Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

All of existence is transition because everything is in a constant state of motion. That is one of the two fundamental truths. The other one
is that existence cannot ever become non existence. There always has to be something regardless of what ever form it might actually take

Thanks for chiming in, Encode. Yes, that’s essentially it. Observation is simply being in the path of information that produces some change upon arrival. Being affected by something is what observation means.

  • James’ central tenet, which I’ve struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.

  • Alan Watts made a good argument for why existence itself is relationship youtu.be/iXSCzofqX8Y?t=25m1s

Nothing can exist in abstraction because it’s a contradiction in terms since existence always implies existing: in, on, around, as a function of, as a part of, in relation to something else.

I think that is true if the subject and object are not part of the same continuum otherwise infinite regression is produced through self-observation where the act of observation affects what is being observed (and that is what we see in the quantum experiments).

I have no idea other than they are part of the same continuum. The problem of causality that bogged Descartes down was: how does one thing affect another thing? (How does spirit affect the body if they are truly different things?) The answer must be that there are no separate things.

That seems logical to me. If A observes B and B observes A, then they hold each other up. If A and B are secretly the same, then I’m not sure how the origin of attention can be the focus of attention. How does a gun shoot down its own barrel? But if A and B are not secretly the same, then how do they affect each other? How does one universe communicate with another universe? It’s a paradox!

Good to see you!

Existence could be analogous to a flame which is a stream of luminous gas that is ever-changing.

I think the category of “existence” can be broken into two subcategories: being and non-being. For instance a light can be “on” (being with potential to not-be), “off” (non-being with potential to be), or non-existent (no potential for anything). So it makes sense that non-existence has no potential to produce existence, but non-existence must exist in some way in order to manifest existence itself.

Im not sure that these are the only two fundamental truths. Still, they are true.

Well, Im not actually certain about the first. I think it is possible for some things to not actually be in motion, but still be agents of motion. A different class of “things”, to be sure; the set of perfect abstractions.

Yet being observed is not what affectance means.
Observation is a phenomenon of consciousness.
A billiard ball does not observe the ball that hits it, it just gets affected by it.
Thus, I questioned what I believed was statiktechs statement.

Can or does? Very great difference.

Moreover, abstractions affect just as concrete things - like concrete things, abstractions require a certain type of environment, in their case, a mind; and when they do exist therein, they affect things in this environment, this mind. And of course changes in the mind are electrochemical processes, which in turns influence the heavier and slower physical systems of the body, which in turn influences the even heavier and slower system of a habitat.

I agree, and we know through science that indeed they aren’t. Even beyond the subatomic scale, where there is virtually only void, there are machinations, which affect and are affected by the way things play out on denser scales.

I describe these machinations in terms of value-differences. Like in - vs + spin, for example, or underwater or atmospheric breathing, but even in vegetarian or meat eater - it works throughout all levels of causality. Values predicate the phenomenal appearance of beings, meaning that what they are is an interaction with themselves through their values - a being exists in time, and valuing is what binds one moment to the next. In these moments there is the appearance of a filled-inpicture, a being that is fulfilled, saturates its “essence” with a particular completion a set of reactions, a “behaviour” which it produces successfully. This being-through-time, this perpetual self-re-creating subtly interwoven with countless other such cycles (“orlog”; “dharma”) is the reason for rituals in our lives, routines, habits, diets, and to break our patterns and rearrange them is dangerous, often we unwittingly throw all our energy and values into the wheels of machinations indifferent to our well-being. Structural integrity is not a matter of brute force, and yet it usurps brute force; like incorruptible gold is at the heart of all war, specific and contentious valuing paths that end up at similar states are at the heart of all contradictions which form the fabric of life. For a beast or plant to live, beasts and pants must die. Life is cycles, beings moving around each other so as to arrive back at themselves.

I like this way of questioning. I won’t lie, I do have the answer; but it is not only intellectual, but comprehensively existential. We can’t engage the machinations of correspondence without fully engaging our own world of beauties and horrors - we can’t escape the fact that this is reality, that philosophy isn’t exempt from it. Though I suspect such a supposed exception must have been the appeal to men like Plato.

