It doesn't take much population growth or number to trend toward Exclusivity and Elitism.
Once a group / society / tribe starts become Estranged, they quickly rationalize and justify Class divisions.
Then, whereas it previously was outlawed or harmful for the group to brutalize and harm one-another, at a point it becomes justifiable because the under-class is morally 'okay' to be harmed, taken advantage of (Marxism-to-Judaism). It becomes justifiable for intelligent members of society to deprive the fools, of what was previously their tribesmen, of their wealth. Wealth becomes funneled upward as a result: disparity.
This is when a tribe becomes too large to maintain cohesive social identity.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Also, notice how nihilistic spiritual movements gain steam in cities, where populations impose upon individuals a number of relationships their mind cannot process or hold in memory, forcing it to settle for generalities and universals.... Also Abrahamism and Buddhism also spread like wildfire when a demographic tipping point is reached, imposing upon individuals restrictions they cannot justify, so they must be given a justification.
That reminds me of mammalian pack/predator psychology (canine) vs herd/prey sociology (bovine).
Humans, being tribal, are still not "used to" extremely large, dense populations. This severe pressure into dense population, coincides with a force toward herd-psychology, herd-thinking (Abrahamism/Nihilism). The 'individual' must be destroyed, hence the need for Nihilism in densely populated environments. Only a few 'individuals' are required for very large societies. This means that millions of Urbanites need to have their thoughts/minds 'curtailed', hence Commercialism-Consumerism-Public Relations.
A society with too much individualism becomes internally conflicted.
Sub-culture is where humans form 'packs', to regain latent predatory instincts.
Humans default to 'tribal' instincts when pressured or stressed, seeking-out what is akin and alike to itself.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
So can tribal (pack) identity is maintained then it becomes parasitical upon those who identify with the all-incusive, less discriminating universalizing herd, and, of course, promoting nihilistic ideals in a herd keep[s it docile and unaware and unable to defend itself against the pack hunter or the more insidious foraging parasite.
A parasite that acts as a dog among sheeple, protecting the herd for the sake of an imagined shepherd....and claiming its pound of flesh, for its duties, taking a lamb or two, as a sacrifice. Such dogs can evolve to resemble sheep, and protect them form wild wolves, or other predators....preserving the herd for themselves. You'll notice that many of these "anarchist", are also protective of conventionna lies.....their interest is in preserving the herd as a herd they can exploit; selling themselves to the herd as their benefactor, their saviour, their protector and provider...and to make it less imposing they claim to be doing so on behalf of an imagined, divine shepherd - so when a lamb is sacrificed, once in a while, these parasitical dogs can claim it was the shepherd's fault....as they chew on the flesh they slaughtered on his behalf. They will always be capitalists - claiming it is the 'way of the world' and that even sheeple can be chosen to become the shepherd's trusted dogs; a lie.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
It is this universalization of morality that prevents the pack-like discrimination required to focus. It also makes it possible to universally negate it all. Absolutes. If all are to be included, and to be respected and loved, indiscriminately, then if this fails to produce the desired, or expected, results then it can all be dismissed - negated. The all-inclusivity of 'one,' becomes the nullifying 'none.' So if universal morality fails to produce utopia, then morality is a nil, a fabrication. If god did not create it, it does not exist. God becomes a representation of the whole - the herd. God = humanity; Humanity = god. Ergo, morality must be a human fabrication, if it is not a Divine creation.
But it is neither. We exit the nihilistic binary paradigm - of mind, i.e., subjectivity - and find ourselves in an ordering/chaotic fluctuating cosmos - objectivity. Escaping the corruptive influences of emotions and ego, we may perceive the patterns that explain why morality evolves and why men encoded and then attempted to manipulate and exploit it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Predictably, these selkf-proclaimed amoralistes - you know those that have risen above good & evil, in accordance to Nietzsche's mentoring - are always using Abrahamic ethical standards as the foundations of their emotional arguments. Nazi, fascist....white supremacists, used as some kind of slandering accusation. But, if these hypocrites were truly amoralistes how would these be, for them, accusations, used in lieu of rational arguments? According to what standard are these concepts negative, if they do not believe in morality?
