Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Morality

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Morality Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:15 pm

The favorite topic of every liberal, Judeo-Christian, idealist, nihilist, in short Modern, in our time.

The first thing to do is define the word, as it is encoded in human books....

Online Dictionary wrote:
mor·al
[mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man.


A repeating term "right", suggesting the "wrong".
The terms have no meaning outside human preferences, inclinations, hopes, fears, ideals; objectively, that is.
Subjectively it can have any definition the dichotomies of "right/wrong" suggest but never illuminate.

The first thing to note is a general understanding of words, and language.
In this case the word/symbol refers to a category, a manmade category, pertaining to a behavior.
The behavior is indifferent to the manmade category, because the human word is a human tool, and not a universal truth.
The behavior is a social behavior, and indicated a particular kind of behavior which is only possible within social organizations, pertaining to social species.
The behavior involves a risk taking, a cost undertaken with no foreseeable, and/or obvious, benefit.

Humans, having studied the behavior have reached a hypothesis.
It relates to blood ties, identities forged within groupings, and an altruism based on ensuring a return for a cost - an investment, to put it in economic terms.
The investment grows in time, and after repeated stresses, building what we call trust.

All of this, of course, originally happens on an intuitive, subconscious, level; a behavior promoted through natural selection methods, producing a particular demeanor, personality trait.
The behavior becomes innate, part of a species psyche, an automatic response to stimuli.
No thinking required, beyond the superficial, reactive, instinctive.

The fact that this word refers to a human construct, which then refers to a phenomenon, makes it malleable, as all words are.
A word can be detached from the phenomenon, gradually, and over time, making it a pure noetic symbol referring back to another human construct, or a human sensation, feeling, ambiguity.
This is the process of deification, purification...making of the word into a holy, spiritual symbol.

When detached it can then be defined in ways that contradict the original use, or slightly changing it to where it loses its original intent.
This is the nihilistic process.

Some other words where this process has advanced to a level where it can be discerned are the words...female/male....humanity....love...human...and, of course morality.
The slight alteration increases the scope of the original to where from an intuitive, genetic behavior, it becomes a learned, enforced, memetic one, and where the tribal ties built on trust and bloodlines become some vague universal ideal called humanity.

Now morality becomes institutionalized, enforced by using some absolute judgment of good/evil, and the threat/benefit of the eternal. The trust, mutual interests, genetic relationships, are morphed into some love for all...a thou shalt, under the penalty of a peer enforced penalty of shaming and exclusion and isolation, and genetic impotence - social castration.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:10 pm

Like with everything human morality has a theoretical and a pragmatic face, corresponding to the ideal and the real.
The ideal is how things should be, in a perfect, totally human world; the real is how this theory applies in pragmatically despite the theoretical and ideal.

In nihilistic dogmas, moral systems, the ideal is so detached from the real, so unrealistic, that no man can ever meet its standards resulting in the shame and guilt, as a form of self-deprecation.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:52 am

Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" to describe a set of behavioral traits that may not benefit the actor immediately but do benefit the actor's genes, which make the actor act.
Plants can be said to exhibit moral behavior from a human point of view, but it is not moral behavior as there is no code no logos, no 'thou shall not'.
What there is, is a selfishness where the other plant by sharing in the same genes is identified not as an otherness but as partially or completely Self.
The plant has no ability to discriminate visually. It relies on chemicals to discriminate, and when these chemicals (inter)act with its receptors (sense organs) it senses a similarity or a difference.


This advances in sophistication reaching the visual stage, where an organism is both mobile, unlike the pant, and also visual, managing to discern similarity/difference over longer distances.
Distance being in space, and space being possibility - the distance is the possible movement toward, and is temporal.
Action towards within an environment of known and unknown possibilities - cost/risk, the object/objective being the potential, not yet realized, benefit.

This shift in sensory medium create a shift in strategies and methods of evaluating good/bad, cost/benefit.


Cooperative social behavior is what makes morality, or moral behavior possible.
It also relates to time, over spatial possibilities.
Probability being the term which has evaluated the possible by using first-hand or second-hand, in man, experiences....in other words the past precedent.
With cooperation precedent is used. Precedent is called trust.
That the sun rises every morning makes me trust that it will so again this morning.
When another organism has helped me accomplish something I needed makes me trust in him/her doing so again.
Right there we see our probability evaluation rising, within an environment of unpredictable variables.
a comforting, comfortable, feeling.

Order, ordering/becoming, which is another way of saying organism, are emerging unities built on consistency, predictability.
They are attracted to it whenever they perceive it so as to become comfortable - to increase their level of comfort within the agon, the environment requiring vigilance, constant effort and so on.

The aesthetic appreciation is this perception of predictable consistency, comforting us.
It is why a particular distance form it is sometimes required.

In the case of a painting, where the chaos of the brush strokes, gives way to a simplification/generalization of forms, from a distance, where order is perceived.
In the case of a jungle, where the vibrant colors, the arrangement of trees, is enjoyed from a distance where the rotting flesh of dead carcasses the mosquitoes, the snake lying in wait are lost in the jumble/jungle.
The distance, detachment, offers the mind the potential to simplify/generalize sensual data losing the uncertainty, the chaos, the details, in the process.

In the case of cooperative behavior the other becomes this unknown, which slowly is known by its consistency and predictability....yet only from the comfortable distance of I/Other.
The other is simplified/generalized using its actions, is behavior to formulate a probability.
This increases comfort, trust.

Even if the other is dangerous to me I can trust that my evaluation of its method and behavior will be repeated.The trust is in my evaluation, built upon experience, precedent.

The other is always different...and similarity is then discovered in the other.
Not the other way around.
First there must be divergence before common ground is found....just as first comes consciousness, of otherness, before self-consciousness discovers self as another other....making Know Thyself a process of self discovery.

Morality begins not as a code, but as a trust.
I trust that you will help me rather than not help me or threaten me...nd in turn I will act in ways to increase your trust in me.
The possibility of a different option is always present.
This is called moral only by a mind raised in Judeo-Christian paradigms.
In nature there is no good/evil....there is only constructive/destructive....more beneficial less so, more costly less so.

The standard is time.

Why do I feel more inclined to help a gazelle drowning?
If the cost/benefit is positive, towards me, I ma more inclined to help because I can relate to the negative nature of existence.
I know the agon, I feel the need, and the anxiety/fear...I project myself and empathize.
I empathize with suffering, not so easily with pleasure, the latter might even make me suffer the pangs of envy, because suffering/stress is what I feel continuously to varying degrees.
The other now becomes an extension of me, from a distance...if I know nothing of it, its character, its past.
I see in it the order, and I want to preserve it...because I am ordering, and I am attracted by ordering.

If the distance is bridged and the particular organism is known to me, then precedent takes over.
If i dislike this particular organism then I may opt to watch it suffer, and feel pleasure in this, because now its ordering has come into conflict with mine, and mine always dominant.




_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:42 pm

In the struggle between predator and prey, why, is it, that we mostly side with the prey?

It's because we intuitively relate to the suffering, anxiety, stress, vulnerability, because we are it in relation to the vast expanse of possibilities, we call space/time.

It's a matter of identifying.
Why does a mother defend its young with its life?
Because she identifies with the 50% of the genes in them.

Why does a man go off to die for an abstraction, an idea, a nation?
Because his identity is part of it, or attached to it.
For him he does not die, because he is the Idea, the Nation, and nothing else outside of that.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:08 pm

Identification is another word for ego, self.

And this is what is called the "expansion" of the self, the greater Self, which can then reach the extent of an ALL, or a ONE.
In Modernity the smaller, organic, ego/self, is projected/exaggerated/inflated into an imagined hyperbole: the Nation, the Ideal, God, Humanity...
The smaller self is assimilated, devoured, immersed, buried, and it because the private personality/personae, the secret self, and in the forefront emerges the Character/Caricature of the public Self, in line with the cultural, moral, codes.
The smaller self is a delusion, it is shameful, primitive, little....the larger Self is liberating, eternal more real than real...it is the Idea(l) Platonic form of Self.

To sacrifice the smaller for the bigger becomes an easy transition from mortal to immortal, through the process of self-rejection, self-denouncement, self-hatred.
This process is called enlightenment...to be made light, as all ideas are light, airy, unburden by anything earthly, primal, natural....they are pure notion, holy spirit, detached and cleansed of anything vile and worldly.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1744
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:17 pm

Society destroys the identity of selfhood of the individual, and redefines self as "we". This creates a dichotomy, difference, and distance between the "I" of individuality, and the we of the group.