James idea is not falsifiable, so it is a safe assertion. This does not mean if is false, however it seems to me it is either tautological or speculation.

If everyone in the universe agreed that morality was fake, they would all be wrong; making the statement proves morality. You deemed it good to offer the statement, thus morality is not fake.

Yes, well it is falsifiable only using this computer he had said he had built, which generates virtual particles spontaneously based on the RM algorithms. I’ve been waiting to see that machine, “Jack”, in action since 2012.

One advantage of VO is its falsifiability at every position. A falsifiable universal!

“nothing exists unless it can affect something” is no different from ‘no human can exists unless it breathes’ i.e. stating the obvious within a ‘common sense’ framework.
That is a truism and tautology.

Nothing exists unless it CAN affect something, makes the possibility that many things exist which never affect something. The CAN part does make it unfalsifiable.

… and it’s certainly something James never said.
Instead:
“Existence is that which has affect”.

Well, then we run into this again…

So hypothetically, every existent has an affect, however, nothing has to be affected ?!?!

Please keep this nonsensical cult of “RM” out of my topic. It has nothing to do with my topic.

Serendipper,

I do not understand this. Can you elaborate a bit more on it. For an observation to be made, must there not be an observer ~~ unless you are using the term *observer-less to mean something different?

Graciousness.

Yes, this I can see and agree with but I am not understanding the connection between the above and an observer-less observation.

I get this too. We can only work with who or what we are and how things affect us/our relationship to them.
One may say that human nature is also composed of dark matter (the unknown negative [not negative charge]) and dark energy which also affects the path of light (enlightenment/goodness) coming through us and into us. Dorky?
It is kind of like the human brain in a way. More is not known about it than is known about it.

I understand this too. lol Perhaps my first question had more to do with facts/evidence, what we do know, when we observe something. So the term “interpretation” might not have anything to do with objectivity but with subjectivity or our own perception. Did that make sense to you?

So what would You call it if not observation? You are sitting on a park bench, looking up at the sky, wondering if there could actually be Something called God. You are observing everything which brings you to this Question. Could you not then say that the question of God’s reality becomes an observation, something to be looked at and observed? :-k
I am not saying that I am right. I am just questioning.

I understand this. So what is it that my agnostic self is in actuality doing above from your point of view?

I did not know that. It is very interesting actually. I went deer hunting a few times with a boyfriend and I am so glad that he never found one to kill. But perhaps we honor the deer who’s meat is at least eaten ~ better than to die of hunger and cold.

I suppose though that I was being a bit naive to think that I could actually SEE ~ When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it

I want to see that. How is it done? There is so much of THAT kind of magic in the universe. I would like to be able to experience more of it.

…or the humble but wonderful abilities of other humans such as archaeologists, historians, et cetera. On second thought, nothing so humble about those people ~ simply awesome!

If only we could go back in time ~ I mean really back in time. I wonder where I would go first.

Here we see how valuing works.
The human brain values a specific range in the value-continuum, and only this valuing “affects” the human.
Thus, valuing is prior to “affectance”;
back to you, Houston.

Jakob,

Serendipper said: When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

So please tell me where on the above graph does that lie? I am looking to actually see it on the cup.
Do we see it everyday and not think of it as the above? Is it called by another name? I am no scientist.

Aside from that, I am not so sure that "valuing is necessarily prior to affectance though it may be true that what we value does affect us - obviously.

I think that it can also be true that what affects or has an effect on us greatly can ALSO come to lead us to value something afterwards…at least when we have come to ultimately pay attention to IT.

Perhaps the Jury is still out about this though considering how little we know about the human psyche.

Show me the Light!

encode_decode,

So are you saying that that IS the case or are you just trying to mirror back his thought? :evilfun:

What do you mean? Dipsh was just pointing to the fact that most radiation isn’t what we call “light”. Light ranges from Red to Violet.
Infrared and Ultraviolet aren’t nominally light anymore, just radiation, even though they move with the speed of light just as this select group of wavelengths that we can perceive using our visual sense.

