morality

[gib]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can't a good against a good cancel out?

[Fixed Cross]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can't a good against a good cancel out?

There's the million dollar question.

I won't answer it. This is my morality.

[Fixed Cross]

James, what did you have for breakfast?
Was it good? Did it benefit you?

Is it still alive?

Your mother.

There are abstract inherent needs that are common for all people that lead to a best possible behavior regarding how one interacts with oneself, a personal morality. And there are social groups that depend upon interactions between members of the groups which leads to a best possible interaction behavior, a social morality.

And because a person can only have one actual morality, there is a best possible combination of the personal and social moralities that constitutes the single best possible morality that can be obtained. That best possible morality has an abstract objective foundation as well as versatile subjective amendments. But if you are about to suggest that either offering oneself up to be someone else's breakfast or having someone else for breakfast is the best possible behavior and morality, I think that I will just leave this discussion in the mud.

This is utter nonsense dear boy.

All this is predicated on
- existence of exact terms of good
- singularity of their validity
- teleological nature of life

and a couple of other things from Abrahams hollow leg that I reject with extreme prejudice.

[James S Saint]

...I reject with extreme prejudice.

The only thing that you said that was accurate.

[Fixed Cross]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can't a good against a good cancel out?

There's the million dollar question.

I won't answer it. This is my morality.

Morality is a why turned into a how.

A faultily answered why becomes a belief. Say for example; a God.
This God now in turn becomes the How. Not only the "how to creation, but mainly the How to society and Humanity.

At one point, all that matters is the ends, and the means become farcical. This happens after one has already attained the true ends, for which sound and integer means (sound to the heart) are essential. Ends found by nasty means are never originating acts, they are victories in a chain of sorrow. Much victory is provided in this way by the universe to man - there is much possibility to take the wrong good at the wrong time and create a gate of debauchery and hedonism where pleasure is reaped like paint of fresco's in the wind of time. And to have pleasure as the painting, as the creator of that paint, oil turned into color in magical processes and into visions by human skill, the shape out of shape, this pleasure is timing and delicacy, it can pass one by for a decade as in the blind of an eye - there is time within it, and time without it, and when the two meet it is disaster or divine. Epicurus is the first walker of this ledge, the first man who saw good only opposed in error, and error only in distraction. Those to whom life is essentially good, and to whom philosophy is a means to keep it undisturbed, are wise, but those who seek goodness as a final end are utter fools; and good nonetheless

[Fixed Cross]

...I reject with extreme prejudice.

The only thing that you said that was accurate.

It's the only part you can recognize the truthfulness of, absolutely.

[James S Saint]

...I reject with extreme prejudice.

The only thing that you said that was accurate.

It's the only part you can recognize the truthfulness of, absolutely.

..and there is a reason for that. Reasoning, rationality, philosophy ... all related.

[The Artful Pauper]

Edit: Nevermind

[Fixed Cross]

Ultimately though, the application (or way of life) depends on the circumstance and disposition of the interactant.

This is why any proper ethics system is a selecting device. It can never be the aim to include everyone, yet it must be open to everyone who meets the standards.
In fact there is not that much of a difference between a standard and a system of ethics.

And this is why, in this particular thread, I only seek resonance, not agreement.

[LaughingMan]

Morality: The ideological and philosophical systems of bullshit.

The art of manipulation by saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

A shield of immunity for one's actions especially if you say you're doing something in the name of God, government, or the so called greater social good.

Use those three excuses in the name of tyranny and you can get away with the most horrific of actions.

Am I missing anything here?

[Fixed Cross]

Morality: The ideological and philosophical systems of bullshit.

The art of manipulation by saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

A shield of immunity for one's actions especially if you say you're doing something in the name of God, government, or the so called greater social good.

Use those three excuses in the name of tyranny and you can get away with the most horrific of actions.

Am I missing anything here?

Not essentially. Morality is always an excuse to stop thinking and feeling at a certain threshold.