Most people, a vast majority, automatically associate self with "we", not I. Most people do not have a strong sense of individuality. The individual is against morality for the most part. Because morality is a controlling mechanism, a system of social laws and altruistic instincts. Society demands self sacrifice from the individual, a literal sacrifice. The individual destroys any difference within himself, then his "I" is destroyed and he becomes absorbed into the "we". A man who resists integration, as the masculine specie is prone to do, is deemed a "hater". Or there is something "wrong" with him. Anti social.

Absorption into society is similar, or the same as, emasculation, domestication, feminization, and castration. What is required most immediately by the male, not the female, is a suppression of his sex drive.

While females are encouraged to "express themselves" sexually by the liberal aspect of society. Conservatism is different in that it attempts to suppress female sexuality in addition to males. Liberalism seeks to suppress only the male sex drive. There is no social ideology that wishes to free the male sex drive, except perhaps anarchism. Because freeing the male sex drive, specifically, is anti social and destroys all moral codes.

A "free man" is a criminal. Because then it would not be wrong, automatically, to lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape, etc. All these moral laws are directed at males first and foremost, due to the nature of the genders. Females have no reason to commit crimes. Because they do not need to, in order to live and thrive successfully in society.

Males commit crimes for women, and on behalf of women.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:18 pm

Morality, detached from past/nature, projected as idea(l).
Value judgments refer to an idea(l), a goal, an object/objective, which gives particular behaviors value by increasing the attainment of the idea(l), or the approach towards it, because no idea(l) is ever attained.

I value human nobility, human intelligence, and so I value all behaviors that preserve and increase it.

Some retard may value happiness, or pleasure, and so will have a different standard of evaluating.
The idea(l) determines what is superior/inferior, within the particular environment.
When the environment is a human contrivance the human idea(l)s determine what is superior-inferior within it...in nature there is no conscious Being controlling and shaping the environment according to a telos, an idea(l) and so this natural world is the objective world; indifferent, fluctuating, unconscious, uncaring...(inter)active.

Within it beauty, intelligence, strength, is objectively determined.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 914
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:34 pm

What is this though but, by and large, human morality reduced down to a series of words defining and defending other words.

Pertaining to actual human conflicts revolving around such things as abortion, hunting, capital punishment, animal rights, homosexuality, the role of government, separation of church and state, gun control etc. etc., what constitutes "nobility"? What constitutes "intelligence"? What constitutes behaviors that preserve or increase it?

Isn't it always what you insist that it is? And, if others refuse to accept that, doesn't that make them retards. Axiomatically as it were?
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:39 pm

camus666 wrote:
What is this though but, by and large, human morality reduced down to a series of words defining and defending other words.

Pertaining to actual human conflicts revolving around such things as abortion, hunting, capital punishment, animal rights, homosexuality, the role of government, separation of church and state, gun control etc. etc., what constitutes "nobility"? What constitutes "intelligence"? What constitutes behaviors that preserve or increase it?

Isn't it always what you insist that it is? And, if others refuse to accept that, doesn't that make them retards. Axiomatically as it were?



Satyr wrote:
"Perspectives are not enough...we must test our views to see where we fall.

Empiricism.

Reality isn't decided with a referendum.

Here are some shared lies which I have already noted on this page:

-All deserve life

-Life is precious

-If you persist you shall succeed

-All are Equal

-Appearance does not matter

-The past does not affect the present

-Quantity is better than Quality

-All perspectives are equally valid

-Kin selection is not a factor

-Sex and  are irrelevant

-We live in a Democracy

-There is no censorship

-Political-correctness is productive

-There is a God

-Evolution is random

-Natural selection is evil

-There is such a thing as justice

-Beauty is skin-deep

-There exists an immutable core, a spirit

-Stupidity is not on the rise

-Saying something negative about another human being means you wish to kill them

-Discrimination is bad

It is clear that the increasing need to integrate heterogeneous, multifarious, populations into one cohesive, malleable and stable whole makes it necessary to diminish the aspects of individuation that confronts conformity as insufferable and an affront on individual dignity and the free expression of self.
That the other threatens us or challenges us or causes us distress, is not a convenient justification to dismiss it as evil or as unnecessary, because it suits our own interests and satisfies our own needs.

Truth knows of no wants but only demands an acknowledgment of its presence.
Truth not stringent but as flexible as the world purports it to be; truth that challenges us to keep-up or fall-back as its fatality.
Truth that forces us to maintain a flexible mind, constantly interpreting and adjusting to its aloofness.

The imposition of a rigid ideal is not realistic but a hopeful projection of our own desirable ending to an existential process that exhibits no such end and no purpose.
Our charge, if we are to accept one, is to keep up with its recalcitrant presence and our individual interpretations, our perspectives, are to be judged by how well they adhere to its obdurate provocation.

Perspectivism is not an argument to preserve our own established beliefs, it is a trial we must present ourselves as worthy of.

The underlying premise, throughout my views, is that the world does not bend to our will, unless we first perceive our own place within it and admit to our own misgivings; it is unaffected by declarations and simplistic denials, based on hope rather than an honest assessment of reality.
The world exists before our emergence and continues after our downfall. It is unconcerned with our preferences and our dismissals of its premises, but only submits to our resolve, when we fully comprehend it and use this understanding to bend it to our will.
Our will being our focused energies upon a desirable object/objective.

Human ideals represent direction, vague signposts that define our character but are never, ever, attained. The sequential effects determining the substance of our expectations and the viability of our hopes."

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:43 pm

Ha!
This is you "bringing it down to earth"?
Really?

Morality, boy, has to do with survival and social interactions.
Not pulling shit from your arse, or dismissing it as "skyhooks", you sad pathetic boy.
Morality refers to a behavior that increases survival potential, you fucked up nothing.
It is not magical, nor is it irrelevant.

The projected ideal is immortality....survival is a towards that....morality, like many other words referring to human behavior, like love, value, hate, envy, and so on, are survival tools.
Defining them is connecting them to the world.

I can have a field-day with you....for now read Lyssa's reply.
I must splishy-splashy the dirt away.


afro
But...I could be wrong...
HA!!!

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
camus666



Gender : Male Posts : 914
Join date : 2015-04-16
Location : philadelphia

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:04 pm

Satyr wrote:
Ha!
This is you "bringing it down to earth"?
Really?

Morality, boy, has to do with survival and social interactions.
Not pulling shit from your arse, or dismissing it as "skyhooks", you sad pathetic boy.
Morality refers to a behavior that increases survival potential, you fucked up nothing.
It is not magical, nor is it irrelevant.

The projected ideal is immortality....survival is a towards that....morality, like many other words referring to human behavior, like love, value, hate, envy, and so on, are survival tools.
Defining them is connecting them to the world.

I can have a field-day with you....for now read Lyssa's reply.
I must splishy-splashy the dirt away.


afro
But...I could be wrong...
HA!!!

You just can't help yourself, can you? For years and years now you have dispensed didactic contraptions like this. Words that are said to be true by yet more words that are said to be true by yet more words still. The logic going around and around self-referentially in circles.

And, really, how in the world is lyssa any different? She just copies and pastes more of the same. But what does any of it really have to do with real people out in the real world who struggle mightily with "the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty". And the deeper you delve into the complexity of human interactions down here the more you come to grasp the confounding nature of conflicting goods.

That's what I think we should explore pertaining to a particular moral conflict we are all familiar with.
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 502
Join date : 2015-04-20
Location : Repentance.

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:18 pm

hmm I agree with the list of lies (that they are lies), although I must say that immortality should not be the end goal, but immortality with unending Pleasure. And not the retard's form of "pleasure", but with the intellect that would develop through immortality one could eventually discover the secret to unending Pleasure. the intellect, knowledge and safety provided through immortality would be a great tool.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
novice



Gender : Male Taurus Posts : 59
Join date : 2012-06-05
Age : 29
Location : The road to the North.

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 4:48 pm

"unending pleasure".

Pleasure or happiness is a result or a symptom of a healthy life. The pursuit of pleasure and happiness for their own sake will especially in the long run result in utter misery.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 502
Join date : 2015-04-20
Location : Repentance.

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:14 pm

novice wrote:
"unending pleasure".  

Pleasure or happiness is a result or a symptom of a healthy life.  The pursuit of pleasure and happiness for their own sake will especially in the long run result in utter misery.  

This is a simplistic way of looking at it. What you refer to is man's constant search for simple pleasures to feed his insatiable appetite for things and novelty.

I refer to something much more grand, and infinite, and I cannot describe it at the moment because I do not yet understand it.

In the so called "healthy life' a species in the wild, is usually driven by animal needs, hunger, lust, and is unsatisfied the majority of it's time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:22 pm

There is no unending pleasure, dear.
pleasure is the negation of need/suffering, and need/suffering is the experience of Flux, or (inter)activity, Which is another word for existence.