As always, these buffoons, are self-deceiving....and still trapped in Abrahamic nihilistic tropes of good vs. evil, or humane vs. inhumane, when their Abrahamic one-god is replaced by secular humanism. They remain as convincing as when they deny free-will and then blame others of being responsible for human suffering.....or refer to them as 'objectivists', 'nazis', 'exploiting capitalists'....'authoritarian fascists" and so on. Contradicting their own stated ideological naïve delusions with actions....but this is typical and predictable.
They expose themselves with every accusation, and every attempt to expose those who threaten to expose them as what they are: opportunistic, self-deceptive, liars and cowards, or complete and utter idiots. Motive or Deficiency....explains their self-contradicting delusions.
We can't expect them to change, because they do not believe in choice, so they cannot learn and adapt, unless iut has been determined for them to do so. Let us hope the universe has divinely determined that they be inspired to learn and adapt.... I go on patterns, and their pattern tells me that they will accuse everything and everyone other then themselves, and will always act in contradiction to what they say - their physical bodies being more wise than their infected minds.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A deep dissatisfaction and disappointment towards the world, or god, resides in the psyche of these degenerates that both claim to be amoralistes and also do not believe in free-will. They want to scream to the cosmos, to god, how unjust it has been toward them, but they fear his retribution....even though most also claim to be atheists. Ironies compounding to reach the level of insanity, if not retardation.
Who are they accusing and of what, if there is no free-will, and nobody has a choice? On what grounds to they accuse others, including nazis and exploitive capitalists, or these dreaded objectivists, if there is no morality?
These imbeciles have found a crutch to explain away the mistakes they've made in their personal lives, protecting the implications to their quality of mind - their ego. As I've noted, nihilism emerges as a defensive reaction to emerging self-consciousness - attempting to semiotically protect the ego; using language as a protective wall, or a smokescreen, allowing the ego to evade the implications of its failure to act in accordance with its own ideals.
Of the three two must be protected...the lucid part of the subject, i.e., ego, the objective, i.e., ideal, ambition etc....leaving only the in-between, the world, standing ni the way of the merger, i.e., harmony, between subject and objective.
Who is being motivated to act differently....if nobody has a choice and all is absolutely determined? What justifies acting differently, if it is possible at all, if all actions are neither moral nor immoral?
Both subjective and objective are of the mind - the world being independent from both. It is the world that must be accused... World fails to adjust to the subjective projections of its idealized objectives - objectives are inflated, sometimes projected beyond the world itself.....and the subjective is reliant on self-awarness - Know thyself. The subjective and the objective can be adjusted...but the world cannot - therefore, world is corrupt, evil....the one that wills or subjugates the subject's will to its totalitarianism.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The moral problem begins to be resolved when an individual asks himself:
Why haven't there been groups that held paedophilia, necrophilia, homosexuality, trisexuality, zoophilie of be the highest virtue and heterosexuality to be the lowest vice? Why haven't there been groups that made heterosexuality immoral and homosexuality moral? Why haven't there ben any moral systems that held heterosexuality to be immoral, and forced to hide in the proverbial closet in shame?
Why haven't there been cultures where adultery was the highest moral standard, and committed marriages were immoral? Why haven't there been cultures where incest was moral and sex with a non-relative was immoral?
Why haven't there been cultures where obesity was held to be beautiful, and fitness was considered ugly?
Answer that truthfully and you are on your way to clarifying what morality is and why it is essential for group cohesion nd survival, even if it does impose restrictions on participating individuals.
If it's all a social construct then one would think that over thousands of years all kinds of moral systems would have evolved....but they haven't. Most agree on the basics....why?
The "rules" of morality usually end at ethno/tribal lines.
What is 'immoral' for one to do against their own family, kin, clan, tribesmen ...become acceptable to do against your competing tribe.
So while you would not castrate or destroy your own son, daughter, child... you may do to your enemies.
Now the degeneracy in Western Civilization makes immediate sense. Who is castrating children, and why? Who controls the Edumacation? Who dictates that it is "morally good" for white people to participate in this ...but not their own kind?
Parasitism becomes clear. One group drains the blood of a host. It feels no remorse.
