egoism

[Impenitent]

@anon

@Impenitent

no, one is one not a group.

Exactly. One is a misnomer.

groupthink and newspeak at it’s best eh?

-Imp

[anon]

@Impenitent

@anon

@Impenitent

no, one is one not a group.

Exactly. One is a misnomer.

groupthink and newspeak at it’s best eh?

-Imp

I think you’re confusing me with someone else - not sure who. Unless I’ve misunderstood you.

Do you really think you are ‘one’?

[Impenitent]

@anon

I think you’re confusing me with someone else - not sure who. Unless I’ve misunderstood you.

Do you really think you are ‘one’?

I am not confusing you with anyone.

do you really think you are everyone else?

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Impenitent

@Smears

IMP, no, not like the USSR’s utopia. They desired propositions to hold which did not. Therefore you might say that it was egoism de se on the part of the masses which led to it’s fall.

people being people? say it isn’t so…

No, people being slaves to illusory desires for things which can’t be true in this world because they lack the de dicto knowledge to rule out certain possibilities. Most people here agree, that most people in the world are uninformed mongrels. Those people need to be educated to understand why they’ll never be happy thinking the way that they do because they’re confused about which world they’re in.

And while I do think that humans are a part of nature, I also think that within nature we must compete against animals, and time and floods and economic laws, (real economic laws like supply and demand, not like tax laws). Too much competition amongst ourselves leads to the sort of situation where some people have too much, and some too little.

that’s life. the strongest have what the strongest can take. period. if the weak want to have an uprising, fine. they can be butchered all the sooner.

That’s life under egoism. If you tell me that you don’t think this is bad, then I’ll know you’re just bullshitting me.

I’m not going to go into the intracacies of a redistribution of wealth here, I’m just saying that we could all have our opinions of the world, and all feel differently about it, as we do, but that the more we lean toward description, or knowledge that’s available for everyone, the more likely we are to agree on more things, and the more likely we are to benefit.

and the strong would remain strong and the weak masses would believe they had their share? harrison?

Who’s strong and weak I think is a side point. It’s most important that everyone be informed and aware. Then equality should naturally follow.

Just think about how much cleaner and neater war has become with the advent of technology. Science is essentially de dicto.

cleaner and neater? no… war is more final.

And final still isn’t an improvement?

-Imp

[anon]

@Impenitent

@anon

I think you’re confusing me with someone else - not sure who. Unless I’ve misunderstood you.

Do you really think you are ‘one’?

I am not confusing you with anyone.

do you really think you are everyone else?

-Imp

No, why would I think that?

[Impenitent]

@Smears

[b]No, people being slaves to illusory desires for things which can’t be true in this world because they lack the de dicto knowledge to rule out certain possibilities.

like communal existence for the peaceful herd animal man?

Most people here agree, that most people in the world are uninformed mongrels. Those people need to be educated to understand why they’ll never be happy thinking the way that they do because they’re confused about which world they’re in. [/b]

and you have got just the system for humanity to enslave itself right?

That’s life under egoism. If you tell me that you don’t think this is bad, then I’ll know you’re just bullshitting me.

no, that’s life how it is. bad is a moral call that has no place. no bullshit here- Thraschymacus was right.

Who’s strong and weak I think is a side point. It’s most important that everyone be informed and aware. Then equality should naturally follow.

“equality” does naturally follow. some are more equal than others.

cleaner and neater? no… war is more final.

And final still isn’t an improvement?

improvement depends on what end.

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@anon

@Impenitent

@anon

I think you’re confusing me with someone else - not sure who. Unless I’ve misunderstood you.

Do you really think you are ‘one’?

I am not confusing you with anyone.

do you really think you are everyone else?

-Imp

No, why would I think that?

@anon

One’s own life is in fact a group, a community, a world.

-Imp

[anon]

@Impenitent

@anon

One’s own life is in fact a group, a community, a world.

I said ‘a’ world, not ‘the’ world. You see through the illusory existence of a society but you don’t see through the illusory existence of yourself. My meaning is the opposite in many ways from how you take it. It is the opposite of groupthink.

[Impenitent]

@anon

@Impenitent

@anon

One’s own life is in fact a group, a community, a world.

You see through the illusory existence of a society but you don’t see through the illusory existence of yourself. My meaning is the opposite in many ways from how you take it. It is the opposite of groupthink.

thus hums the mantra of the commune

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

@Impenitent

@Smears

[b]No, people being slaves to illusory desires for things which can’t be true in this world because they lack the de dicto knowledge to rule out certain possibilities.

like communal existence for the peaceful herd animal man?

No, like freedom from ignorance. Freedom from illusory desires.

Most people here agree, that most people in the world are uninformed mongrels. Those people need to be educated to understand why they’ll never be happy thinking the way that they do because they’re confused about which world they’re in. [/b]

and you have got just the system for humanity to enslave itself right?

No, they’re enslaved by ignorance. They don’t know enough about the world de dicto, to have a proper corresponding attitude de se. The discrepancy between the two is suffering and angst.

That’s life under egoism. If you tell me that you don’t think this is bad, then I’ll know you’re just bullshitting me.

no, that’s life how it is. bad is a moral call that has no place. no bullshit here- Thraschymacus was right.

I’m not prescribing morals in some conventional sense, just saying that it’s better to agree about what’s true than to argue back and fourth. Now I’m not saying that there’s a whole lot that’s true in this sense, but that it’s a good start.