[Lev Muishkin]

Ultimately though, the application (or way of life) depends on the circumstance and disposition of the interactant.

This is why any proper ethics system is a selecting device. It can never be the aim to include everyone, yet it must be open to everyone who meets the standards.
In fact there is not that much of a difference between a standard and a system of ethics.

And this is why, in this particular thread, I only seek resonance, not agreement.

How do you understand the difference between morality and ethics...

Never mind you don't.

[Lev Muishkin]

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can't a good against a good cancel out?

There's the million dollar question.

I won't answer it. This is my morality.

Morality is a why turned into a how.

Not really.
It's more of a do turned into a do not.
"Stop that, put that down, put that away, stop saying that, wear this, don't wear that, stand up straight, shut up".
It's about the powerful designing a system of regulation and control that they don't have to pay for.

[Fixed Cross]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

No one has figured it out.
This is the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music.

How goods are made additive by conflict; through sacrifice of the morality of self-preservation.

[Lev Muishkin]

Morality: The ideological and philosophical systems of bullshit.

The art of manipulation by saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

A shield of immunity for one's actions especially if you say you're doing something in the name of God, government, or the so called greater social good.

Use those three excuses in the name of tyranny and you can get away with the most horrific of actions.

Am I missing anything here?

Yes, as usual you are missing the opportunity to agree with others who agree with you, and to expand your imagination by listening to those you disagree with. As a result you remain the same static, unimaginative, person who does not grow or learn.

You can always change your name and avatar, but you seem never to change yourself.

[Fixed Cross]

I believe that money has already overtaken us very early on in terms of efficient morality. If we look at how money multiplies and conquers and creates, we see that it spends itself only in forms of competition. I believe the largest economy is the War economy, and thereafter the Sports economy. But business even for healthcare is competition. We fight for the sick to obtain their contract and own their finances. We fight for the market of any given product. And from this all sorts of moneys are born and the principle is fluid and fertile. Man must become much the same way - he must cease to exist in blocks and become a plasma.

[Fixed Cross]

It's about the powerful designing a system of regulation and control that they don't have to pay for.

Yes.
How do we get these mobs under control?

By telling them why they exist.

(to serve)

[Fixed Cross]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can't a good against a good cancel out?

More precisely, the canceling out can not be itself anything other than good, objectively speaking. This is the first time I ever say these dreadful words. Only universal goodness can undo them of their curse, and only in this form, the concept appears as a liberator rather than as a form of ascesis.

If there is existence, and existence is "self-valuing" standardizing by valuing in terms of a consistent and self-sustaining will to power - which is what I hold, then it must be seen as inherently good to itself, and the good to itself must be in correspondence with its being as a will to power engaged in a perpetual struggle. This struggle is good, and whereas the dominated entity is less good to itself as it can be, it has become part of 'the goods' of a dominant form of being. Whether this be a molecule or a terrorist in a cell does't matter, all is defined by a goodness, necessarily, by its existence within a structure that is sustained.

And structures that sustain themselves attain this harmony through conflict. Not through conflict alone -- power, love, intelligence, techne, devotion, refined conduct, all of these are required as well and many more terms can be conjured up to describe what goes into an instance of existence -- but conflict binds all these, gives them their meaning their coherence as standing in service of life and leading to its fulfillment.

[Lev Muishkin]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

No one has figured it out.
This is the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music.

How goods are made additive by conflict; through sacrifice of the morality of self-preservation.

What do you mean "good" and "race"?

There is nothing to figure out here except that the idea would work if one mans good was not another mans evil and vice versa. When you figure that out you will be able to unpack the ridiculous claim; "Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good."
You also need to account for "bad" or evil in the world. When you take down the absurd notion that everyone is happy-clappy good you might be able to figure out your mistakes and to account for the world as it is and not portray the world as you want it to be.

