These are not universal truths...

Self-respect.
Integrity.
Honesty with self.

That can’t be right, because I’m an iniquitous self-loathing compulsive liar… but I’m rational too.

That’s why you see yourself in iambiguous.
A kindred spirit, albeit simpler.

Wait a minute wait a minute. Clearly I’m more complicated than Biggs.

Biggs ain’t I more complicated than you? My intellectual contraptions aren’t even comparable to yours.

He hasn’t fully appreciated the true power of the nil, and how to use it effectively.
He found one method and stuck with it.

It is so. Biggs has not mastered the power of the nil as I have. But in time he may. I have much to teach him if he so chooses to learn.

Okay, did or did not the objectivists down through the ages [from Jesus Christ and Muhammad to Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin] manage to convince themselves that they embodied all three?

In other words, we’ll need a context. A set of circumstances and a point of view regarding how one either is or is not obligated as a rational human being to earn self-respect, integrity and honesty about one’s “self”.

Why don’t we start here with the components of “I” in a particular context. You can pick it.

You know mine.

And how do we determine to what degree they embodied these values?

Note to Other
The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative.
Power of the Nil.

We are all poor - Marxism
We are all sinners - Abrahamism

If not absolutely one, then absolutely nil.

I suggest that, first of all, we get a crystal clear technical definition of “complicated” first.

Then create a new thread with a poll so that we can all vote on it democratically.

Yes…let’s democratically vote what ‘truth’ is.
There is no objectivity…all is subjective.

This is projection:

Objectivist:
Anyone who shows certainty that his opinion is superior to that of another. There is no way to objectively determine which subjective viewpoint is superior - if it ain’t absolute it is like everything else.
Nietzsche’s perspectivism corrupted, just like everything else.
The correct demeanour is uniform skepticism - Marxist distribution of error - to the level of being trapped in procrastination and uncertainty, where the only way out is communal agreement, or an egotistical declaration of will.
If you do not show the correct level of humility - in the form of a disclaimer - then you are an evil Objectivist.
To bring about the future, desired Utopia - Marxism/Abrahamism - we must level man down to uniform dust.

Ha!!
Hey Brian…this is what you are.
You are just more sly, cynical and clever - you self-deceive more convincingly.
The Ego and His Own.…Ha!!!
A less stern Stirner.
Modern day Diogenes…self-pleasuring himself in the Agora, to be seen, to ‘make a point’ of his exclusivity; to spit ni the eye of authority - da paulice!!!

Selectively skeptical; selectively stringent; selectively aware - self-deceiving. Best lies are those that sample reality, not those that contradict it.
Forever innocent, victim of otherness…whatever be thy name oh lord of otherness.

We’ll need a context of course.

How about the impeachment and the removal from office of Donald Trump.

Has he been impeached and removed from office as of today? No, in fact, in the either/or world that we all live in, he is still in office. On the other hand, is that a “universal truth”? Technically as it were?

Now this part:

Should he be removed from office?

Is there an “only correct” answer here as well? And how might any particular individual’s answer, as a value judgment, be construed in turn as either an objective truth or a universal truth?

How is this…

The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative.
Power of the Nil

…applicable to my example above?

Intent, imbecile…nothing can be measured without triangulation.

Subject/Object/Motive
What is the goal? The destination.
There is no blanket value-judgment, except in the simple minds of the world.

Trump’s impeachment- as if I could give a fuck what happens to that Zionist - should be evaluated in relation to the desired goal.
Yours is universal parity, no?
I do not believe in this, because I’ve never seen it.
Can you show me an example of absolute parity to be inspired?

Note to others :banana-linedance:

Unless of course I’m wrong.

See…disclaimers.
It is how you evade being an…“evil objectivist”.
An admission of fallibility.
Like the admission of sinfulness.

Then add patronizing cynicism to pretend indifferent superiority, without actually stating it.

Brian…he’s your man-child. Ha!!!
The Power of the Nil.
Seen it a million times.

And over the edge they go!!!

I’ve been doing this to minds of his ilk now for years, but: it still manages to amuse me. In other words, bringing them to this. Fit to be tied. Huffing and puffing, sputtering, babbling, stammering…beside themselves with exasperation.

Or, you know, so it seems to me. :wink:

Ha!!!
Nothing.

Brian…this is the kind of mind you identify with.
I would pity you…but you are innocent, no?
Nothing that happened, happens or will happen to you is of your making.
It’s all part of universal order.

Are you saying me and Biggs is like peas and carrots?

Beef and broccoli.
Shit and stain.

You know if these goddamn Honduran Mexicans would do some fucking work, I might get out of here by five and have some time to do philosophy with you fellas.

It don’t take no thirty minutes to paint a piece of brick molding, Antonio. Vamo-fucking-nos!

I know…you are the best institutionalized mind on the internets.

But back to reality…oops, there goes gravity.
He’s you in fifteen years when fate leads you outside the apartment of an old married hag, peeping in to master-bait, and a mule kicks you in the head as you try to escape her husband’s wrath.
Dead from the neck up.

Nil.