Your question is very theoretical and theoretically I would strive to live as long as possible in accordance to the program that is inherent in my DNA.
As stated what is critically to the OP is;
DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive at all costs.
DNA wise and empirically, mortality is a fact.
On the subject of morality, the origin of morality should be pivoted on the above two main variables.
Not sure what you mean when you say that my question is very theoretical (or theoretical at all.) Note that what we’re discussing here is what humans want (i.e. their personal preferences) and not what humans are (mortal or immortal, etc.) If you say that you want to live for as long as possible this means that you’d rather live an eternal life of pain than a finite life of pleasure. By claiming otherwise, you’re telling us that you do not strive to live for as long as possible.
In searching this topic, I’m seeing your WTMIJOT thought rising again.
Addressing that purpose of life issue, origin of morality issue, and longevity over pleasure issue is this discussion between phyllo and James.
James is expressing that the origin of morality is necessarily an inherent property of life and inherently leads to a striving to live as joyously as possible for as long as possible even though most people do not realize it and get very confused by the issue.
That is at least one answer to the topic question. But I still think that getting anyone to believe that answer or any other is the greater problem as is being witnessed in this very thread.
It seems to me that he intends that the integral is a measure, IJOT, and to maximize that measure is the highest goal or priority of any and every life, MIJOT. And I think he means whether human or not and whether they are even aware that it is the inherent goal or not.
Your Will-to-MIJOT, WTMIJOT, adds another dimension concerning the push or drive to achieve MIJOT.
If you are going to make claims about someone and expect to be taken seriously, I would suggest reference material.
How James perceived God was one of my first observations from even before he came to this board. On this board he expressed many definitions of God for anyone to take their pick. The one that he seemed most aligned with was expressed in his signature:
“The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = ‘The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is’.”
He recognized God to be whatever someone’s situation actually is, “reality itself” (as he often stated it). Their actual situation is their God. He defended that with his definition of what the word “god” means:
I don’t think that is relevant to this topic but I am curious if you would try to argue the point. Perhaps on another thread.
What he’s saying is that all living beings (and perhaps even non-living beings) strive to attain one and the same goal. How can we test such a claim? What would be the exact procedure? Surely, he’s not saying that the proof lies in the definition of the word “living being”? Not only is it not true that the word “living being” implies specific kind of purpose, but the definition of that word has nothing to do with what’s going on outside of human languages.
I don’t see what isn’t clear about it but i will make an attempt to make it clear to you.
The way that I see it, it is like James is saying that the concern of longevity is a vector aiming due North while the concern of joy is a vector aimed due West and then IJOT is a vector aimed at neither of those directions but instead Northwest. So in reality maximizing IjOT does also maximize both longevity and joy at the same time.
He explains in that post (and others) that an attempt to maximize longevity without joy will not work. And he also hints that the attempt to maximize joy without longevity leads to quick death. So the only way to achieve maximum longevity is to make joy a part of the ongoing effort.
He defends his theory in one way and I know that science has demonstrated the truth of it also. Science has shown for a long time that reducing stress (the opposite of joy) increases longevity. And these days they even know precisely why (having to do with cortisone and oxidization, I think)
You stated in our last discussion of this subject that “we all know what joy is … it’s a feeling”. I don’t think that “we all know”. I know that I didn’t and still have questions. James wouldn’t have argued against joy being a feeling but as just demonstrated again in Leyla’s repost of James, he gets down into the ultimate origins and details of things. Superficial names, such as “a feeling”, would never have satisfied James. They just don’t reveal enough truth of the situation (of James’ “MyGod”). James was all about coherency of every detail and in his own words, “leaving no dark corner for the devil to hide” (the “devil” being deception or doubt).
James defined joy as the inner perception of progress whether accurately perceived or not.
And what he is revealing is that by perceiving progress, more true progress is likely. The whole point in perception is to help decide which way to go so it only makes sense that perceiving progress would inspire going in the right direction. No doubt that is a big role in evolution. So longevity is partially dependent upon the joy sensed along the route. If you want to go far, be sure to try to enjoy the trip.
