the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

as far as this

then you should shift away from abortion or at least mix it up with other issues. Why? Well, it functions as a kind of cherry picking. I believe Von River went down this line with you, so I am not optimistic, but the basic point is you are generalizing that we cannot reach such conclusions because we have not reached it around abortion. Foot binding however seems to be a cultural pattern that has moved from being moral to immoral, and I while certain groups have moved from thinking it was OK to not, none have moved in the other direction. WE can see similar process with cliterodectomies. The arguments against are winning against those for and people from traditional religions, modern scientific perspectives and from other paradigms are more and more coming out against it. We see groups moving away and likely cultures doing that, and I think it is pretty unlikely that any modern society will move back to cliterodectomies and other FGM. IOW it will meet you criteria.

Understand, even if some issues are resistant (potentially merely so far) to meeting the criteria you put forward, there are many that are not resistant.

If some morals do meet your criteria, then there is a weakness in your dasein based position, even if some do not (yet).

I feel I have to repeat that this does not mean that the conclusion that footbinding is wrong is objectively correct, but as an example it meets your criteria.

I think Von River used the example of forks in the eye of children, but I am trying to pick issues more parallel to abortion and more common.

It should also be pointed out that the word ‘rational’ is stacking the deck, since this is not an empirically testable adjective.

I also think it is a healthier issue to see if you can be convinced rather than if anyone who MIGHT be considered rational is convinced, unless you do not want to have a position on something.

Chattel slavery like that in the US -and certainly where there is not extreme scarcity so that what the chattel slavery is doing is moving people from being haves to having even more, rather than somehow merely helping them get by - is another example where societies are not moving backwards towards, but are moving away and it could be argued meets your criteria.

Adults having sex with children is another one. Certainly coerced sex with children.

Human sacrifice and torture as entertainment.

Some things die out and consensus is reached even cross culturally.

All of my examples happen, still, but the moral authority and legal support is disappearing or gone.

And really, because it is rather important, this does not mean that we or Iam know objectively how to live morally even around these issues, but since your definition of objective seems to be more consensus, it should work for you.

Magnus, I can’t tell if you’re trolling or serious.

When did I say I hated emotions? Like as in, never. I was trying to help Matt gain his emotions back, not continue along his anhedonia?

Creativity is a misnomer, it’s just regurgitated lego bricks regurgitating lego bricks. Also liking bananas does not make you a chimpanzee, am I supposed to take you seriously? Humans are a primate, some act like chimps, some act like monkeys, some act like apes, and some act like bonobos, which have distinct personalities.

Lolworthy post. You don’t seem to understand the path of natural selection, which is simply those who reproduce, carry on their genes. There is no moral high ground, people who carry on their genes are not moral, they have usually violent rape mentalities actually, which is why they survive and carry on their genes. There are no “teams” and “agendas”, no 'traitors" to the cause, because there is no cause. You sound silly and deluded my friend. Destroying the universe is only a last resort also, if human life gets too miserable. No plans or means of doing it in this century anyway.

I am trolling want you to be lolling don’t be upset a man who does not desire to make you wet thinking you are a degenerate hyper-rational brunette does not exist that is what is correct.

When did you say you are a transsexual? When did you say you are a tomboy? When did you say you are a braindead imbecile?

When did you, can you please remind me, will you?

Are you so stupid that you think that the only way one can reveal one’s nature is through self-report, through conscious effort, and that nothing automatic, nothing unconscious, can possibly reveal who you are and contradict what you think and report you are?

Are you that stupid, is your intelligence still undisputed?

Who gives a fuck what you think you are when it’s plain obvious what you really are?

Who gives a fuck, you degenerate, it is obvious, you are desperate, you hate emotions and you love them motions, hate them cause you cannot have them and love them cause you do not own them.

It’s not misnomer, you cretin, it is what creativity is, you shithead.

You are abusing theory of evolution in order to deny your feelings, not a rare thing today.

Who will want to marry you, transsexual?