Who’s strong and weak I think is a side point. It’s most important that everyone be informed and aware. Then equality should naturally follow.

“equality” does naturally follow. some are more equal than others.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Equality means,(in my understanding) that things must be necessarily equal. Calculating it both quantitativley or qualitativley is another task altogether.

cleaner and neater? no… war is more final.

And final still isn’t an improvement?

improvement depends on what end.

You said it. Everyone agreeing about certain indubitable facts is a good end.

-Imp

[Impenitent]

@Smears

@Impenitent

@Smears

[b]No, people being slaves to illusory desires for things which can’t be true in this world because they lack the de dicto knowledge to rule out certain possibilities.

like communal existence for the peaceful herd animal man?

No, like freedom from ignorance. Freedom from illusory desires.

alas, there are no illusory desires, only illusory freedom once the desires are met. meeting the desire, at any and all costs, is what drives the animal man. harrison?

Most people here agree, that most people in the world are uninformed mongrels. Those people need to be educated to understand why they’ll never be happy thinking the way that they do because they’re confused about which world they’re in. [/b]

and you have got just the system for humanity to enslave itself right?

No, they’re enslaved by ignorance. They don’t know enough about the world de dicto, to have a proper corresponding attitude de se. The discrepancy between the two is suffering and angst.

enslaved because they don’t embrase your system of slavery… you have to sell it better than that…

That’s life under egoism. If you tell me that you don’t think this is bad, then I’ll know you’re just bullshitting me.

no, that’s life how it is. bad is a moral call that has no place. no bullshit here- Thraschymacus was right.

[b]I’m not prescribing morals in some conventional sense, just saying that it’s better to agree about what’s true than to argue back and fourth.

which is a moral position. mass delusion is better than mass discord? “gotta see it my way to be happy” - drink your koolaid and be quiet…

Now I’m not saying that there’s a whole lot that’s true in this sense, but that it’s a good start.[/b]

Who’s strong and weak I think is a side point. It’s most important that everyone be informed and aware. Then equality should naturally follow.

“equality” does naturally follow. some are more equal than others.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Equality means,(in my understanding) that things must be necessarily equal. Calculating it both quantitativley or qualitativley is another task altogether.

necessarily equal? who makes the call? god? the “impartial equality” judges? no one, it naturally falls evenly? are you serious?

cleaner and neater? no… war is more final.

And final still isn’t an improvement?

improvement depends on what end.

You said it. Everyone agreeing about certain indubitable facts is a good end.

-Imp

certainly, indubitably, glowing in the dark for eons.

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

The thing about stipulation, is that it gives us agreement. We know what we know because of it. The universe may not have any order at all, but we can order it via the mutual limitations of our perception. We stipulate things like identity in order to do this. I don’t care what you say, this has value. Without stipulation we can only disagree. With it we can make progress. Yes, actualy progress, like increasing our life spans, and growing genetically modified corn.

When we want science, de dicto, measurement to be the higher form of reasoning, that’s a good thing because it has the potential to unite us and make life easier for everyone. I admit that this isn’t always the case, but scientific validity is alot closer to certainty than faith is.

When we all just want our God to beat some other God’s people, then we’re competing. We’ve not stipulated the properties of this or that God, and we have this disagreement about what’s right and wrong w/ out any real understanding of the limitations of de se knowledge. Gods can’t ever agree if we don’t stipulate that they do. And since this isn’t going to happen, I think that science, or de dicto knowledge is the essential component for agreement, because it’s based on stipulation, and religion, or de se knowledge is the essential component for egoism, because it’s necessarily unverifiable.

[anon]

@Impenitent

thus hums the mantra of the commune

Commune? Try again. Oh well, keep on keeping on I guess.

Too bad I’m a cartoon to you.

[Impenitent]

@Smears

The thing about stipulation, is that it gives us agreement. We know what we know because of it.

we know nothing

The universe may not have any order at all, but we can order it via the mutual limitations of our perception.

group psychosis?

We stipulate things like identity in order to do this. I don’t care what you say, this has value. Without stipulation we can only disagree. With it we can make progress. Yes, actualy progress, like increasing our life spans, and growing genetically modified corn.

progress on what standard?

When we want science, de dicto, measurement to be the higher form of reasoning, that’s a good thing because it has the potential to unite us and make life easier for everyone.

it gives us better weapons.

I admit that this isn’t always the case, but scientific validity is alot closer to certainty than faith is.

scientific validity IS FAITH.

When we all just want our God to beat some other God’s people, then we’re competing.

but the god of scientific validity isn’t competing?

We’ve not stipulated the properties of this or that God, and we have this disagreement about what’s right and wrong w/ out any real understanding of the limitations of de se knowledge. Gods can’t ever agree if we don’t stipulate that they do. And since this isn’t going to happen, I think that science, or de dicto knowledge is the essential component for agreement, because it’s based on stipulation, and religion, or de se knowledge is the essential component for egoism, because it’s necessarily unverifiable.

the god of science must crush all other gods… harrison? harrison?

crush the human animal where it lives. we gods of science shall create the overman.

history never repeats…

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

There wont be an overman, we’ll all be equal.

[Impenitent]

@Smears

There wont be an overman, we’ll all be equal.

of course… food for worms is food for worms…

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

I don’t know what that means.

[Impenitent]

the dead are equal

-Imp

[Mr_Reasonable]

So what does that mean?

[Impenitent]

it means your idea of equality is not what it seems

-Imp