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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Look, as long as you consent to believe that all these words are true because they are defined and defended by all of the other words that you post, then I consent to agree that you do in fact believe this.
What they actually have to do with specific examples of moral and political conflicts that have rent the human species for thousands and thousands of years, is something I will have to assume is also taken care of “in your head”.
At least until you take these “general description” words out into the world that we actually do live in.
You win the debate because your world of words trumps any and all actual conflicts that I know of.
[size=50]Unless of course you are just making this stuff up as you go along.[/size]
At least until one of us is able to demonstrate that what we believe is true “in our head” about moral and political conflicts is that which all reasonable and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Now, admittedly, I haven’t even come close. But, then, given the manner in which I have come to understand these relationships existentially, I don’t suppose I ever will.
Still, I’m not the one insisting that an objective morality does in fact exist because I have concocted an argument “in my head” claiming that it does.
“Up there” is where you and your ilk are always stuck.
That’s why I created this tread – viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 – so that we can bring the argument [the analysis, the assessment, the technical jargon] down out of the scholastic clouds [and the “general descriptions”] and out into the world that we are all familiar with.
Nobody seems interested though.
On the other hand, no one’s argument seems nearly as surreal as yours.
But, sure, the problem here might be me. I never ignore that possibility.