Existence is experienced as need/suffering because the organism is a self-ordering within a fluctuating, and increasingly chaotic environment, tending towards the absolute randomness we call chaos.
But even if you do not accept chaos as a premise, dismissing randomness as a complex ordering, which is a position based no faith, you still cannot avoid need/suffering because (inter)activity is fluctuations which confront, contradict all order, and so stress, distress it.

I used the term immortality, as I would omniscience, as the idea(l) projection of absolute knowledge, and omnipotence, as the idea(l) projection of absolute power.

Can you help me out, dear?
i have no objective way of deciding which one is more attractive:

Is it her..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...or her...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A Downs Syndrome boy would say that in his subjective reality he is smart, and that there is no objective way to decide if he is truly retarded.
It's a way of escaping reality, and others who see it, and them within it.

Two, general types of Nihilists, I've categorized them as masculine/feminine, but you can sue the negative and positive, as in pure nihilists, who despise and reject the entire world, and those who do so but still want to retain the "good" stuff without having to pay the price for it, the "positive' nihilists, the hypocrites, in other words.
now, there are two general types of the second type....the Jew kind, who use positivity, and emotion, to offer an alternative to the world, full of promise, escape, all the good things, after death, or in some beyond.They usually play with words, using them like toys...placing them before, after, projecting them in the beyond...because words refer to abstractions unaffected, presumably, by time/space, and so they can be anything for anyone, at anytime.
Then we have the socialists, the master-baiters, the douche-bags.
For them words have nothing to do with reality, unless they refer to emotions, feelings...and pleasure is such a feeling.
The only rule is dictionary definitions, and where the other's subjectivity/pleasure begins yours ends - the Golden Rule.

In both cases pleasure is the self-referential only standard.
No other.
No objective world will even be tolerated because that will only expose them to a whole lot of hurt.


Glad to have another hedonist on board.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 502
Join date : 2015-04-20
Location : Repentance.

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:54 pm

Well there is always the hard-problem of consciousness, how can the specimen on interview actually be verified that they are in pleasure? Say someone is attracted to fat-chicks, are we certain they are in pleasure due their increased heartrate and erect-penis? Some who are raped and molested have such traits but swear they did not enjoy it.

Second part is how can you be sure of your own pleasure? You might feel it but how can you be sure this is how you want to be for all of eternity? The feeling of happy would surely grow to be a bore. One might suggest a constant memory wipe to keep the feeling fresh but how can one gaurantee that a constant memory wipe wouldnt destroy sentience? Or, if the goal is to destroy sentience by engulfing the universe in a black hole, how can one gaurantee sentience still wouldnt pop up in some other universe elsewhere?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:19 pm

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:
Well there is always the hard-problem of consciousness, how can the specimen on interview actually be verified that they are in pleasure? Say someone is attracted to fat-chicks, are we certain they are in pleasure due their increased heartrate and erect-penis? Some who are raped and molested have such traits but swear they did not enjoy it.

This is where "bringing it down to earth" as the retard says, is essential.
But most retards don't really want top bring it down to earth, or to connect the noumenon to the phenomenon.
Take the fat chick example...the first thing to think if someone tells you that he is attracted to fat chicks is "what is wrong with him?", or ask if he is really being honest with you and with himself, and snot sour -graping.
Why?
Because of what sex is...and because what the concept "human" means.
Human, as all words designating a species is a sexual term...a reproductive term.
We are attracted to particular proportions, and symmetry is always attractive, for a reproductive reason, not because of taste free from all causation, or pleasure for pleasure's sake.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And so physical symmetry is order...symmetry is a difficult thing to replicate....and so it is rare.
It requires a lot of energies.
What is symmetry?
Order.
Mental symmetry is charisma, intelligence.


Why certain proportions?
Because they indicate fertility.

That is the objective truth...and bringing it down to earth...to the soil, the ground, the primitive.
This is where retards do not want to go.



Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:
Second part is how can you be sure of your own pleasure?
You perceive patterns and extrapolate probabilities.
The expectation of pleasure may give you pleasure in anticipation, just as the memory of pleasure gives you pleasure in reliving it.

But pleasure is not the goal, the motive, it is the symptom, the side-effect of becoming what you want to become...the idea(l)...and moving towards it.
The movement towards it may increase your need/suffering, with no certainty as to the outcome.

For example i consider intelligence, as I've defined it, the quintessential human attribute and my idea(l) state, because it permits me to experience reality, pain and pleasure, to a deeper extent before my inevitable death.
But awareness, intelligence, exposes me to more possibilities, increasing my need/suffering...
I place it above that cost.

There is no "happy".
Happy is another word for pleasure.

Existence is constant experience with (inter)activity which is need/suffering...pleasure is a state of momentary satiation, and indicative of health, strength, power, order.

Strength being a measure of weakness.
Knowledge being a measure of ignorance.
Power being a measure of powerlessness.
Order being a measure of randomness.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I connect ALL my words with reality.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I leave nothing in limbo, on the "skyhooks" in the noetic air.
I bring it all down to earth...I connect the noumenon with the phenomenon, the ideal with the real.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Apr 21, 2015 11:52 pm

Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:
hmm I agree with the list of lies (that they are lies), although I must say that immortality should not be the end goal, but immortality with unending Pleasure. And not the retard's form of "pleasure", but with the intellect that would develop through immortality one could eventually discover the secret to unending Pleasure. the intellect, knowledge and safety provided through immortality would be a great tool.


Nietzsche wrote:
"To this day you have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, painlessness in brief . . . or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet." [JW, 12]


Do you agree with that?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 502
Join date : 2015-04-20
Location : Repentance.

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:57 am

Lyssa wrote:
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon wrote:
hmm I agree with the list of lies (that they are lies), although I must say that immortality should not be the end goal, but immortality with unending Pleasure. And not the retard's form of "pleasure", but with the intellect that would develop through immortality one could eventually discover the secret to unending Pleasure. the intellect, knowledge and safety provided through immortality would be a great tool.


Nietzsche wrote:
"To this day you have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, painlessness in brief . . . or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet." [JW, 12]


Do you agree with that?

i don't believe the "you" has a choice any more than a robot has a choice. you make the robot and somewhere along the lines its going to be miserable, you're gonna hear it trying to fix itself and make it less miserable but neither you nor the robot can really be sure if they are going to be miserable.

if i interpret the essence of his statement its something along the lines of "take a day off and enjoy yourself or do another day of boring grinding for future pleasures." As for me personally both are the same level of misery. another interpretation could be "think and feel positive, its your choice.' but for me it would be the same either way. i see the world, i feel nothing, my emotions are just chemical fluctuations, love is like drowning, fear is like drowning. i am only filled when my consciousness ceases to be. simply being thoughtless is not enough, simply being emotionless is not enough, i must not even be emotionless.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:20 pm

Satyr wrote:
Now morality becomes institutionalized, enforced by using some absolute judgment of good/evil, and the threat/benefit of the eternal. The trust, mutual interests, genetic relationships, are morphed into some love for all...a thou shalt, under the penalty of a peer enforced penalty of shaming and exclusion and isolation, and genetic impotence - social castration.









_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
OhFortunae

avatar

Gender : Male Scorpio Posts : 2477
Join date : 2013-10-26
Age : 23
Location : Land of Dance and Song