There is no 'immorality' too depraved that it will not enact against its enemy/food/prey.
Morals evolve because they offer an advantage determined by natural order. Example: incest is considered immoral not because some man invented it, just because....but because incest increases unfit genetic mutations that would eventually make a group unable to compete and replicate itself.
Same for moral rules against in-group violence....and transsexuals or any sexual deviance that is unfit, reduces reproduction of new individuals, like abortions. When a group is powerful it can absorb such disadvantages...but how much and for how long. Eventually they accumulate, and the group does not remain s powerful as it was, forever.
This is why we see a cycle repeated across the ages.... Power leads to abundance, safety, peace....which leads to degeneracy, decadence...and this leads to decline, penury, war...
So when sexual deviance increases, and tis morals begin to lose authority over individual choices, this is a symptom of a system's decline, and its inevitable end. God is unnecessary - only necessary to impose said moral rules on the midwits and dimwits, who need this threat reward to discipline their impulses.
Morals evolve because they offer an advantage determined by natural order.
Hypothetically, a society, group, or nation 'educates' its progeny about this fact. This is where politics complicated. Marxists teach immorality to their enemies, while practicing restricted and disciplined morals themselves. It's about poisoning the well.
The ideal to "teach everybody equally" is a Universalist notion that Europeans seem to have. Lifting all boats. Yes, it's good in theory, but impractical in reality. Reality is, group competition means that Education is reserved for some groups, twisted and perverse against others. This is where lies and deception become legitimized.
Lying is immoral when done to the in-group, but morally acceptable to the out-group.
Compare how Christians, Jews, Moslems justifying lying. Christians are against it universally, except lying to themselves. Jews are against it selectively. Moslems are in favor it, as long as it converts infidels into Islam.
This moral simplicity is how politics can be followed and understood. Truth has a price, for pretty much everybody.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Morality evolved because ti offered an advantage to the group, by restricting an individual's choices. Later it evolved to refer to a group's cultural ideals, that promoted the development of a particular kind of man. If this kind of man were not beneficial the group goes extinct - so what remains are cultures who had ideals that proved to be fit, within natural order.
This is why you will never find a culture that idealizes homosexuality, declaring it the highest moral standard, and makes heterosexuality immoral. Such a group would not survive for long.
So, human ideals, including moral ideals, are tested within natural order....no god necessary. Natural selection. If an ideal is detrimental it has consequences.
It is also why nihilism never practices what it preaches...or does so selectively and periodically. Christianity was brutal....but when it gained world dominance it became more peaceful. It has developed, over the centuries, excuses to not abide by its own core beliefs...like the rules against suicide, or turning the other cheek. If Christians practiced what they preached they would become extinct. So, they have these days of atonement, to cleanse themselves of all the times they failed to abide by their own values.
Buddhism does the same. These monks beg for their food, so as to then pretend they've abandoned all physical considerations. Without the help of others they would not make it through a week of meditations.....they would be eaten alive.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The reader will have already surmised with what ease the priestly mode of valuation can branch off from the knightly aristocratic mode, and then develop into the very antithesis of the latter: special impetus is given to this opposition, by every occasion when the castes of the priests and warriors confront each other with mutual jealousy and cannot agree over the prize. The knightly-aristocratic "values" are based on a careful cult of the physical, on a flowering, rich, and even effervescing healthiness, that goes considerably beyond what is necessary for maintaining life, on war, adventure, the chase, the dance, the tourney—on everything, in fact, which is contained in strong, free, and joyous action. The priestly-aristocratic mode of valuation is—we have seen—based on other hypotheses: it is bad enough for this class when it is a question of war! Yet the priests are, as is notorious, the worst enemies—why? Because they are the weakest. Their weakness causes their hate to expand into a monstrous and sinister shape, a shape which is most crafty and most poisonous. The really great haters in the history of the world have always been priests, who are also the cleverest haters—in comparison with the cleverness of priestly revenge, every other piece of cleverness is practically negligible. Human history would be too fatuous for anything were it not for the cleverness imported into it by the[Pg 30] weak—take at once the most important instance. All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" We know who it was who reaped the heritage of this Jewish transvaluation. In the context of the monstrous and inordinately fateful initiative which the Jews have exhibited in connection with[Pg 31] this most fundamental of all declarations of war, I remember the passage which came to my pen on another occasion (Beyond Good and Evil, Aph. 195)—that it was, in fact, with the Jews that the revolt of the slaves begins in the sphere of morals; that revolt which has behind it a history of two millennia, and which at the present day has only moved out of our sight, because it—has achieved victory.
