Where did it go?

MagsJ,

QED, look how iambiguous treats me!

That’s his response to this:

viewtopic.php?p=2710288#p2710288

Iambiguous is trying to play dumb here, he knows EXACTLY what my post there means…!!!

Okay, Kid, it looks like I’m stuck with you. :wink:

On that particular thread I noted this:

[b]In all honesty, the posts from Ecmandu here are practically gibberish to me. I almost never see any real connection between the points I make and the points he makes.

It’s as though he really has concocted this made up “world of words” inside his head; and everything flows from those assumptions.

For example what on earth does it mean to speak of a “prime logos” [or a “non sero sum”] with respect to ones own conflicting interactions with others?

He’ll either go are [and illustrate the text] or he won’t. Or, if he already has, I would appreciate being linked to it.[/b]

So, will you take you philosophy [your challenge] there or not?

You choose the context and the behaviors. Note your own moral narrative and political prejudice in regard to the “conflicting goods” that pop up all along the ideological/deontological spectrum.

Just be forewarned that to the extent you resort to arguments that go around and around in circles [re an internal logic all your own] I’m going to call you on it.

Bring that “prime logos” “non zero sum” shit down to earth.

I’m guessing that you can’t.

Or, again, that your contributions here are an exercise in irony.

Everyone has experience with their consent being directly violated, or at least, they can imagine scenarios as such.

Everyone has also had the opposite, things going their way by surprise or not.

You can ask everyone on this earth, was it worth having your consent violated? Some will say yes, others will say no.

Nobody wants a polio vaccine as a child, but they can all say that they’re glad they got it.

This is key.

It violates everyone’s consent that polio exists, such that everyone would rather not have polio exist, than get the shot.

This is the equivalent of Christian apologetics for the argument of evil. Christians say that god sent us the polio vaccine, but, one step above, why does polio exist in the first place.

What we can actually state one level up, for all possible scenarios, is that consent violation is always bad, even though people try to apologize for it because of a psychological condition of always trying to justify their exact meaning in their life story. But this is just a lie.

What we gleen from this, is that for every being, no means no. In the absence of that, we can define the reality as truly evil, whether we have a solution or not. We define this from the times things went our way. We can define this reality where consent violations occur as inherently evil. That’s not a difficult exersize.

We can imagine inherent good from all of our experiences, an objective good that doesn’t violate the consent of a possibly infinite number of beings.

Even in a consensual reality, we can all take voyages into the difficult and say no at any point, and still be able to learn the difference between right and wrong, but at our own pace. The issue with evil, is that it’s not at our own pace, with autonomy, with freedom.

This isn’t my existential contraption, it’s true for everyone in existence, from a bacterium to a human.

We all know this reality is inherently evil, maybe people like you are afraid to admit it, maybe that’s your existential contraption, because you have a need to justify meaning for your life where it doesn’t actually exist,

I’ll stop there for now .

Read the above reply Iambiguous.

There’s something I’ve wanted to say to you for a while.

Your fractured “I” is actually a very ancient teaching in Buddhism.

Once you realize that the you in dreams is as real as the you here, that they are both dreams, you have attained the state of realizing the emptiness of all phenomenon. This is a classic Buddhist teaching. Enlightenment is waking from the dream, and to do this, you must understand the emptiness of all phenomenon. The Buddha is called the “awakened one” for a reason.

There is also the teaching of no self. Everyone at some time has become so engrossed with a task, they never think of themselves for a while. Like weeding or painting…

Buddhists consider these two things to be stages to the path of enlightenment … not a permanent existential hole.

Of course, all that said, I don’t consider the Buddhas teachings good.

My challenge:

Okay, but how is any of this really related to my own challenge above?

To get or not to get your child vaccinated is a controversial issue today. It revolves around yet another set of “conflicting goods”: vaccines.procon.org/

So what becomes crucial here is the extent to which either side is or is not able to demonstrate that their own arguments are more solidly embedded in what can be established as “the facts”.

But suppose the law requires certain vaccinations and certain parents refuse to do it. Ought the government be empowered to force them to?

Or what of those religious fundamentalists who refuse to take their children to doctors or hospitals? Again, ought the government be empowered to force them to?

How do “prime logos” and “non sero sum” factor into something like this?

We can imagine lots of things. But to what extent are we able to demonstrate [re vaccination, abortion, animal rights, gun control etc.] that what we imagine is true is in fact true for all reasonable men and women?

And then to what extent are we able to demonstrate that what we believe is rational is synonymous with what we believe is virtuous? How are our moral narratives and political agendas not “existential contraptions” here?

And, again, lets aim the discussion at a particular context involving a particular set of conflicting goods.

No, as matter of fact, we don’t all know this. Instead, different people in different contexts see different things as evil. We then need to focus the discussion in on particular realities construed from particular points of view either able to be or not able to be demonstrated as rational or virtuous.

Again, entirely abstract.

The manner in which I construe “I” here [at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power] is embedded in this frame of mind: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Please provide us with a similar trajectory regarding a value judgment of your own.

Note to the Buddhists among us:

Feel free to participate.

I’ll keep this sweet and simple, and it is very down to earth.

Everything you note as an exception, is in fact a consent violation.

My point still stands.

Realities that violate consent are evil by nature.

If, consent violating realities are the only realities that we have access to (forever), then all of us should decide to be evil, because it brings us the most good.