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 8:27 am

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY,  (almost a chapter from Alain de benoist's beyond human rights)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
Theory of human rights is given as a theory valid for all time and for all places, that is to say, as a universal theory. This universality, reputedly inherent in each individual posited as a subject, represents in it the standard applicable to all empirical reality. In such a view, to say that the rights are 'universal' is only another way of saying that they are absolutely true. At the same time, everybody knows well that the ideology of human rights is a product of the thought of the Enlightement, and that the very idea of human rights belongs to the specific context of Western modernity. The question then arises of knowing if the narrowly circumscribed origins of this ideology does not implicitly contradict its pretensions to universality. Since every declaration of rights is historically dated, does not a tension, or a contradiction result from it, between the historical contingency that presided at its elaboration and the demand of universality which it intends to affirm?
It is clear that the theory of rights, with respect to all human cultures, represents the exception rather than the rule — and that it even constitutes exception within European culture, since it appeared only at a definite moment and relatively late in the history of this culture. If the rights have been 'there' always, present in the very nature itself of man, one may be surprised that only a a small portion of humanity has perceived it, and that it has taken it so long to be perceived. How does one understand that the universal character of rights appeared as something 'evident' only in a particular society? And how does one imagine that this society could proclaim its universal character without at the same time vindicating its historical monopoly? That is to say, without positing itself as superior to those who have not recognised it?
The notion of universality itself raises problems. When one speaks of universality of rights, of what type of universality does one wish to speak? Of a universality of a geographical, philosophical or moral order? The unviersality of rights, besides, comes up against this question, posed straightaway by Raimundo Panikkar: ' Is there any sense in asking onself if the conditions of universality are unified when the question of universality itself is far from being a universal question?
All universalism tends towards the neglect or effacement of differences. In its canonical formulation, the theory of rights itself seems little disposed to recognise cultural diversity, and this is the case for two reasons: on the one hand its fundamental individualism, and the highly abstract character of the subject whose rights it proclaims, and on the other hand its privileged historical links with Western culture, or at least with one of the contituent traditions of this culture. One had a perfect illustration of that when the French Revolution affirmed the necessity of 'refusing everyhing to the Jews as a nation and according everything to them as individuals'. which came to link the emancipation of the Jews to the disintegration of their communal links. Since then, the discourse of human rights has not ceased to be confronted by human diversity such as is expressed in the plurality of political systems, of religious systems and of cultural values. Is this discourse dedicated to dissolving them or can it subsume them at the risk of dissolving itself? Is it compatible with the differences or can it only try to make them disappear?
All these questions which have given rise to a considerable amount of literature, end, in the final analysis, in a simple alternative: that is, rights are, in spite of their Western origins, truly universal concepts. Then one has to demostrate this. Or one should give up their universality, which would ruin the entire system: in fact, if the notion of human rights is purely Western, then its universalisation at the planetary level patently represents an imposition from outside, a devious way of converting and dominating, that is to say a continuation of the colonial syndrome.
An initial difficulty appears already at the level of vocabulary.
Up until the Middle Ages, one does not find in any European language — not more than in Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese or Japanese — a term designating a right as the subjective attribute of the person, distinct in itself from the judicial matter (the law). Which is the same as saying that, until a relatively late period, there did not exist any word to designate these rights considered as belonging to men by virtue of their humanity alone. This fact alone, judges Alasdair MacIntyre leads one to doubt their reality.
The very notion of right is not in the least universal. The Indian language has to only approximate equivalents to express it, such as yukta and ucita (appropriate), nyayata (just) or again dharma (obligation). In Chinese 'right' is translated by the juxtaposition of two words, chuan li, indicating power and interest. In Arabic, the word haqq, 'right', means first of all, truth.
The theory of human rights postulates, besides, the existence of another universal human nature, independent of epochs and places, which would be recognisable by means of reason. Of this affirmation, which does not belong to it properly (and which in itself is in no way contestable), it gives a very particular interpretation implying a triple separation: between man and other living beings ( man is the sole possessor of natural rights), between man and society (the human being is fundamentally the individual, and the social fact is not pertinent for knowing his nature), and between man and the cosmic whole (human nature does not owe anything to the general order of things). Now, this triple separation does not exist in the vast majority of non-Western cultures, including of course those which recognise the existence of a human nature.
The problem comes up quite particularly in the case of individualism. In the majority of cultures— as besides, one must recall, in the original Western culture— the individual in himself is quite simply not representable. He is never conceived as a monad, cut off from what connects him not only to his immediate neighbours, but to the community of living beings and to the entire universe. The notion of order, justice and harmony are not elaborated from him, nor from the individual place which would be that of man in the world, but from the group, the tradition, and the social relations, or the totality of reality. To speak of the freedom of the individual in himself thus makes no sense in the cultures which have remained fundamentally holistic, and which refuse to conceive of the human beings as a self-sufficient atom.
In these cultures, the notion of subjective rights is absent, whereas those of mutual obligation and reciprocity are omnipresent. The individual does not have to justify his rights but to work to find in the world, and first of all in the society to which he belongs, the most propitious conditions for the realisation of his nature and the excellence of his being.
Asiatic thoughts, for example, is expressed above all in the language of duties. The basic moral notion of Chinese thought is that of the duties which one has towards others, not that of the rights that one could oppose to them for 'the world of duties is logically anterior to the world of rights. In the confucian tradition, which cultivates the harmony between beings and nature, the individual could not posses rights superior to the community to which he belongs. Men are related to each other by the reciprocity of duties and mutual obligation. The world of duties is, besides, more extended than that of rights. While it is not true that to each obligation there is corresponds a right: we can have obligations towards certain men from whom we have nothing to expect, and also towards nature and animals, which do not owe us anything.
In India, Hinduism represents the universe as a space where beings traverse cycles of many froms of existence. In Taiosm, the tao of the world is regarded as a universal fact that governs the course of beings and things. In Black Africa, the social relationship includes living beings as well as the dead. In the Middle East, the notions of respect and honour determine the obligations within the extended family and the clan. All these facts are hardly reconcilable with the theory of rights. 'Human rights are Western values'. writes Sophia Mappa, 'which other societies, despite lip service, do not at all share'.
To posit that what comes first is not the individual but the group does not at all signify that the individual is 'enclosed' in the group, but rather that he acquires his individuality only in connection with a social relationship which is also a constituent of his being. That does not signify either that the desire to escape despotism, coercion or ill group, tensions may surge. That fact is indeed universal. But what is not at all universal is the belief according to which the best means of preserving freedom is to posit, in an abstract manner, an individual deprived of all his concrete charasteristics, disconnected from all his natural and cultural affliations. There are conflicts in all cultures, but in the majority of them, the vision of the world which predominates is not a conflicting vision (the individual against the group), but a 'cosmic' vision organised according to the order and the natural harmony of things. Each individual has his role to play in the whole into which he is positioned, and the role of political power is to ensure as best it can this coexistence and this harmony, which is the guarantee of eternity. Just as power is universal but the froms of power are not, the desire for freedom is universal, whereas the ways of responding to it can vary considerably.
The problem becomes especially acute when the social or cultural practices denounced in the name of human rights are not imposed practices but customary practices, evidently enjoying widespeard popularty amidst given populations (which does not mean that they are never criticised by them). How can a doctrine founded on the free disposition of individuals by themselves oppose it? If the men should be not encroach upon that of the others, why could not peoples of whom certain customs appear to us shocking or condemnable be left free to practice them as long as they do not seek to impose them on others?
The classic example is that of female circumcision, still practiced today in numerous countries of Black Africa (as well as in the certain muslim countries). It is quite evidently a question of a harmful practice, but it is difficult to extract it from an entire cultural and social context in which it is, on the contrary, considered as morally good and socially necessary: an uncircumcised woman will not be able to get married and will not be able to have children, which is why the women who are corcumcised are the first to have their daughers circumcised.
The question arises of determining in the name of what one can prohibit a custom which is not imposed on anybody. The only reasonable its favourableness, that is to say, to encourage an internal critique of the considered practice. It is those men and women whom the problem essentially concerns who should grapple with it. To cite another example, when a woman is stoned in a Muslim country and that infuriates the defenders of human rights, one can ask oneself exactly what this condemnation relates to: to the mode of execution (stoning), to the fact that adultey should be punised by death (or that it is quite simply punishable), or to the death penalty itself? The first reason seems of a mostly emotional sort. The second can at least be discussed (whatever feeling one may have on the question, in the name of what can one prevent the members of a given culture from considering adultery to be an offense that merits sanction and from freely evaluating the gravity of this punishment?). As for the third, it makes of every country that maintains the death penalty, beginning with the United States, a violator of human rights.
'To pretend to attribute a universal validity to human rights formulated in this way', writes Raimundo Panikkar, 'is to postulate that the majority of the peoples of the world are engaged, practically in the same way as the Western nations, in the process of transition from a more or less mythical 'Gemeinshaft'... to a 'modernity' organised in a 'rational' and 'contractual' manner, such as the industrial Western world knows it. That is a contestable postulate. So much so that 'to proclaim the concept of human rights ... could well be shown to be a Trojan horse introduced secretly into the heart of other civilisations with the aim of forcing them to accept those modes of existence, thoughts and feeling for which human rights constitute and emergency solution.
To accept cultural diversity demands a full recognition of the Other. But how to recognise the Other if his values and practices are opposed to those that one wishes to inculcate? The adherents of the ideology of rights are generally partisans of 'pluralism'. But what compatibility is religious beliefs? If the respect for individual rights passes through a non-respect for cultures and peoples, should one conclude from this that all men are equal, but that the cultures that these equals have created are not equal?
The Imposition of human rights represents, quite evidently, an acculturation whose realisation risks bringing about the dislocation or eradication of collective identities which also play a role in the constitution of individual indentities. The Classical idea according to which human rights protect the individuals against the groups to which they belong and constitute a recourse with regard to the practices, laws and customs that characterise these groups thereby proves to be doubtful. Do those who denounce such or such a 'violation of human rights' always measure exactly at what point hte practice of human rights can be characteristic of the cultures in the midst of which it is observed? Are those who complain of the violation of their rights ready, for their part, to pay for the observation of these rights with the destruction of their culture? Would they not rather wish taht their rights be recognised on the basis of what specifies their cultre?
'Individuals', writes Paul Piccone, 'are protected only when the essence of human rights is already embedded in a community's particular legal system and the people really believe in them. This remark is correct. By definition, human rights can be invoked only where they are already recognised, in the cultures and countries which have already internalised their principles — that is to say, where, theoretically, one should no longer have any need of invoking them. But if human rights can only be efficacious where the principles on which they are founded have already been internalised, the dislocation of cultures provoked by their brutal importation goes directly against the objective being pursued. ' The paradox of human rights' adds Piccone, 'Is that their implementation implies the erosion and destruction of the conditions (traditions and customs) without which their implementation becomes precisely impossible.
Back to top Go down
View user profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/109705167311303906720/posts
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 7:58 pm

Amongst moderns some acts being immoral is taken for granted.