Nietzsche wrote:
8.
But you understand this not? You have no eyes for a force which has taken two thousand years to achieve victory?—There is nothing wonderful in this: all lengthy processes are hard to see and to realise. But this is what took place: from the trunk of that tree of revenge and hate, Jewish hate,—that most profound and sublime hate, which creates ideals and changes old values to new creations, the like of which has never been on earth,—there grew a phenomenon which was equally incomparable, a new love, the most profound and sublime of all kinds of love;—and from what other trunk could it have grown? But beware of supposing that this love has soared on its upward growth, as in any way a real negation of that thirst for revenge, as an antithesis to the Jewish hate! No, the contrary is the truth! This love grew out of that hate, as its crown, as its triumphant crown, circling wider and wider amid the clarity and fulness of the sun, and pursuing in the very kingdom of light and height its goal of hatred, its victory, its spoil, its strategy,[Pg 32] with the same intensity with which the roots of that tree of hate sank into everything which was deep and evil with increasing stability and increasing desire. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Redeemer" bringing salvation and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinful—was he not really temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, temptation to take the tortuous path to those very Jewish values and those very Jewish ideals? Has not Israel really obtained the final goal of its sublime revenge, by the tortuous paths of this "Redeemer," for all that he might pose as Israel's adversary and Israel's destroyer? Is it not due to the black magic of a really great policy of revenge, of a far-seeing, burrowing revenge, both acting and calculating with slowness, that Israel himself must repudiate before all the world the actual instrument of his own revenge and nail it to the cross, so that all the world—that is, all the enemies of Israel—could nibble without suspicion at this very bait? Could, moreover, any human mind with all its elaborate ingenuity invent a bait that was more truly dangerous? Anything that was even equivalent in the power of its seductive, intoxicating, defiling, and corrupting influence to that symbol of the holy cross, to that awful paradox of a "god on the cross," to that mystery of the unthinkable, supreme, and utter horror of the self-crucifixion of a god for the salvation of man? It is at least certain that sub hoc signo Israel, with its revenge and transvaluation of all values, has up to the present always triumphed again over[Pg 33] all other ideals, over all more aristocratic ideals.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Morality and ethics deal with issues that impact group dynamics, cohesion, and stability, in relation to an objective - morality evolved with survival as the objective - reproduction being an extension; ethics places a idealistic objective promoting a particular type of man, the effectiveness and success of which is determined by environmental circumstances.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
A noetic perimeter separation an encompassed group from all others; allowing for the construction of fencing to isolate them from the world beyond, is the functionality of morality and ethics. Such conceptual fencings limit perceptions of the external and casts shadows upon the internal, depending on the form and height of its encompassing conceptual structures. This limits the encompassed group’s options and their access to the world beyond, compensating for this loss by providing structure and relative safety to those within. Those who maintain and determine the form and height of this ethical fencing are our fence-sitting priestly classes, presenting themselves as mediators between the world outside and the world inside the perimeter they construct and repair and maintain, determining the fencing’s form and height; self-ascribed defenders, protectors, of those within when they can very well be perceived as penitentiary guards imposing rules and regulations over those under their custody, monitoring who enters and who exists the fenced perimeter; they are the ones determining the form and height of the fencing, i.e., the thickness of the fencing, though they may claim the constructor was a divine agency; it is they who determine how much of the external is concealed and how wide the shadows are cast within, selectively warping the perceptions of those within; reshaping the patterns they can appreciate, and how much of the world they can perceive, just by inconspicuously adjusting the height and width of the fence struts.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Behaviours that disturb or decrease group cohesion, reducing the collective’s survival and reproductive options and probabilities, are naturally selected, becoming innate species attributes, defining and distinguishing them form other species, using different survival and reproductive strategies. For such species the moral instinct becomes innate, disturbed only due to a mutation or traumatic event that damages its expression. For individuals belonging to such a species certain behaviours, i.e., judgements, choices, actions, are automatically and intuitively experiences as negative – accompanied by the sensations and emotions of negativity. These behaviours have come to be named ‘evil’ to differentiate them from those that are experienced with pleasing sensations, making the judgements and choices and actions, that caused them, to be repeatable and imitable. Such genetic processes, if and when known and understood by men, are appropriated and shaped to produce a desired behaviour, accompanied by the same pleasing rewards, when adhered to, or negative sensations, when they are challenged. This is how morality (genetic, in origin) and ethics (memetic, in origin) are distinguished. Naturally selected or socially selected – naturally selecting the genes that produced the desired behaviours or the memetic, ideologies that produced and propagated the linguistic codes that imposed behaviours on a group, i.e., limits to individual judgements and choices and actions. The degree to which the former and the latter are in harmony – aligned – determines the degree to which individuals will feel the pressure to abide by rules and regulations they find difficult, and contrary to their nature, or easy and natural.