[Fixed Cross]

Here are some practical consequences;
realize that all is always involved in conflict, whether it be love or hate or indifference. Recognize conflicts erupting before your eyes as things that were already eternally in play and position yourself accordingly. Effect: metaphysical conflicts will die down and the need of war is internalized into the economy. Vigorous competition both in technology and in industrial spying (the golden days of the US/Japanese sovereignty as a capstone to the victory in the cold war) are the natural norm. It is wise to see power in terms of electrical laws. Think in terms of resistances and conductors, and think of the source as pervasive.

[Fixed Cross]

Lev - sorry. I take a lot for granted in my readers. Here's what a friend said to me recently about her approach to the book on the origins of myth she is finishing and what she's read on my forum.

while I was bringing down what I know—which I feel is very little—to a level that would be completely understandable to anyone who kept their minds in gear as they read, explaining it in many different ways, it seemed the opposite of what you were doing, taking knowledge upward, addressing those who have already garnered a slew of concepts that they thoroughly understand.

I do not understand my philosophy as such per se, but I can see that something like this might be perceived here, as it requires a thorough understanding and appreciation of Nietzsche's original thought, the birth of tragedy, the elevation of the Dionysian to the splendid culture that still endures, by means of a universal condoning of 'evil' - death, as a son of the first benefix through the means of 'mysteries' --

[Fixed Cross]

Reading this you will understand that badness and evil are essentially different.

Evil is an attempt at objectifying bad experience as a noumenon. It's the scapegoat, the object to be responsible for the feeling of the absence of power.
Badness on the other hand is entirely subjective. Something is bad for someone, or to a type of species -- something is never bad to itself -- if it is it will not endure.
It must always reproduce before it is truly bad to itself. I suppose the male praying mantice suffers quite a lot.

[Fixed Cross]

What do you mean "good" and "race"?

I believe I've produced and referred enough to at least indicate what I mean with 'good' - the path to a full conceptualization should be quite visible from here. The word 'race' is used somewhat arbitrarily, as all men are good, and all races are good -- it's not of significance to this morality of which race one is.

[Lev Muishkin]

Lev - sorry. I take a lot for granted in my readers. Here's what a friend said to me recently about her approach to the book on the origins of myth she is finishing and what she's read on my forum.

while I was bringing down what I know—which I feel is very little—to a level that would be completely understandable to anyone who kept their minds in gear as they read, explaining it in many different ways, it seemed the opposite of what you were doing, taking knowledge upward, addressing those who have already garnered a slew of concepts that they thoroughly understand.

I do not understand my philosophy as such per se, but I can see that something like this might be perceived here, as it requires a thorough understanding and appreciation of Nietzsche's original thought, the birth of tragedy, the elevation of the Dionysian to the splendid culture that still endures, by means of a universal condoning of 'evil' - death, as a son of the first benefit through the means of 'mysteries' --

It's amazing how a frusty old German obscurantist, can be so liberally employed as a place-marker to pretend knowledge whilst denigrating those that are genuinely and honestly puzzled by how open to a range of diverse views is any tract by Nietzsche.

The birth of Tragedy is possibly N's most clear and thoughtful piece of writing, and as a one time student of Classical civilisation I know it pretty well. Image my incredulity when I see it bandied about as some form of explanation for a dialogue for which it has no place!

Whilst I understand you can pretend the follow a Dionysian pathway in the place of poor reasoning, it does not, at the same time provide and adequate excuse for it. Sadly you must choose. If you want to present a coherent argument; then REASON! If you would rather sing poetry whilst drinking vast quantities of wine, then do that. But pretending one as an excuse for the other is not viable.

[Lev Muishkin]

What do you mean "good" and "race"?

I believe I've produced and referred enough to at least indicate what I mean with 'good' - the path to a full conceptualization should be quite visible from here. The word 'race' is used somewhat arbitrarily, as all men are good, and all races are good -- it's not of significance to this morality of which race one is.

All men are not good. So much is obvious.
If you are not prepared to begin with the world as it is evident (whatever you mean by good) then you will never be able to say anything which reflects the condition of the world.
If you lie to yourself about the condition of Man, then you will never understand the human condition.