You’re stuck in a false dichotomy at a lower level of cognition …

The mere idea that we have conflicting goods, is a consent violation by definition.

But you can’t bring yourself to say that it’s objectively evil on its face, in fact, your entire shtick is to DEFEND evil so you can have your little, and I mean very little argument.

Who would iambiguous be if he couldn’t regurgitate the same nonsense forever!

Again, note an actual context in which some give their consent to a particular moral narrative or political agenda, and some do not.

How does one go about determining evil objectively then?

And, in regard to the vaccination arguments noted above [pro and con], where and when are particular behaviors to be understood as evil — given the manner in which you construe the meaning of a “consent violation” here?

Note to others:

What on earth am I missing in his assessment above? And why on earth should he be taken seriously?

Do you take him seriously? If so, an explanation please.

You’re still stuck on realities with more than one person who is the actual and not an image or reflection of the actual.

You can have a philosophic zombie reality or even better, a hyperdimensional mirror reality, where everything goes exactly as each person in their own reality wants it to go, since each person is in their own reality, it’s impossible to violate theirs or our consent.

From this, we can discern that consent violating realities (the kind we’re in) are inherently evil.

But actually, we don’t even need a solution, like the two I gave above to draw this conclusion.

Another way to say this is that conflicting good realities are evil. You keep asking me to give you a conflicting good, as if you’re a computer program, when I made it very clear that conflicting good realities are evil. Shifting it to conflicting consents, just solves the same way.

Edited my post.

Bottom line: Where did what go?

A computer cannot beat me here.

I stated"everything goes the way they want it to go in their own reality"

That you would even ask that question in the context of my reply, shows that your program is malfunctioning from limits beyond your programming.

Humans don’t respond like that.

I didn’t mean that what. I meant the one some read between the lines when the beaten computer does not malfunction.

The child isn’t vaccinated, the child dies. The consent is then not in sync with a zero sum assessment.

So, is it the fault of the program or the programmer?

If a child dies because of not getting a vaccine, the consent of the parents and the child are violated, relative (zero sum) to parents and children who don’t have this issue from the child dying or not dying from being vaccinated or not.

That wasn’t your “what” in some fucked up mind reading game, but the only “what” that you replied to, there was no confusion, you were just being irrational, illogical.

What if one parent consents and the other one does not? And the child can’t decide which consent is either more or less in sync with consent as it is interpreted in the law? And then the extent to which it is likely to result in the child’s death if the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t consent to manufacture vaccines that those who do consent to take them can afford? Should the government consensus then shift more to forcing them to? And what if the industry refuses to consent to that?

My “what” here revolves around a context in which good and evil are in sync with rationality and logic. But only to the extent that everyone lives exactly the same life, has exactly the same experiences, and comes to exactly the same conclusion about the existential relationship between identity, value judgments and political power.

And can all agree precisely on what it means here to either live or not to live in a zero sum world.

Also, just out of curiosty, how do you suppose this all plays out in regard to the mid-term elections here in America?

Here’s the problem with your comfort zone iambiguous. I’m arguing from an abstraction above it.

I’m stating that realities with conflicting goods or conflicting consents are objectively evil.

I don’t have to solve the vaccine debate to win my debate.

How can you be above a comfort zone that has not been defined by consent here? And how can an abstract definition here ever compete with two comfort zones that are in conflict. For example, “in reality”?

And I’m stating that stating something is not the same as demonstrating something. In particular when consent given to one behavior results in consent being taken away from another. You can’t consent to both the baby being born and the pregnant woman’s right to abort it.

Well, if one wins the debate merely by assering that they have won, how can I not agree.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever not won a debate given that assumption?

All you did was repeat the same thing, in your comfort zone.

Actually it’s a demonstration by definition.

The only thing people define as bad is consent violation. That’s very down to earth.

If we have no choice but to have our consent violated in this reality, then the squabbles don’t detract from the larger point, again true by definition that we can all demonstrate, that the reality itself is objectively evil.

Or: All you did was repeat the same thing, in your comfort zone.

Or: Actually, my definition of a comfort zone is a demonstration that your definition of a comfort zone is wrong if it’s not in sync with my definition.

On the other hand, sooner or later actual behaviors have to be either rewarded or punished depending on the extent to which an actual consent is reached. Why is one party in violation of it more out of sync with the definition of good behavior than the other party?

And suppose no consent is reached between parties in an actual community regarding the definitions given to the words used to differentiate good from bad behavior.

Is abortion by definition moral or immoral? Are vaccinations by definition moral or immoral? Is eating animal flesh by definition moral or immoral?

At least up in the scholastic clouds.

It’s very straight forward.

Someone doesn’t want to kill.

It makes them suicidal that they have to kill to live, but if they commit suicide they are also killing.

They are proof that this TYPE of reality is evil.

It’s very down to earth, and there are lots of people who have this condition who suffer and suffer and suffer…

Are they orienting their consent wrong?

No.

So if you’re not orienting your consent wrong, and that only causes suffering, then it’s not them, it’s the TYPE of reality they are in.

You don’t consent to me taking you out of your comfort zone (that which gets you all this attention in perpetuity - that morality is subjective) because if you did, then what else would you talk about?

You don’t consent to me winning the debate.

It’s not me, it could be anyone, this debate wins itself over the lower hierarchy of what you present as your hole.