Master/ Slave Relationship. Man's Malicious Appetite.

[Joker]

A narrow, meaningful definiton of cooperation among humans is now an ecological mandate–join or die. Humans in a sinking boat do not ask for abstract ideas about internal malicious instincts, a phrase IMHO that totally misrepresents both biological, survival instincts, which are mostly ameliorative of the human condition, and any human thought endeavor for realizing a non-utopian, down to earth, real world of inclusion of all kinds and types. Negative competitions about who is moral merely amount to “raisins in the sun”, further deferring the promise (potential) of what can be human and humane. At present our world is divided between haves and have nots, hence the ethnic animosities that fester into cultural, global wars. I, for one, do not look for solutions to this problem in philosophy, religion, politics or science. I look for it in the human need to have personal meaning and value substantiated by agreement from an other! Of course there is no equality of talents and abilities among humans. To see this sort of inequality as defining who deserves what, especially when it comes to who can be fed, clothed, housed or medicated, is the horror of fascism, which a majority of humans loathe. Might does not make right; it too often makes inequality of deserts, which is unethical in any sense.

A narrow, meaningful definiton of cooperation among humans is now an ecological mandate–join or die.

Nonetheless such demands are entirely subjective and relative where the only relevance of such a proposal is one of extreme selfishness in the desire of power.

There is no grand ideal and final destination of anything leading to some cosmic finality or mass awakening.

Everything is done out of personal gain.

In enlightenment there is no spiritual awakening or some single narrow defined cosmic purpose to be sought.

Enlightenment equals power.

Enlightenment merely equals the journey where a man or woman seeks power to overcome obstacles and other people.

In every imaginary ideal, fantasy, dream and collective hysteria expressed by myth or extreme faith in subjects are mere contrivances where beyond these artificial arranged developments of mere appearances the desire of power to overcome life and other people is still the same throughout all the ages beyond illusions of progress and choice which delude us all considering that in actuality they are merely instances of people with power along with those without it.

Humans in a sinking boat do not ask for abstract ideas about internal malicious instincts, a phrase IMHO that totally misrepresents both biological, survival instincts, which are mostly ameliorative of the human condition, and any human thought endeavor for realizing a non-utopian, down to earth, real world of inclusion of all kinds and types. Negative competitions about who is moral merely amount to “raisins in the sun”, further deferring the promise (potential) of what can be human and humane. At present our world is divided between haves and have nots, hence the ethnic animosities that fester into cultural, global wars. I, for one, do not look for solutions to this problem in philosophy, religion, politics or science. I look for it in the human need to have personal meaning and value substantiated by agreement from an other!

I look for it in the human need to have personal meaning and value substantiated by agreement from an other!

What about those who not want to be handed down meaning from others but instead choose to create meaning for themselves?

How exactly does that fit within your own beliefs?

Of course there is no equality of talents and abilities among humans. To see this sort of inequality as defining who deserves what, especially when it comes to who can be fed, clothed, housed or medicated, is the horror of fascism, which a majority of humans loathe.

I believe the opposite. Since in every historical generation master slave relationships exist I would argue that man’s nature is selfish and malign where a systemization like fascism is very much celebrated amongst people publicly including government.

We may create appearances of morality to hide our celebrated feeling of having power over other people through the master slave relationship found in sociality but our own hypocrisy in our actions quickly destroys our collective moral lie in that our own natural tendencies conflict with the collective fantasy we have deluded ourselves to be in.

Might does not make right;

You may say that but history proves the opposite including our present one. There is no escaping it.

it too often makes inequality of deserts,

Man’s inherent nature of malice and selfishness is making a desert of a once abundant planet. Another historical example.

We as people are simply out of control and as a species we are dangerous to ourselves not to mention dangerous to our planet including to all other species that live around us. It is a consequence of our over-success in survival.

Some have compared us to a cancerous growth on a organism which in our analogy is earth.

Sometimes I think that such people may not be too far off in their analogy…

which is unethical in any sense.

Mere preferences and venerated aesthetics all in a matter of opinion…

[Ierrellus]

joker,
Your negative views of the prospects of human potential are no more valid than are my positive views. At least they are not valid as prognosis of outcomes of our reactions to the human dilemma (stasis vs. change). But, make a choice–does a history of negation support views that continue the negativity? Or is there something in human potential that can overcome the negativity? Historical references only show what was, not what is or can be. What evolves are potentials, not absolutes! If we are so determined by our own history to be unchangeable in thought and action, you might as well chalk off the human race as a failed experiment.