If Morality is genetically inherited behavior (Nature), And Ethics is memetic changes to behavior (Nurture), Then Ethics either enhances or diminishes a set of moral behaviors (Culture).
Ethics that enhance one's genetic inheritance is called 'Conservative'. Ethics that diminish one's genetic inheritance is called 'Liberalism'.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
If Morality is genetically inherited behavior (Nature), And Ethics is memetic changes to behavior (Nurture), Then Ethics either enhances or diminishes a set of moral behaviors (Culture).
Ethics that enhance one's genetic inheritance is called 'Conservative'. Ethics that diminish one's genetic inheritance is called 'Liberalism'.
Yes
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
I distinguish "conventional" from "natural" morality along gene/meme lines: as manmade ethical systems and naturally evolving moral innate behaviours that facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies. The latter - what he considers "debatable" - are established by their negative consequences, and how these negative consequences are gradually evolving, naturally selected out of a population, producing an automatic reaction, an innate reaction of aversion - similar to the gag reflex. We humans - if we are healthy - automatically react to specific ideas, referring to particular choices, actions, with aversion, repulsion, rejection. Most of us do not know why, because these reactions have been naturally selected into our human nature. We are, for example, averse to the option of paedophilia, or necrophilia, or incest, or homosexuality.... The common ground is a negative genetic consequence, or a reduction of the probability - potential - for survival and reproduction; whatever bears the possibility of negating life or birthing unfit mutations; corrupted, deformed, warped psychosomatic monstrosities produce aversion.
Morality - properly defined and understood - is collective well-being imposing limits to individual choices that contradict or challenge it. God is but a representation of this collective ideal, adding a level of control over complex species, like homo sapiens. Ethics are additions to this evolved moral instinct - sometimes lacking in some individuals due to mutations, i.e., corruptive genetic factors caused, like any other form of dysfunction, by hormonal or divergence during reproduction: chaotic energies, and their impact during cellular divisions, being one possible factor. Ethical systems add or selectively contradict evolved, innate, moral impulses.....with unexpected consequences - as all human interventions on natural order produces some kind of unexpected, negative, collateral effect, in addition to the expected positive effect.
*****
Nietzsche, accurately, traces back the origins of our "western, Abrahamic, codes of ethics", using Christianity as his target, his vehicle. "Modern, European Bourgois, mode of valuation"....Method of evaluating, judging, appreciating, and, consequently, choosing. Does it hint at Marxism? Does it begin with Christianity - Judaized paganism? Shall we call it modern, or postmodern? One, the former, is considered indubitable...global, a universal ethical code....leading to the other, the latter. Shall we call it Americanism?
Herein we can find the germ of the deceit, i.e., nihilistic inversion.
*****
"Aristocratic" has nothing to do with wealth and social status....it has to do with an attitude towards the recognition and appreciation of what is superior, even if it is not in oneself; an attitude that can objectively recognize the superior, the beautiful, the strong of spirit and body.
*****
The historical switch - inversion - is of the Indo-European, Hellenic/Roman, ethical codes, to the Afro-Asiatic, Jewish, ethical codes, i.e., aristocratic to slave morality is the switch of perspective from predator to prey....or predator to parasite. Realism, i.e., naturalism, to Nihilism, i.e., idealism, anti-nature.
Deception: Slave morality exploits weakness to build power - compensating for an absence of personal strength through the manipulation and exploitation of a collective. Resetiment, conceals, primarily from itself, this fact; it accuses and blames the powerful so as to usurp and replace them, without having to challenge them directly, openly - see Straussean reading between the lines: method of reinventing all text, including Nietzsche's polemics against this psychosis. Under the pretext that the text conceals a occult meaning, the priestly charlatan can reinterpret it to absolve himself of all culpability, or to invert the message casting himself as the author's aristocrat rather than the slave; justifying it because he, no longer, practices what he preaches, and no longer identifies as a salve - as once he did - but uses this to establish and maintain his mastery over those he now pretends to be helping escape slavery. Judas Goat. The master's chosen goat, no longer fears his slaughter, as long as he leads the master's lambs to the slaughterhouse. The 'master' is projected as a mystifying shepherd (god) who can be blamed if the sheeple realize what is going on.
*****
Urban population explosions are the environments where these parasitical ethical systems emerge and evolve: Buddhism is to Hinduism what Judaism is to Hellenism. Ghettoization. It is where parasites carry diseases, and remain unaffected by them, developing an immunity, and a symbiosis.
What was it that all tribes rejected....god? A one-god? The god of nil.
*****
Abrahamism, like Buddhism, like martial arts, is evidence of how man can cultivate a different reaction to that he innately inherited in his genes, so that he considers it part of his second nature. Pertainnig to free-will: Man can usurp genetically programmed impulses with memetically cultivated programming, so that his automatic reactions are altered - if he maintains his training, through contant repetition - he no longer needs to be consciously aware of his own actions: judgements and choices. Repetition is essential. Training, habituation, education....a gradual, methodical, rewriting of automated reactions - memetic, linguistic codes, usurping genetic codes. Such training can accentuate or conceal - multiply or divide.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Socrates was condemned to death by the Athenians because he taught the youth a method of subverting their shared ethical convictions, threatening the welfare of Athens – of their collective, and the promotion of their ideal citizen, their ideal man. He replaced the undermining of their ethical standards with nothing, producing tyrants and degenerates. This was, is, and forever will remain his crime. An average man cannot discipline himself, nor endure an existence with no belief in a collective standard that inhibits specific judgements, or lack of, specific choices and specific behaviours that threaten collective cohesion, or collective reproductive and survival fitness. Socrates revealed the human creation of their shared ethics – what was cleverly associated with divinity, and by doing so subverted the welfare of Athens that depended on the discipline and control of its populace. The correct answer to Socrates' challenge, in the form of a linguistic interrogation, would have to replace the term ‘the gods’ with the ‘Athenians,’ and replace the term ‘virtue’ with the term ‘collective welfare,’ viz., collective authority imposing a limit to individual actions so as to preserve cohesion and order: ‘virtue’ referring to what benefits, what offers an advantage to the collective – including the individual himself – and ‘vice’ referring to what offers a disadvantage, subverting the collective's authority, and its cohesion, including that of the individual who belongs to it.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Behaviours that increase the probability of survival and reproduction - extension of survival - are passed on; whatever offers an advantage survives and replicates, passing it on. Moral behaviours - what man has identified as necessary for cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, including heterosexuality - are encoded as moral values. Altruism, tolerance, sympathy/compassion, cooperation/reciprocity, imprinting, etc. are all interactions facilitating group cohesion, and stability....group competitiveness, fitness, health - are called moral, virtues. Whatever inhibits or contradicts them is called immoral, or a vice.
No god, no good/evil required. Only natural selection.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
No god....no social engineering.... Morality is based on this impulse, characteristic of social species. And species using heterosexual reproduction....anything requiring cooperation, tolerance, a no-violance assurance...