For James, it is clear to me that this whole morality question was very settled and over. And I think he makes a damn good argument (without referencing “God” as the source even once).
I disagree with that but I’m sure that you will stay within your own bubble of belief.
Yet another theory of everything author. Perhaps he is great. I don’t have the time to find out. And I prefer to find out what issues such men agree on, not to set them against each other. Your Jacob here proposes a type of theory of everything, an “ontology”, too. But do these guys get into the origins of morality? Perhaps.
Again, I think the only real issue is getting anyone to believe any of these guys. Politics rules the world, not performance.
Well, I understand that very well. The problem is it does not answer my question. Given that you made an attempt to answer my question but did not do so in the end, I can only conclude that you did not really understand what I asked. You can, but you don’t have to, proceed in your attempts to understand my points. It’s up to you. As far as I am concerned, you are welcome to do so.
Basically, the question that I am asking is: do human beings strive to maximize longevity or do they strive to maximize Integral of Joy Over Time? Notice that this is an either/or situation. You can’t have it both ways.
What does it mean to say that someone is striving to maximize longevity? It means that they would rather live an eternal life of hell than a relatively long life of pleasure. For such people, every life that is long is better than every life that is short.
And what does it mean to say that someone is striving to maximize IJOT? It means that they would rather live a high-IJOT life than a low-IJOT one and this means that they’d choose a short life over a long one if it’s higher in IJOT.
These are two different methods of determining what is better and what is worse.
This suggests to me that, according to JSS, human beings strive to maximize how long they live – not their IJOT. IJOT being merely a means (in the same way that power and growth are means.)
I suppose you didn’t understand what I meant by that statement. What I said is that we all know what the word “happiness” means (even if we don’t know how to verbally describe what it means and what stands behind such phenomena i.e. what causes it.) Have you ever met someone who uses the word “happiness” to mean “pain”? or even worse, to mean “dog”? The point I was making in that thread is that in order to understand what MIJOT is you don’t have to verbally describe the meaning of the word “joy” nor do you have to understand what causes the phenomena that is represented by that word.
lol you took the words right out of my mouth… and i know nothing about the guy other than he looks like the ‘doc’ from back to the future.
i do get a kick out of the ‘theory of everything’ guys, though. especially the ones that started emerging after the 40s when the limits of philosophy had pretty much been reached. ‘designer philosophers’, i call them, and there’s thousands of em all claiming to have figured it all out, and yet none of them agree with each other if they even understand each other at all. but there’s a veritable buffett of leftover and discarded ideas from the analytical period… and that’s what these guys are usually playing around with.
have you noticed something peculiar about the pragmatist movement? james, pierce, rorty and the gang. this movement was a confession of sorts. it said ‘epistemology is over and metaphysics is dead’, more or less. and right about the mid twentieth century the focus took a dramatic turn toward politics and sociology. i see this as a kind of solution to the crisis of the death of philosophy… just as philosophy was the solution to the death of god. the post-structural age is a deconstructive age because of this, i think, but certainly not nihilistic on account of both god and philosophy biting the dust. it’s rather a return to the pragmatism of before with a view toward a progressive dismantling of conservatism and the anachronistic ideology it is built on. there are no more epistemological, metaphysical or ontological problems like there were in the nineteenth century. these subjects are now in the shadow of economic problems more so than ever before. and since you can no longer use philosophy to solve these problems ‘theoretically’ (unless you’re content with twiddling your thumbs), the only genuine philosophical project left is a post-structural deconstruction of all the ideological constructs that brought the world to its current crisis. periodic economy crashes, mass migrations, global warming (of whatever degree), poverty, terrorism, war, etc. all these are in some way or another the effects of a general ‘world weltanschauung’ that has persisted for centuries… and that is no longer able to navigate, much less solve, the brute facts of these problems.
but anyway these ‘theory of everything’ guys are just recreational chatter in the background. you know how many ken wilbers and james s. saints and jakobs there are on the book shelves? more than you can shake a library card at. what we need are good defunked economists, not defunct philosophers.