Survival, you pussy-powered imbecile, does not mean superiority.

Flux, chaos, utter randomness that the universe is, does not mean there are no values either, you stupid fuck.

Sure, you can act any way you want . . . still, does not mean there are no values.

Nice way to get rid of responsibility for your own desires, though.

What is this i don’t even. You seem aware of flux yet unable to apply it to situations. Everyone “fluxes” from hating things to loving things. Because I had a minor outbreak of hating emotions doesn’t make it valid. It’s also irrelevant whether I hate something or not, it doesn’t matter to the cosmos actually. Values change. Noone wants to marry me because I dont want to marry anyone, that is a value. It only matters in the instance you worry about it, once you stop worrying about your love life it is irrelevant to the cosmos until you return to the frame of mind where you worry about it again.

“What you really are”
You seem to be of the ilk that defines a person in antiquated means. People are simply a combination of lego bricks and forces. They are streams and transient entities. Thoughts are (usually) without weight. I have a responsibility only because it suits this current instance’s goals. If the current instance goals change my responsibility fades away or morphs. Beliefs change goals change. I am aware survival doesn’t mean superiority I don’t know why you are arguing about that ideal. As for your current values, you don’t seem to have anything except being a rude cunty mccunterson.

As far as childs play, chasing desires, there’s no reason to in a world where all the odds are against you. You learn to just call it quits after years of dealing with uncooperative homo (sapiens.) Eventually you evolve into a god who’s only desire is to rid the world of uncooperative sapiens.

Not everyone “fluxes”, stupid, only stupid people “flux”, smart people do not “flux”, “flux” is the enemy of the healthy and it is the friend of the sick, the universe is flux, you Great and Wise Fluxy, does not mean people should be flux. Flux it? How fluxful you are . . .

Religious people do not flux and they are quite closeminded. Flux is the state of openmindeness. My guess is you have some kind of philosophy which causes you to resist the flux. Why do you resist the flux? Probably some goal, some plan, which you worship and adore. What is this plan you adore, my guess it’s something stupid and worthless, and couldn’t even please anyone, not in this life or the next. Tell me what it is.

I resist flux because that’s my nature, stupid, I did not and I do not choose to resist it.

The same goes for you. You do not resist it because that’s your nature.

As for religious people, fluxy, you have to be really fluxed to think that religious people are not flux . . . religious people are THE DEFINITION of flux. To force yourself to change to such an extent to deny your nature, the way religious people do, is fluxful.

When one becomes too strict with oneself one becomes flux . . .

i don’t see how. i see that religious people’s arguments are flexible and fluxy but the people themselves stick to one base core ideal their entire lives never changing from it. Then they die believing they made the world a “better” place when usually they made it worse by their own definitions.

Flux means change, fluxy, and when you start willfully changing you become flux. The opposite of that is not changing, or only changing in order to nullify change.

And what is Christianity? Christianity is hatred of one’s past, of who one is, it is a desire for change. Christians might be closed-minded, resisting specific forms of change, but in relation to their past, to their instincts, they are liberal, open-minded . . .

Humans are only the sum of parts, lego bricks. Fluxy doesnt seem very fluxy if you limit it to one change only. Flux seems like a constant flow of change, not a single change that never changes after that. The word you seem to be looking for is mutation, not fluxy.

As far as human nature, loving thy neighbor is part of human programming but prudeness and assexuality is not (except for asexuals.) Question is, why does following simply DNA routines bring about pleasure? Brain is only a maze. Simply walking through a maze in the right order brings about magical things.

You are focusing on ideals, fluxy. Just because someone sticks to one ideal their entire life does not mean they are not fluxy. The ideal, after all, is just a logical construct, just a bunch of thoughts in one’s brain . . . they are not the root itself. The fact these thoughts do not change does not mean the individual is not fluxy. What matters is how this logical construct is related to one’s past, to one’s instincts, to one’s genes . . . does it deny one’s past, forcing a miraculous change on the organism, or is it in tune with one’s past, doing its best to preserve it? This is what matters.

Your concept of fluxfulness is limited to one’s thoughts . . . but thoughts are shadows. What matters is how these thoughts are related to the root of the organism, which is its past.

I think that applies to Christians who are closet homosexuals, constantly overriding their nature because of text dogma. Or preteen frequent masterbater christians. However, mature adult christains I wouldnt say deny their base DNA instinct, it’s chimpanzee instinct to place value on family, religion, and herdism. So Christianity feels very natural to them, especially with all it’s contradictions. For humans who are more monkey-like religion becomes tedious and boring, and conflicting. Not so for the chimps.

“Free will” is invented in order to make people fluxy. With “free will” people can easily disconnect from their roots, from their past, and attempt to become whatever they want to become. Quite liberal, isn’t it? Whether the individual will be sticking to a single artificial identity or moving from one to another is a different thing, in fact, quite insignificant thing, considering that the main problem, which is the disconnection from one’s past, is never addressed.

Once fluxfulness becomes a habit, it becomes difficult to tell what is natural and what is artificial . . .

Christians go to the local churches to reinforce their broken beliefs and traditions, which feels very natural for them to congregate and do so. Its no coincidence that christians are sports fans, because its the same mentality of going to the pub and celebrating your local team. Such behavoir is healthy for them and their tribe. However it irritates the monkeys who are more independent and don’t derive satisfaction from such repetitive nonsense. Chimps also form warring parties and go on war runs against other primates, so the chimps (Christians) are somewhat threatening and violent at times. It is monkey nature to flux, therefore flux is natural behavoir for monkeys. It is difficult for chimps to recognize the illusion of free will because they like to run away from thoughts and concepts which give them unusual feelings they rarely feel, the closeminded routine.

Chimps do flux but its more like a repetive predictable sine wave with a very low width of variation, almost a straight line.

I make a difference between natural and instinctive/habitual, fluxy. We aren’t born with perfect instincts and our ancestors weren’t gods. They made mistakes and we carry these mistakes with ourselves.

Natural, for me, in the context of behavior, means coordinated. It means that the strength of connections between instincts is good, it means that they are in tune with each other.

Love your neighbour is an instinct but it is an unnatural one, because it disconnects from all other instincts . . . our ancestors adopted such a behavior without first integrating it within our system of behavior. They couldn’t integrate it, because they had no time, or because they had no courage to do so.

This is why it is necessary to detach from one’s mind and reprogram it by strengthening the connections between various automatic mechanisms. This is what reason does.

The hyper-rational folks, on the other hand, do not fix what they have, they are installing new software on top of the malfunctioning operating system, thus creating further contradictions . . . they do not know how to fix what they have and they do not know because they cannot accept how broken they are . . . so they simplify/falsify their problems, and then they proceed to resolve these problems which were never there to begin with, while in reality creating further problems . . .

My opinion is that the hardware and software is broken. The majority of humans act like chimps, it is in their nature. However chimp society is not really a sustainable or courteous way of living. Being a monkey they don’t accept me in their social circles and most of the games and activities they do are boring anyway. I’m just grateful I wasn’t randomly born in africa.

You say I betrayed my ancestors grand plan? What was their grand plan exactly? They didn’t include me in any of it, so if anyone’s been betrayed, theyve betrayed me.

It’s evolutionarily advantageous to love thy neighbor, I don’t see how it’s unnatural to love thy neighbor, especially if thy neighbor is the milf sort.

Advantage is a relative term. Love thy neighbor is advantageous if you want to remain alive at all costs, disregarding the consequences, but it is disadvantageous if you want to remain alive with your brain in your head on your shoulders.

A man cannot adopt any sort of behavior that provides survival advantage without suffering certain consequences. In order for the brain to maintain its integrity, it must adapt properly, which is to say, the foreign activity it considers adopting must be integrated within its system of behavior before it can be made use of. Otherwise, the brain disintegrates.

This is what courage is all about.

Either you strive to identify, register, every single problem that you have, that pops up in your mind, manifesting as a psychological disagreement in the form of negative reaction to your actions and external stimuli, or you close your mind to the existence of your problems, sweeping them under the carpet, hoping you will be able to deal with them at a later point in time. The former requires courage, sacrificing short-term survival for long-term survival, the latter requires nothing, for it is an absence of courage, a cowardice.

Love thy neihgbor is (or was) not a thought-out behavior, it is not a product of reason, it is a product of fear, it is a product of mental reflex.

There are no laws to the universe, Fluxy, nothing is striving to survive, things are simply drawing their ultimate consequences, and they either survive or they do not. Don’t be confused by evolutionary theory . . .

And here, we are discussing values, and as I’ve explained earlier, survival does not indicate superiority per se.

What matters is whether the organism is asserting itself or denying itself. Not whether it survives or not. Survival is not the goal, it is a symptom, a consequence. Sometimes it is the strong, self-asserting, who survive, and weak, self-denying, who die. But sometimes, it is the reverse.

Advantage, then, should be understood in terms of self-assertion. Activity is said to be advantageous if it promotes self-assertion, even if it means death. Similarly, activity is said to be disadvantageous if it promotes self-denial, even if it means survival.

Domination is much more important than mere survival.

Wasnt talking about turn thy cheek, I was talking about love thy neighbor. Turn thy cheek is evolutionarily advantageous for females. Love thy neighbor is advantageous for all parties.

A highly sensitive man has a peculiar weakness: he is easily overwhelmed by emotions, which is to say, his movement is easily inhibited.

This is paralyzing, risking his short-term survival.

Though he has a choice of surviving, he chooses not to, because he values mental integrity above all else.

He remains paralyzed and refuses to continue moving until he interprets, understands, makes sense of his inhibiting negative reactions.

This necessitates courage, lest he become a vulgar man.

A highly sensitive man without courage becomes a vulgar man, a man who walks over his reactions.

The brain tells him not to, but he continues walking nonetheless.

I am often asked how this is reflected in real life. Since iambiguous is the kind of man who cannot understand anything unless you provide him with a real life example, and most of all since I want to, I will provide an example or two.

But this should be obvious . . .

A high school student refusing his “duty” is the simplest of examples.

If you sense that something is wrong, then something is wrong and you shouldn’t do it until you understand what is wrong.

A student senses that something is wrong with going to school, so he simply refuses to do it . . .

A hyper-rational parent, however, will try to force his child into a school, inventing all sorts of “reasons” as to why he should be doing it, ignoring his child’s reactions . . . this is what Satyr calls “top<>down thinking”.

If a stubborn child is unable to endure the pressure, he will start making shit up himself in order to defend himself from his forceful parents. The child himself will start using “top<>down thinking” in order to protect his “bottom<>up thinking”. For example, he will try to deny the value of schooling in general . . . A child not allowed to understand his problems will be forced into falsifying his problems . . .

No school means no job, and no job means no basic necessities of life . . .

A man who refuses to work is another example.

Most people today are desperate to find a job, even if not having a job is not risking their life. Bad conscience is enough . . . If you do not have a job you are a loser, and if you cannot endure the pressure, you will have to force yourself into any kind of job, just so that you can get rid of your bad conscience.

But for a highly sensitive man, choosing a job is as delicate as every other choice in life.

Hyper-rational people do not analyze their feelings, their reactions, their taste . . . they do not care about aesthetics . . . all they care about is putting an end to their fear, whatever the origin of this fear might be.

Unless the path has been built by his ancestors, a highly sensitive man will have to spend a lot of time choosing his job.

Unlike the vulgar man, who chooses what is most popular or where is all the money at, he always picks the job that fits his habits the best.

All of this means enduring pressure, and eventually, risking death.

Love thy neighbor is most often turn thy cheek because neighbor is too general of a category . . . it is not discriminatory enough, and so, it can easily become hypocritical.