It's so automatic that they cannot think outside its premises.
It's not about utility for such creatures, it is about some moral standard which is always Judeo-Christian, Secular Humanist.
Everything is clouded by this moralistic mist.

The pragmatic utilitarian effects of murder or abortion or giving women the vote are always approached through this mist of Christian morality.
And because Christianity is nihilistic they are caught in a dilemma, trying to harmonize utility, the motive, with the Christian moral dogma.
In most cases because Christianity is anti-life, this places them in a fix.

Oh well.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 8:05 pm

Morality begins as a social, instinct enabling organisms to cooperate and live in proximity to one another.
Species with no social structure, solitary species, have no morals, or no primitive emergence of what later becomes known as morality among humans.

This social instinct later evolves into a set of communal rules which discipline the many to a common ideal, a common goal.
The motive shapes the moral standard.

There is no universal morality, but there is an objective reality which morals may or may not agree with, depending if they are part of a life affirming or life denouncing culture.  
The culture determines the goal, and the goal shapes the morals, the ethical system governing the social structures.
What is ethical in one culture is unethical in another.

The relationship of the culture to the world shapes the direction these morals will take, yet all have a shared ground in their social past, and their utility as a social disciplining factor.

In nature morality is meaningless.
In social organisms with particular survival strategies morality has a survival meaning, usually having to do with belonging or not to that particular group.
There is nothing moral or immoral about killing another member of a group.
It is detrimental to survival because this sets a precedent which the other members cannot help but notice.
Morality and adhering to the shared morals is a way the individual expresses its acceptance of the shared rules.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 8:13 pm

An organism will always choose what heightens its survival potential.
It's morals will be determined by how it defines self, what aspects of self it is not willing to live without, and what ideals guide its every decision; what objective is focused upon as the desirable one.

An objective perception of world will undoubtedly contribute to this decision making.
A Christians morals will be different from a Pagans.
Each has a different relationship to the world, and evaluates different outcomes as more or less preferable, and probable.

The world remains indifferent to both.
Each choice affects the individual not the world.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 8:30 pm

You can always identify a Judeo-Christian and a Secular Humanist, and a Marxist...they are all different branches on the same Nihilist tree.

They will always propose a question where in the question something is taken as self-evident.

For instance in the question: "What is changing, if all is flux?" the question presupposes what it is then demanding an answer to.
In the question: "Why does God not exist?" God is taken as self-evident and then proof of the negative is demanded.
In the question: "Why is abortion immoral, or why is it moral" it is taken for granted that abortion, or the taking of life, is a moral issue, and that this moral issue is obviously a Judeo-Christian one.
In the question: "Is there absolutely no absolute?" the absolute has already been taken as a given, and then the question revolves around discrediting where the pro and con are now on equal footing.
Same for the question: "Is it true that there is no truth?"

Here the world are detached from reality, and offered as pure noumena.
None of these concepts God, Morality, Absolute, Truth has any reference to anything phenomenal, but are pure human constructs.
The word truth is slightly different because here if it is taken as a substitute for a hypothesis which is more likely, it would be different from it being used as a symbol for an absolute.

Let us consider the word "death" describing a real phenomenon: the cessation of conscious life, the end of self-ordering.
From an objective standpoint death is neither good nor bad.
It has no value outside of a subjective perspective, coming from a conscious life-form, describing its end.
Death has no objective moral value either.
It is not sacred to be alive, nor is it not sacred.

It is so only for a living organism and even here how sacred and what type of life is so, differs, depending on the motive.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Mon May 11, 2015 8:47 pm

The search for truth, if it is warped by what is desirable and what undesirable, arrives at an self-serving error.
Truth is what you seek in order to determine what is desirable and what is undesirable.

But in a world where everything is inverted, value precedes judgment, consciousness precedes life, pleasure precedes need/suffering, all bullshit is equally valid.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 1944
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 33
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed May 27, 2015 10:54 am

Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:

morality (n.)
late 14c., "moral qualities," from Old French moralité "moral (of a story); moral instruction; morals, moral character" (13c.) and directly from Late Latin moralitatem (nominative moralitas) "manner, character," from Latin moralis (see moral (adj.)). Meaning "goodness" is attested from 1590s.

moral (adj.)
mid-14c., "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," literally "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (genitive moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (n.1).

Meaning "morally good, conforming to moral rules," is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory (with sense of "pertaining to character as opposed to physical action"). Related: Morally.

ethics (n.)
"the science of morals," c. 1600, plural of Middle English ethik "study of morals" (see ethic). The word also traces to Ta Ethika, title of Aristotle's work. Related: Ethicist.

ethic (n.)
late 14c., ethik "study of morals," from Old French etique "ethics, moral philosophy" (13c.), from Late Latin ethica, from Greek ethike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of ethikos "ethical," from ethos "moral character," related to ethos "custom" (see ethos). Meaning "moral principles of a person or group" is attested from 1650s.

ethos (n.)
"the 'genius' of a people, characteristic spirit of a time and place," 1851 (Palgrave) from Greek ethos "habitual character and disposition; moral character; habit, custom; an accustomed place," in plural, "manners," from suffixed form of PIE root *s(w)e- third person pronoun and reflexive (see idiom). An important concept in Aristotle (as in "Rhetoric" II xii-xiv).

morale (n.)
1752, "moral principles or practice," from French morale "morality, good conduct," from fem. of Old French moral "moral" (see moral (adj.)). Meaning "confidence" (especially in a military context) first recorded 1831, from confusion with French moral (French distinguishes le moral "temperament" and la morale "morality").


Manners, customs…
Appropriate behavior for social settings, for social activity.
If there is no written book on what constitutes appropriate behavior then there is no way of knowing what the good manners are. Prior to the invention of the letterpress there were no manners and customs, everybody was behaving arbitrarily.
No…of course not, prior to that was an oral tradition where children were taught the right manners and they passed it on themselves to their children and so forth.
There is this game called 'Whispering down the lane', yeah…, adding to that the observation that memories alter over time and the manners and customs of a society would have to become an arbitrary mess if that were the reality of how customs are maintained.

Manners and customs are what they are because of the nature of the social participants (their quality; ancestry; genetics;…)and their environment (climate; population density; and in sheltered environments, the technologies available). All of that is interacting with each other. The passing on of moral codes and customs is part of that activity.

If someone were to make the assumption that morality is this universal thing, this universal good which people only need to be informed about then how could they reconcile this with the reality of increasingly diversifying customs, due to the increasing heterogeneity in the mixed unified population - humanity? You rationalize it post-facto and make the customs, the morality, as all-inclusive as possible while at the same time finding ways to create social cohesion (based on cowardice, preferring the slow destruction over time to suppress the open conflict). Ideological unity is being preserved at the expense of biological wholesomeness, integrity.


There are people who know about the right kind of social behavior by following a set of instructions they received at some points in their education. If that is the primary source for morality and manners then those customs lose their meaningfulness and social interaction becomes unreflected and thoughtless, or cynical.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed May 27, 2015 12:32 pm

Morality with no object/objective is a nonsensical, pure noetic, construct (abstraction with no reference to anything outside human artifices, similar to the concept God).

In nature the word morality indicates a particular behaviour, associated with social organisms, which promotes the probability of survival, through cooperative tactics.
It's objective there is survival, and the good bad concepts find a meaning in reference to this Object/Objective.

The word "moral" on its own is meaningless. It has no reference to anything real, worldly, earthly, but only retains an ambiguous insinuation within a social unity with shared motives.
Good/Bad are the polar ends of a binary human system of thinking, conceptualizing, which is also indicated in the mathematical concepts of 1/0.
These symbols, metaphors, if taken literally, as they often are by modern Nihilists, results in paradoxes the mind becomes entrapped in.
When taken as what they are, figurative, approximations, symbols, representations, they return to their function as tool: tools for orientation, understanding, projection, preparation...and so on.