[Joker]

@Ierrellus

joker,
Your negative views of the prospects of human potential are no more valid than are my positive views. At least they are not valid as prognosis of outcomes of our reactions to the human dilemma (stasis vs. change). But, make a choice–does a history of negation support views that continue the negativity? Or is there something in human potential that can overcome the negativity? Historical references only show what was, not what is or can be. What evolves are potentials, not absolutes! If we are so determined by our own history to be unchangeable in thought and action, you might as well chalk off the human race as a failed experiment.

joker,
Your negative views of the prospects of human potential are no more valid than are my positive views. At least they are not valid as prognosis of outcomes of our reactions to the human dilemma (stasis vs. change).

Inductive fallacies

Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena.
The overwhelming exception is related to the hasty generalization, but working from the other end. It is a generalization which is accurate, but tags on a qualification which eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume.
Biased sample
Misleading vividness is a kind of hasty generalization that appeals to the senses.
Statistical special pleading occurs when the interpretation of the relevant statistic is “massaged” by looking for ways to reclassify or requantify data from one portion of results, but not applying the same scrutiny to other categories.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

But, make a choice–does a history of negation support views that continue the negativity?

Why doesn’t it?

Or is there something in human potential that can overcome the negativity?

What is this “human” potential you are so fond in speaking about?

Historical references only show what was, not what is or can be.

If what was in the past still is in the present and through observation looks to be the future as well then I see no reason why I can’t conclude that what I see is the natural order of things and that such existences will always exist.

What evolves are potentials, not absolutes!

What evolves is change not potentials or absolutes.

If I can’t see, sense or expirience a potential it does not exist to me.

If we are so determined by our own history to be unchangeable in thought and action, you might as well chalk off the human race as a failed experiment.

I already have…

[Ierrellus]

Joker,
No, the only inductive fallacy amounts to your inability to see possibilty because you have already denied its positive outcomes!

[Joker]

@Ierrellus

Joker,
No, the only inductive fallacy amounts to your inability to see possibilty because you have already denied its positive outcomes!

I only believe what I can see, sense and expirience. If I can’t expirience these metaphysical possibilities as you call them I must then conclude that they do not exist or at the very least they are fleeting delusions.

[Ierrellus]

@Joker

@Ierrellus

Joker,
No, the only inductive fallacy amounts to your inability to see possibilty because you have already denied its positive outcomes!

I only believe what I can see, sense and expirience. If I can’t expirience these metaphysical possibilities as you call them I must then conclude that they do not exist or at the very least they are fleeting delusions.

No, what you see, sense and experience is the very prospect of change you summarily deny. Semantic negations of experiential truths do not wash with me. I don’t talk metaphysics; I discuss real biological, experiential occurences. Read Piaget. Read Lakoff & Johnson. At least read. Opinion without research is the metaphysical fairyland you claim to abhor.

[Joker]

@Ierrellus

@Joker

@Ierrellus

Joker,
No, the only inductive fallacy amounts to your inability to see possibilty because you have already denied its positive outcomes!

I only believe what I can see, sense and expirience. If I can’t expirience these metaphysical possibilities as you call them I must then conclude that they do not exist or at the very least they are fleeting delusions.

No, what you see, sense and experience is the very prospect of change you summarily deny. Semantic negations of experiential truths do not wash with me. I don’t talk metaphysics; I discuss real biological, experiential occurences. Read Piaget. Read Lakoff & Johnson. At least read. Opinion without research is the metaphysical fairyland you claim to abhor.

No, what you see, sense and experience is the very prospect of change you summarily deny.

Do you deny that a great deal of many things survive from the past into our present?

If you do, why do you think that is?

Why hasn’t these possibilities or potentials as you call them have not changed and eradicated such things?

Why do things from the past keep repeating themselves over and over again in every historical era?

There seems to be alot of repeating patterns from the past into our present that most likely will continue into the future from my observation.

Why do they repeat Ierrellus?

Could it be that these so called potentials and possibilities are ineffective against such repeating patterns because of some inner conflict between man’s natural tendencies in behavior?

Semantic negations of experiential truths do not wash with me.

What in question here is semantical? As far as I’m concerned I have been quite deductive.

I don’t talk metaphysics; I discuss real biological, experiential occurences.

Everything you have described so far sounds very conceptualized not biological or experiental.

Read Piaget. Read Lakoff & Johnson. At least read. Opinion without research is the metaphysical fairyland you claim to abhor.