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sun May 07, 2023 6:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The growing acceptance of that view make it possible to preserve hierarchical forms of organization in the guise of 'participation'. It provides a society dominated by corporate elites with an anti-elitist ideology. The popularization of therapeutic modes of thought discredits authority, especially in the home and the classroom, with leaving domination un-criticized. Therapeutic forms of social control, by softening or eliminating the adversary relation between subordinates and superiors, make it more and more difficult for citizens to defend themselves against the state or for workers to resist the demands of the corporation. As the ideas of guilt and innocence lose their moral and even legal meaning, those in power no longer enforce their rules by means of the authoritative edicts of judges, magistrates, teachers, or preachers. Society no longer expects authorities to articulate a clearly reasoned, elaborately justified code of law and morality; nor does it expect the young to internalize the moral standards of the community. It demands only conformity to the conventions of everyday intercourse, sanctioned by psychiatric definitions of normal behavior.
Mencius wrote:
This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man who suddenly notices a child about to fall into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favor of the child's parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbors and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself.
Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
20– Not to be confused. Moralists who treat the grandiose, mighty, self-sacrificing disposition such as is evidenced by Plutarch's heroes, or the pure, enlightened, heat-conducting state of soul of truly good men and women, as weighty problems and seek to discover their origin by exhibiting the complexity in the apparent simplicity and directing the eye to the interlacing of motives, to the delicate conceptual illusions woven into it, and to the individual and groups of sensations inherited from of old and slowly intensified – these moralists are most different from precisely those moralists with whom they are most confused: from the trivial spirits who have no belief at all in these dispositions and states of soul and suppose that greatness and purity are only an outward show concealing behind them a paltriness similar to their own. The moralists say: 'here there are problems,’ and these wretches say: ‘here there are deceivers and deceptions'; they thus deny the existence of that which the former are intent upon explaining. [Human, All too Human (vol.3)]
Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
59– Intellect and morality. One has to have a good memory if one is to keep a promise. One has to have a powerful imagination if one is to feel sympathy. So closely is morality tied to the quality of the intellect. [Human, All too Human]
Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:
94– The three phases of morality hitherto. It is the first sign that animal has become man when his actions are no longer directed to the procurement of momentary wellbeing but to enduring wellbeing, that man has thus become attuned to utility and purpose: it is then that the free domination of reason first breaks forth. An even higher stage is attained when he acts according to the principle of honour; in accordance with this he orders himself with regard to others, submits to common sensibilities, and that raises him high above the phase in which he is diverted only by utility understood in a purely personal sense: he accords others respect and wants them to accord respect to him, that is to say: he conceives utility as being dependent on what he thinks of others and what they think of him. Finally, at the highest stage of morality hitherto, he acts in accordance with his own standard with regard to men and things: he himself determines for himself and others what is honourable and useful; he has become the lawgiver of opinion, in accordance with an ever more highly evolving conception of usefulness and honourableness. Knowledge qualifies him to prefer the most useful, that is to say general and enduring utility, to personal utility, general and enduring honour and recognition to momentary honour and recognition: he lives and acts as a collective-individual. [Human, All too Human]
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Society and morality evolve together. From simple packs/herds to complex human civilization; from simple moral behaviour/impulse, to complex ethical codes. Amorality constitutes the breakdown of a society Like the looting and pushing people into the railroad tracks we see in the States.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
— Clown World (@ClownWorld_) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
No concern for the judgments, health and welfare of others; immediate easy gratification; a sense of distinctiveness; a loss of respect, i.e., fear, for law & order; no shame....
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Another example of what happens when the mases begin to lose interest in the collective welfare, and fear of its methods of enforcing behaviours that promote it...
Mom of 6-year-old who allegedly shot his teacher breaks silence, takes 'responsibility' for son's actions [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
— Fox News (@FoxNews) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39537 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Not causing harm or suffering cannot be the basis of morality since life necessitates both. We can only seek the source of moral behaviour in collectives imposing restrictions on individual actions – restricting options available to individual choices. Negative consequences to the collective has determined moral and ethical codes. As usual Abrahamism – like many forms of nihilism – generalizes terms out of existence, desiring to deny human discriminatory judgements their decisive agency – their responsibility; outsourcing judgement – will – to some external idealized universal consciousness they wish to absolve life of its seminal selfishness.
(@ClownWorld_)