Within manmade environments, the noetic space-time of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] the good/bad, or good/evil in the Christian meme, is in reference to a particular ideal citizen, an idea(l) human.
And since all is phenomenon and (inter)active, dynamic, it indicates a particular behaviour in reference to the idea(l) Polis.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:39 am

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
As long as herd utility is the only utility governing moral value judgments, as long as the preservation of the community is the only thing in view and questions concerning immorality are limited to those things that seem to threaten the survival of the community; as long as this is the case, there cannot yet be a “morality of neighbour love.” Suppose that even here, consideration, pity, propriety, gentleness, and reciprocity of aid are already practised in a small but steady way; suppose that even in this state of society, all the drives that would later come to be called by the honourable name of “virtues” (and, in the end, basically coincide with the
concept of “morality”) – suppose that they are already active: at this point they still do not belong to the realm of moral valuations at all – they are still extra-moral. During the best days of Rome, for instance, an act done out of pity was not called either good or evil, moral or immoral; and if it
were praised on its own, the praise would be perfectly compatible with a type of reluctant disdain as soon as it was held up against any action that served to promote the common good, the res publica.

Ultimately, the “love of the neighbour” is always somewhat conventional, wilfully feigned and beside the point compared to fear of the neighbour. After the structure of society seems on the whole to be established and secured against external dangers, it is this fear of the neighbour that again creates new perspectives of moral valuation. Until now, in the spirit of common utility, certain strong and dangerous drives such as enterprise, daring, vindictiveness, cunning, rapacity, and a domineering spirit must have been not only honoured (under different names than these of course), but nurtured and cultivated (since, given the threats to the group, they were constantly needed against the common enemies).
Now, however, since there are no more escape valves for these drives, they are seen as twice as dangerous and, one by one, they are denounced as immoral and abandoned to slander.
Now the opposite drives and inclinations come into moral favour; step by step, the herd instinct draws its conclusion. How much or how little danger there is to the community or to equality in an opinion, in a condition or affect, in a will, in a talent, this is now the moral perspective: and fear is once again the mother of morality. When the highest and strongest drives erupt in passion, driving the individual up and out and far above the average, over the depths of the herd conscience, the self-esteem of the community is destroyed – its faith in itself, its backbone, as it were, is broken: as a result, these are the very drives that will be denounced and slandered the most.

A high, independent spiritedness, a will to stand alone, even an excellent faculty of reason, will be perceived as a threat.
Everything that raises the individual over the herd and frightens the neighbour will henceforth be called evil; the proper, modest, unobtrusive, equalizing attitude and the mediocrity of desires acquire moral names and honours.
Finally, in very peaceable circumstances there are fewer and fewer opportunities and less and less need to nurture an instinct for severity or hardness; and now every severity starts disturbing the conscience, even where justice is
concerned. A high and hard nobility and self-reliance is almost offensive, and provokes suspicion; “the lamb,” and “the sheep” even more, gains respect.  

There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes pathologically enervated and tenderized and it takes sides, quite honestly and earnestly, with those who do it harm, with criminals. Punishment: that seems somehow unjust to this society, – it certainly finds the thoughts of “punishment” and “needing to punish” both painful and frightening.

“Isn’t it enough to render himunthreatening? Why punish him as well?

Punishment is itself fearful!” – with these questions, the herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its final consequences. If the threat, the reason for the fear, could be totally abolished, this morality would be abolished as well: it would not be necessary any more, it would not consider itself necessary any more!
Anyone who probes the conscience of today’s European will have to extract the very same imperative from a thousand moral folds and hiding places, the imperative of herd timidity: “we want the day to come when there is nothing more to fear!”
The day to come – the will and way to that day is now called “progress” everywhere in Europe. -Beyond Good and Evil [201]

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:39 am

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
As long as herd utility is the only utility governing moral value judgments, as long as the preservation of the community is the only thing in view and questions concerning immorality are limited to those things that seem to threaten the survival of the community; as long as this is the case, there cannot yet be a “morality of neighbour love.” Suppose that even here, consideration, pity, propriety, gentleness, and reciprocity of aid are already practised in a small but steady way; suppose that even in this state of society, all the drives that would later come to be called by the honourable name of “virtues” (and, in the end, basically coincide with the
concept of “morality”) – suppose that they are already active: at this point they still do not belong to the realm of moral valuations at all – they are still extra-moral. During the best days of Rome, for instance, an act done out of pity was not called either good or evil, moral or immoral; and if it
were praised on its own, the praise would be perfectly compatible with a type of reluctant disdain as soon as it was held up against any action that served to promote the common good, the res publica.

Ultimately, the “love of the neighbour” is always somewhat conventional, wilfully feigned and beside the point compared to fear of the neighbour. After the structure of society seems on the whole to be established and secured against external dangers, it is this fear of the neighbour that again creates new perspectives of moral valuation. Until now, in the spirit of common utility, certain strong and dangerous drives such as enterprise, daring, vindictiveness, cunning, rapacity, and a domineering spirit must have been not only honoured (under different names than these of course), but nurtured and cultivated (since, given the threats to the group, they were constantly needed against the common enemies).
Now, however, since there are no more escape valves for these drives, they are seen as twice as dangerous and, one by one, they are denounced as immoral and abandoned to slander.
Now the opposite drives and inclinations come into moral favour; step by step, the herd instinct draws its conclusion. How much or how little danger there is to the community or to equality in an opinion, in a condition or affect, in a will, in a talent, this is now the moral perspective: and fear is once again the mother of morality. When the highest and strongest drives erupt in passion, driving the individual up and out and far above the average, over the depths of the herd conscience, the self-esteem of the community is destroyed – its faith in itself, its backbone, as it were, is broken: as a result, these are the very drives that will be denounced and slandered the most.

A high, independent spiritedness, a will to stand alone, even an excellent faculty of reason, will be perceived as a threat.
Everything that raises the individual over the herd and frightens the neighbour will henceforth be called evil; the proper, modest, unobtrusive, equalizing attitude and the mediocrity of desires acquire moral names and honours.
Finally, in very peaceable circumstances there are fewer and fewer opportunities and less and less need to nurture an instinct for severity or hardness; and now every severity starts disturbing the conscience, even where justice is
concerned. A high and hard nobility and self-reliance is almost offensive, and provokes suspicion; “the lamb,” and “the sheep” even more, gains respect.  

There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes pathologically enervated and tenderized and it takes sides, quite honestly and earnestly, with those who do it harm, with criminals. Punishment: that seems somehow unjust to this society, – it certainly finds the thoughts of “punishment” and “needing to punish” both painful and frightening.

“Isn’t it enough to render himunthreatening? Why punish him as well?

Punishment is itself fearful!” – with these questions, the herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its final consequences. If the threat, the reason for the fear, could be totally abolished, this morality would be abolished as well: it would not be necessary any more, it would not consider itself necessary any more!
Anyone who probes the conscience of today’s European will have to extract the very same imperative from a thousand moral folds and hiding places, the imperative of herd timidity: “we want the day to come when there is nothing more to fear!”
The day to come – the will and way to that day is now called “progress” everywhere in Europe. -Beyond Good and Evil [201]

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:07 am

A regional herd appears to be distressed with the topic of "morality", and how to cope with being "thrown into the world" without consent.
A very distressing, non-politically-correct circumstance, making them all "victims" of injustice.
Distressed by its victim-status it projects victims of violence, of immoral acts, all around it, in a typical nihilistic psychotic practice.
With its projections it exposes its self, its individual sources and reasons why it identifies as "victim", and prefers to associate with "victims", converting the abuser, the victimizer into another "victim" - one suffering from a higher grade of victimization.
Herd asks "What is wrong with him? What happened to him, to make him this way?" already presuming a pure, "healthy" idea(l) state being diverted from - usually associated with socioeconomic, cultural norms.
The noble savage corrupted away from his authentic benevolence, by an evil world, represented by a "fallen angle" a human, usually white and male.

In between the simpler ones, where binary/dualism, the lighthouses of the Nihilistic paradigm, boxes them into a dilemma of God, as absolute moral authority, and no-God, as the absolute absence of moral authority, and the more disillusioned "complex" ones of no moral standards outside their subjective desperate mind - "I am creator of my own identity!!! I am God reborn!!"....is where I slither in.

Along with my earlier positions on morality, returned to the Agora, I've posted recent clarifications: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

My positions do not propose a universal morality, like Judeo-Christians/Muslims do, nor do they propose the absolute absence of morality, as an important, necessary, aspect of survival and the human condition...of social behaviour in all species, in fact.
Survival forces compromises which then develop into innate instinctive behaviours, becoming part of the nature of a species, and every organism belonging to this reproduction category.
The necessity for nutrition, for example, develops into specialized forms of hunting manifesting as appearance.

