morality

This is why any proper ethics system is a selecting device. It can never be the aim to include everyone, yet it must be open to everyone who meets the standards.
In fact there is not that much of a difference between a standard and a system of ethics.

And this is why, in this particular thread, I only seek resonance, not agreement.

Morality: The ideological and philosophical systems of bullshit.

The art of manipulation by saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

A shield of immunity for one’s actions especially if you say you’re doing something in the name of God, government, or the so called greater social good.

Use those three excuses in the name of tyranny and you can get away with the most horrific of actions.

Am I missing anything here?

Not essentially. Morality is always an excuse to stop thinking and feeling at a certain threshold.

How do you understand the difference between morality and ethics…

Never mind you don’t.

Not really.
It’s more of a do turned into a do not.
“Stop that, put that down, put that away, stop saying that, wear this, don’t wear that, stand up straight, shut up”.
It’s about the powerful designing a system of regulation and control that they don’t have to pay for.

No one has figured it out.
This is the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music.

How goods are made additive by conflict; through sacrifice of the morality of self-preservation.

Yes, as usual you are missing the opportunity to agree with others who agree with you, and to expand your imagination by listening to those you disagree with. As a result you remain the same static, unimaginative, person who does not grow or learn.

You can always change your name and avatar, but you seem never to change yourself.

I believe that money has already overtaken us very early on in terms of efficient morality. If we look at how money multiplies and conquers and creates, we see that it spends itself only in forms of competition. I believe the largest economy is the War economy, and thereafter the Sports economy. But business even for healthcare is competition. We fight for the sick to obtain their contract and own their finances. We fight for the market of any given product. And from this all sorts of moneys are born and the principle is fluid and fertile. Man must become much the same way - he must cease to exist in blocks and become a plasma.

Yes.
How do we get these mobs under control?

By telling them why they exist.

(to serve)

More precisely, the canceling out can not be itself anything other than good, objectively speaking. This is the first time I ever say these dreadful words. Only universal goodness can undo them of their curse, and only in this form, the concept appears as a liberator rather than as a form of ascesis.

If there is existence, and existence is “self-valuing” standardizing by valuing in terms of a consistent and self-sustaining will to power - which is what I hold, then it must be seen as inherently good to itself, and the good to itself must be in correspondence with its being as a will to power engaged in a perpetual struggle. This struggle is good, and whereas the dominated entity is less good to itself as it can be, it has become part of ‘the goods’ of a dominant form of being. Whether this be a molecule or a terrorist in a cell does’t matter, all is defined by a goodness, necessarily, by its existence within a structure that is sustained.

And structures that sustain themselves attain this harmony through conflict. Not through conflict alone – power, love, intelligence, techne, devotion, refined conduct, all of these are required as well and many more terms can be conjured up to describe what goes into an instance of existence – but conflict binds all these, gives them their meaning their coherence as standing in service of life and leading to its fulfillment.

What do you mean “good” and “race”?

There is nothing to figure out here except that the idea would work if one mans good was not another mans evil and vice versa. When you figure that out you will be able to unpack the ridiculous claim; “Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.”
You also need to account for “bad” or evil in the world. When you take down the absurd notion that everyone is happy-clappy good you might be able to figure out your mistakes and to account for the world as it is and not portray the world as you want it to be.

Here are some practical consequences;
realize that all is always involved in conflict, whether it be love or hate or indifference. Recognize conflicts erupting before your eyes as things that were already eternally in play and position yourself accordingly. Effect: metaphysical conflicts will die down and the need of war is internalized into the economy. Vigorous competition both in technology and in industrial spying (the golden days of the US/Japanese sovereignty as a capstone to the victory in the cold war) are the natural norm. It is wise to see power in terms of electrical laws. Think in terms of resistances and conductors, and think of the source as pervasive.

Lev - sorry. I take a lot for granted in my readers. Here’s what a friend said to me recently about her approach to the book on the origins of myth she is finishing and what she’s read on my forum.

I do not understand my philosophy as such per se, but I can see that something like this might be perceived here, as it requires a thorough understanding and appreciation of Nietzsche’s original thought, the birth of tragedy, the elevation of the Dionysian to the splendid culture that still endures, by means of a universal condoning of ‘evil’ - death, as a son of the first benefix through the means of ‘mysteries’ –

Reading this you will understand that badness and evil are essentially different.

Evil is an attempt at objectifying bad experience as a noumenon. It’s the scapegoat, the object to be responsible for the feeling of the absence of power.
Badness on the other hand is entirely subjective. Something is bad for someone, or to a type of species – something is never bad to itself – if it is it will not endure.
It must always reproduce before it is truly bad to itself. I suppose the male praying mantice suffers quite a lot.

I believe I’ve produced and referred enough to at least indicate what I mean with ‘good’ - the path to a full conceptualization should be quite visible from here. The word ‘race’ is used somewhat arbitrarily, as all men are good, and all races are good – it’s not of significance to this morality of which race one is.

It’s amazing how a frusty old German obscurantist, can be so liberally employed as a place-marker to pretend knowledge whilst denigrating those that are genuinely and honestly puzzled by how open to a range of diverse views is any tract by Nietzsche.

The birth of Tragedy is possibly N’s most clear and thoughtful piece of writing, and as a one time student of Classical civilisation I know it pretty well. Image my incredulity when I see it bandied about as some form of explanation for a dialogue for which it has no place!

Whilst I understand you can pretend the follow a Dionysian pathway in the place of poor reasoning, it does not, at the same time provide and adequate excuse for it. Sadly you must choose. If you want to present a coherent argument; then REASON! If you would rather sing poetry whilst drinking vast quantities of wine, then do that. But pretending one as an excuse for the other is not viable.

All men are not good. So much is obvious.
If you are not prepared to begin with the world as it is evident (whatever you mean by good) then you will never be able to say anything which reflects the condition of the world.
If you lie to yourself about the condition of Man, then you will never understand the human condition.

A morality is born. much quicker than mine, no arguments are required - lev considers this truth to be self-evident.
I suppose it is also obvious that you are good, but others are not.

dont lie.

my guess is that you are good, you think, but not perfect.
So, who is a truly good man? Who is better than you?

Usually a person will answer, and I expect Lev’s response to be no different, that man is good by the measure in which he benefits his fellow men.

This premise clearly requires that it is good to do good to other men.
This premise requires that all men are worthy of good deeds.
Unless you must to do good deeds to people who are ‘essentially not good’ as lev’s earlier statement implies, this morality means that all men are good, as they are worthy of good.

But this is not my own morality – I don’t say that you must do good to others, but that goodness is inescapable.

To me you are a cheat beyond self-reproach. This is obviously bad. But I can not deny you your essential goodness, be it in your demise or in your happiness, both of which are good. Your derivative goodness here is-- that is as seen through my own empirical modes of interpretation – is not great, but I do not kid myself - this does not mean that you are unhappy or acting in ill health. You are simply fundamentally different from me, as is apparent in everything.

This difference, this is the true objective good.
It is required for this that all entities assert themselves as good.
Thus they are to be seen as good, from a birds-eye perspective.

This is simply the only possible moral view of man that can attain to honest appraisal. All other moralities are hypocritical, because prejudiced.

If not all men are considered good, then there is absolutely no point of holding anyone to that standard, or to blame one for not acting in anyones interests – morality prescribes. Intelligent morality prescribes what can be drawn out of man, an idiot prescribes only his own expected judgments.