As Ive learned, our understandings of the term “valuing” are different.
You’ve never really looked into VO, which is totally okay, but as long as you know that when I say “valuing” I don’t mean a conscious process.

(Ive always been evidencing that consciousness is a specific type of valuing. We can’t be conscious without this consciousness revolving around and orienting on our specific objects of valuing - as Jung also said)

As I understand us, something can only affect us as a value.
Whenever we are affected, we are partial vs this being affected - this being partial is precisely what the being-affected is.

“Take it slow…
It is what it is cause we make it so…
go on break it
it aint sacred
its not holy
squeeze in it until it turns to guacamole”

Saying, all in time. You are well on course as far as I can tell.

The big question is: for what do we require the truth? Why are we worthy of it? Why would truth not be wasted on us? How can truth affect us?

We can receive truth when we are fully ready to put ourselves on the line for it, when we are capable of fully valuing it. Therefore “truth is a woman”.

Not just any woman though.

Apologies for the long delay.

I currently don’t subscribe to the idea of cause and effect precisely because of the problem of how a cause influences an effect, therefore there are no things in my conception, but a continuum wherein borders and divisions join rather than separate. I believe “affectance” is an antiquated term relegated to the “cause and effect” era of philosophical progress. So rather than defining a thing to exist if it affects another thing, I’ll say an arbitrarily delineated aspect of the one thing (the universe) exists if it’s part of the continuum, which is saying the same thing really, but eliminating some of the semantic obstacles and conceptual objections with a dual-pronged approach (similar to classical and QM physics)

Atomos means un-cut-able. The universe is the only atom and there are no abstractions that could possibly interact with it or they would simply be included as part of the universe in the first place and therefore would not be considered abstractions.

So to bring it all together, something exists if it affects another thing which is another way of saying something exists if it is not really an abstract thing, but an aspect of the one thing and continuous with it. Observation and affectance are therefore synonymous with “continuous” in this context.

That raises an interesting question of how an All can exist if there is nothing outside the All in which to relate. How can there be an inside with no outside? There are many of those paradoxes, such as: it’s objective truth that there is no objective truth; it’s bad to think in terms of good and bad; we shouldn’t think in terms of ought and should and so on. The lone object both cannot and must exist.

I believe an infinite regression is underpinning reality which is a result of a circularity of the dimensionless point-source of observation struggling to also be the object of observation (like a camera observing its own monitor). These paradoxes are a side-effect of the necessary conditions enabling existence. Self-observation seems logically impossible and therefore endeavors into reality are very much an exercise in chasing one’s own tail… and that experience of the eternally-unknown is conditional to existence of a “now” and a “self” which are centered between the known and unknown.

Well, what is consciousness? An organism and environment are each part of the organism-environment continuum. A nervous system is not a system at all without the interacting environment. So the “things” that exist are the “things” that are part of that continuum.

Being hit is not a discrete event. The balls do not actually touch, but the atomic forces interact in a smooth and continuous fashion as the ball approaches the other ball. There is no point in time where one could say the event of being hit started.

Yes true. I probably didn’t think when I typed, but certainly “can” supersedes “does” because it’s important that an event be possible before supposing if it actually happened. So to answer the question… I don’t think it matters because if something can interact, then it’s part of the continuum of interactions. “Can” and “does” are synonymous in this context. Good catch though.

Here I think you’re confusing abstract ideas to actual abstractions. Abstract ideas exist, but abstractions do not.

I think machinations still implies things affecting other things. Growing or flowing have better connotations.

What’s a moment? It’s an arbitrary abstraction of a continuum and abstractions do not exist, so there is nothing to bind together.

Yes I agree with the cycles determination since existence is contingent upon nonexistence.

I can’t think of a better way to experience reality. The past is what’s known and the future is what’s to be discovered.