Morality is a necessary part of the cooperative survival strategy, and heterosexual reproduction where solitary species must congregate in ephemeral social unities once a year to allow the process to finalize in a birth.

Love, hate, all emotions are automatic (re)actions, evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection.
Love, a sophistication of lust, is, no less, an innate automated (re)action, resulting in particular behaviours that facilitate social survival strategies and pair bonding that facilitates heterosexual reproduction.
Morality, like love, is innate.
Why it is so, is where I offer my theories trying to nu-cover, reveal, follow the string of knowledge out of the labyrinth of time.

My positions on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have also been made available for scrutiny.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Thu Feb 25, 2016 4:51 pm

Morality only has meaning in relation to a goal, just as an idea(l) has meaning, as a concept represented by a word, in relation to a projected outcome, considered desirable based on the individuals assessment of the world, as he's lived it, sampling first and second hand experiences.

Ethics is the study of common rules governing all moral standards.

The value of a moral standard is not because of conviction but application: how well it fulfills the projected outcome, in relation to world.
In the case of morality as an innate, evolved behavioural standard, with the goal of harmonious cooperative coexistence - the outcome, or how one defines and imagines morality, is validated by the outcome.
If the behavioural norms, called moral, fulfill the goal of harmonious cooperative coexistence, then they are deemed "good", and are ascribed value, if not then they are the fantasies of imbeciles.
In nature behavioural standards are not theorized beforehand, they are selected, gradually, through trial and error - the individual behaving in accordance with them will pass on its gens, the one who does not will not pass on its genes, in time developing a type of behaviour = a social behaviour particular to the species, and which humans call moral thinking of their own species behavioural standards as universal "truths".
Having said that I must admit that because the species human does not emerge out of nothing but out of a continuum of becoming, related to other species, that some of these behavioural standards are shared by other social species, or species with heterosexual reproductive strategies, necessitating a period of cohabitation and tolerance.
This fact is what Modern Nihilists use to justify the universality of their human, morals, when at other times they ignore other species when ti suits their social engineering idea(l)s.
Ethics being the exploration of human morals to find patterns of behaviours that relate to universal patterns of (inter)activity.

Living the "good" life is not the same as living the moral life, unless you are hedonist confusing your self-interests for cosmic truisms, and your pleasures for a universal motive, directed by some universal will.
we are now aware of the fact that human social behaviours involves a degree of self-denial, rejection of personal interests - it is a compromise, explored by Nietzsche, Freud, Schopenhauer, and many others.
A self-denial some sell as mystical, supernatural, to make the compromise more justifiably severe.
Judeo-Christian/Islamist, had to invent a more "real" reality to achieve this goal of self-negation, and this self-negation is still with us in the form of other ideals.
With the death of god and disillusionment with this promised "eternal life", the (re)action that followed among those who would have succumbed to heard psychology is nihilistic despair, resulting in immorality, hedonism, modernity.
Those who could not deal with the loss, had to inebriate themselves to cope
One method of inebriation is self-denial through other: the identification of self as something bigger, better, immortal.
Humanity is such a identifier. Cleansed of its reproductive meaning, it becomes another word with no references, but only in the minds of the membership.
This is what I've called pure noumenon - or noumenon referring to other noumena.
Ethics falls into this trap.
With no God to impose a cosmic, absolute, morality, the feeble-minded cow looks for another solidifying meaning, wanting to evade the natural unity that would expose it to all sorts of other distressing possibilities.
Morality becomes another word for fashion. What humanity says it is, at any given time, is what it is.
Morality malleable, governed by the shifting social dynamics of modern idiocy.
Homosexuality 50 years ago, is immoral, and today it becomes moral - the truth before is different from the current, Modern, truth, and the truth a few years will be something else.
The universe adapts to human social trends and whimsy.
God is reintroduced as a universe that changes to fit human needs - benevolent Deity that with a parental loving tolerance, shapes itself, to fit into its child's requirements.



_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:28 pm



Modern Ethos.



Abrahamic Religiuos Ethos, splintering into its many secular forms.




Pagan ethos, when coupled with Utilitarianism.
Aristotle's teleology aside...
The Idea(l) directs the mind towards its demands.
It forces the mind to discipline itself to its calling.
The individual is inspired by a real representation of the idea(l) (phenomenon), or is inspired by a theoretical, projected, imagined conception of it (noetic).
The outcome of his actions (choices, intentions) are juxtaposed against his idea(l), theoretical or actual, establishing a good/bad evaluation.

To make the idea(l) objective it must be measured against world, and not individual tasted, ambitions, preferences.
The standards of evaluation must be extricated from personal factors, such as emotions, needs, (genes), and from upbringing, culture (meme), as much as this is possible.  
Its constitution, longevity, within a world in Flux, is one part of the evaluating standard, and this can be determined using precedent and from its ongoing performance; the second is how realistic, how realizable this idea(l) is, and this can, also, be determined using precedent, which immediately decreases the value of a theoretical idea(l) compared to an actual, pragmatic one; the third part of evaluating the objectivity of an idea(l) is by how aligned the projected idea(l), the intended objective, is with past/nature, determined by how much it harmonizes and/or contradicts genetic dispositions and observed natural processes, and their evolved functions.

The outcome of an action is what is measured against the intend, determined by personal judgment of the previous three factors of evaluating good/bad.

It's not enough to want to be good, and do good, no matter how you define the word, but it is by the outcome that the value of your intention can be evaluated.
An act is neither good or evil, but it is the consequence that makes it so, when measured against an indifferent world - and when I use "world" i mean more than just humanity.
It is in this world, with no intervening wills and sheltering powers, that a judgment measures itself, deciding what is objectively good and bad, despite personal tastes, preferences, and upbringing.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:05 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:44 pm


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:01 pm

Morality
From such humble soil holy empires are built, with bit of spit and spindle.
Neither universally objective nor subjective and so up to anyone to decide.
Like beauty....it cannot be ignored.
How much chatter can be invested in such a simple feeling, like love?
To love Love, is to love the idea(l) of it, the immanent coming, the liberating salvation - losing yourself in the moment, in the losing of self through other.
Sweet liberty, when other is so intimate a thing, for a moment.
Romantics raising it to the heavens and cynics burying it in the dirt, as if this were an insult.

Morality - only troubling social organisms, wondering if this expansion of self, can include all life, all matter, the entire cosmos.
Morality - only confusing the anti-social organism, wondering if it can overcome its ingrained, over centuries of evolution, instincts - if it can become independent.

If we do not begin from the ground, the dirt, finding there the material to built upwards, then we are building castles in the air, or purposefully slandering all to keep our hopes alive.

Why does it evolve at all, if we exclude the Judeo-Christian/Islam hypothesis?
What does it describe, forcing man to define it, and then redefine it wanting to escape its origins?
We all know why beauty is denied objectivity, making every compromise a matter of choice, reducing ti to the physical, like race, to ridicule its objective meaning - its connection to the perceived, but why love is convoluted and converted to a magical ambiguity, nobody can grasp, and nobody out to slander with an attempt has to be understood by going into what this sensation/emotion is, and why it has evolved - what function does it serve, making it so central in the minds of the common mind?

Morality has a similar multiplicity of functions, pleasing the average mind with its hypothetical incomprehensibility - its mysticism.
Let us forget love for a moment, for it is part of the function of morality.

What are we speaking of when we say "moral"?
We are speaking of a behaviour, an act, or a series of acts, sometimes requiring a particular sequence, in relation to something else, an other, or a group of others, being affected, to one degree or another, by this behaviour, this act, founded on a choice.
The behaviour is deemed good/bad, not until alter is it made into a religious good/evil, bringing in more than the earthly, to univer-salize it, implying its absoluteness, its "objectivity", meaning, in this case, a rule all life and non-life is subordinate to.
We might think of the Laws of Physics as Moral laws, bringing about a "good" outcome, which is existence, and life. But, here, man perceives behaviours, of inanimate matter/energy, and measures them against a standard of positive/negative, based on his own organic processes, and, his own needs.

We must not go further along this line of thinking, because it will only cloud the starting point which is that moral behaviour has only been observed among social organisms, and all other behaviours have been anthropomorphize, projecting human understanding, into a-moral choices, having to do, most of the time, with survival, and the behaviours evolved to facilitate it.
Man does that, when he has not evolved much further up the third level of cognition or the third level of intentionality.
Jaynes Bicameral Mind offers insight into a previous, lower level of cognition, where man confused his own emerging self-consciousness, as a otherness - his internal voice mistaken for gods whispering into his ears...like a dog confuses his own reflection for another dog.
On this level the minds abstractions, are projected into every phenomenon, he reduces down to an object - a phenomenon distinct from the background (inter)activities.
We might consider this the beginning of paranoia and narcissism...or the biological roots of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as a byproduct of emerging self-consciousness, relating to consciousness.

