these. The direction in which these grow are typically a result of the idiosyncrasies of our environments, our unique histories (as a community), the personalities that dominate, the ideas that clever and prominent thinkers amongst the community voice, and so on. These are the variables that cause a community to diverge from that archetypical human being who exudes “true” human nature. What you get in the end is a diversity of different cultures and norms around the world, each mirroring a distorted or fragmented reflection of human nature. True human nature can be found somewhere within this mist, perhaps as an average, perhaps after all the cultural noise has been filtered out, perhaps by pinning down the common denominators among individuals spread throughout this quagmire.

I think modernity is an attempt to undo the distorting effects of several millennia of cultural evolution–perhaps not holy successfully–and I think this very thread is a testament to that.

I realize this doesn’t answer your question, but I hope it points in a direction that could get us started (in particular, in defining “human nature”).

FC’s communication skills fade in and out, at times unintelligible, at times supreme, always “deep”.