As with consciousness of consciousness, (awareness of being aware) or consciousness of self, it can develop to a degree of fourth, fifth, sixth degrees of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], producing an identity crisis.
I bring in Love, at this point, as a similar pleasurable confusion of identity - indicated in primitive lifeforms imprinting at the moment of birth.
Imprinting is the association of self, using sensual cues, similarities - (patterns) with other - where the individual organism and the other, become part of a unit...evolving in man into abstracted identities such as Nation, or Church.
This association of self with other, reduces existential solitude, particularly in social species that have developed the social instincts of codependency, required for cooperation and tolerance of other, to bind them into groups.

And this is where Morality enters the scene, as the word referring to this evolved codependency, adjusting attraction/repulsion forces, increasing tolerance of other, and the pleasure of shared costs/benefits - a reduction in stress.
What we mean by Morality is this sense of communal identity, based on similarities (genetic/memetic), upon which is added the aforementioned social functions, expressed in behaviour...or actions.

It is not objective as in universal, but neither is it subjective, as in decided by each individual.

It is objective when the term does not refer to absolutes, or something outside space/time, or perfect, or whole, but objective referring to a fluctuating shared world each individual interprets and is forced to adjust/adapt to.
Morality as an imposed, upon the individual, intuitive, norm, which facilitates its inclusion into the species, and its sub-divisions.
We, as social organisms, appreciate a dog risking its life to pull its mate out of traffic, and we call ti a moral act - in reference to the good which is being alive, or of helping a creature of your kind survive - and the reciprocity relationship this places both within.
It is not hard to figure out why such behaviour would evolve, not only because of the sheltering groups produce, or the benefit of synergy and operation, but more so the investment in reciprocity, that pays dividends in time.

None of this would be suffices to explain how a simple organism can overcome its natural automatic fight/flight mechanisms if we do not demystify Love, finding its association with the sexual urge and lust, if we do not de-romanticise the word, connecting it to observable phenomena.
Then, its role in weening big-brained offspring, and its place in heterosexual reproduction, clarifies its essence, also explaining how it factors into morality and social behaviours.

This does not diminish it.
It only diminishes it in the minds of romantic fools that have already placed it on a pedestal from where it can only fall and shatter upon the hardness of reality.
Nor does it feed into the cynics psychosis, laughing at everything to release anxiety and pretend he is above it all.
It actually reinforces it, using reason, where emotion fails to hold firm over time and in turbulence.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:14 pm

Morality, established as ethos, is determined by the goal, the idea(l), the desirable guiding principle.
The goal, the motive, is what shapes morality and gives it meaning.

In its original, most primal form, the principle was survival.
We see this in social animals, and in primitive humans.
Then it evolved into survival projected beyond the individual's lifespan, and then further still, beyond time/space, bringing us to the Abrahamic nihilistic Moral systems.

Pagan ethos is a form of retrogression to a superior state, evolved during a time when aristocracy was more than a word signifying social status, and wealth.
A return to an ethos that does not place survival, personal interests, as the guiding principle.

An idea(l) determined objectively.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 14009
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Morality Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:35 pm

Moral principles remain stable because social hierarchies and necessities remain stable.
Same principles governing the harmonious cooperation and coexistence of canines, also apply to felines, and primates, like man.

What alters is the individual's status within the group, slightly adjusting the moral principles in relation to inferiors, and the individuals' awareness, modifying its commitment, and its motive.

Other than the shared utility of morality, group experiences and how they relate to existence, and organisms outside their group determines their shared idea(l)s and their moral standards.
Because only humans can think beyond personal survival, only humans can produce a moral standard, reflecting an idea(l) which differs from the primitive which has evolved to facilitate survival, and follow the path-of-lest-resistance.


_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1016
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Morality Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:07 am

Nietzsche wrote:
It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to men; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to actions
Combine this with the knowledge that morality is an evaluation, that good/evil is relative to a goal.

Then, the person becomes as the person does. Blood may be noble in this sense, that a person may be virtuous only in the ways which they manifest their judgments. A person's very becoming, being, may be a virtue in this way. Then,  people see the virtuous man as an actor and not as only actions. Likewise, a man then, may derive honor by his serving as virtue to others.

I think this disconnection of virtue from people but to actions involves the monotheist-absolutist-religious conversion of the noble classes in Europe, in which Germanic shame became Christian guilt. ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

The disconnection of world from action came with God(desse)s. The disconnection of man from virtue came with the concentration of those attributions being those of one God only and not a person.

What is it. though, that explains the apotheosis of men into divine beings if the first God conception was one of a man humbling himself to a great victory?

I don't think the base metaphysics of Gods came from such an event, but instead from the concept of object permanence and ownership. When a family member dies, their items are still laying around and one may remember their habits by the objects. A coat hung up would mean they are home, for example. A coat being absent meant they were gone. If the coat is not there, one can still have a habitual reaction to thinking about them as if they were alive. There came the invention of ghosts and spirits. From there, Gods. Old Pagan Gods were distinct beings and powerful, but numerous and with their own virtues. A real and live man, then, could have virtues like those of the Gods, as attributions. One may say they are blessed in the same way one is trained with habit and practice. Skill took time to learn, and ability,  naturally given or inherited, was considered a Godly gift. What better way to smooth over cultural relations than to say a King was chosen not for any worldly superiority or even deception, but for a blessing by a God?  This is why religious belief is useful for stability. But, also, Gods were a kind of ancestor in the spiritual sense mentioned. Then, leaders were manifestations of a peoples' history, something to identify with. This also explains why it usually was only after death that men were deified.

The reification of one spirit, then, was a useful political tool/discovery. Gods were a shared value, if one could be the prophet of one of the Gods, then there's political value in that. By controlling and praising the spirit, by interpreting it or speaking for it, one could pretend to be speaking for the ancestors, the brothers and sisters, of the people. Turning religion into a political tool could be a great offense in this way and partly why there is a separation of church and state. To use Gods as political tools was insulting to the memory of ancestors itself.

While an emperor might be named a new God or attributed with Godly blessings, this was not politicizing Gods in the same way as a prophet would. This was saying "I have divine right to be here, look in the past and at me." Meaning noble blood was important. A prophet, though, may be a mongrel Jew which speaks for God. A prophet doesn't need to command any human virtue himself, only speak it.


Here, though, with the disconnection of virtue from humans and into actions, we find something like an explanation for the accusations of "racism" today. It is the act or behavior of discriminating between races that is evil, not the person. The person is then guilty-by-association. Or, guilty-by-performance. Here is where virtue might conflate with law.


--
To create a communist revolution, there is always an appeal to novelty. That is, they try to point out how "dull" and "boring" their culture is. Introduce a little exoticness and ask them why their leaders don't have something "cool" like what's introduced, no matter how frivolous or pointless it is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Slaughtz



Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 1016
Join date : 2012-04-28
Age : 26
Location : Brink

PostSubject: Re: Morality Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:38 am

Burgher Ethics

Another strain of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The burgher has an ethic which is naive of geopolitical cost. As the ethics revolve solely around vanity and wealth, it is either blind to or must somehow overcome the framework which protects it - violence. The USA and its modern corporate "left" is an example of the attempted preservation of burgher ethics at any cost. To preserve the ongoing feminization and infantilizing of discourse, it will sell the idea of a peaceful world without any costs - except those costs which are deemed "evil" to not pay.

Previously, where a burgher must pay the costs of violent conflict and great battle performance in order to acquire some semblance of honor, now they can achieve it with vanity. When the burghers, in their hubris, think they may pretend they have ridden themselves of the need for a violent enforcement structure and a strong protector, then they may excuse the wisdom of addressing the dangers of foreign invasion and the feminization of their populace. The result is a progressively desperate attempt to maintain their ethics against a regressing populace. Somehow they must sell that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is only good when it reflects infantile and feminine natures but not masculine, aggressive, thymotic ones.

The origin of this memetic disease is the hubris of the burgher and the complacency of the aristocracy. An aristocracy which attempts to direct attention away from itself, empowering the voices of the burgher class which entertains the populace. To maintain a civic appreciation for the aristocracy and maintain a strong state against the disease of burgher ethics, propaganda is necessary - see North Korea. This comes with its own risks of degeneracy of the aristocracy, of course - which would result in a a totalitarian repression of the people. A weaker people may be a weaker state. Political solutions are a different topic.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Morality

Back to top Go down
 
Morality
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» The Religious Origins Of Morality And Ethics
» The Post- Modern Crisis Of Social Morality And Ethics

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: