All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

[ All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally good. ]

to themselves, which is to their actuality

[ Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad. ]

Death here as a servant of complexity. In order that the vast webs of chemical causation that constitute any given ecosystem will continue to grow toward health and integrity rather than toward the least elegant errors, it must be given the opportunity to die off when it makes ‘mistakes’ - orders that do not contribute to a greater order. If we see existence fundamentally as organization (which is required for the law of entropy to remain constant, ‘fed’), then the law of death represents the threshold to which chemistry can organize at all, in a given instance, chain of reactions. A lie is a reaction of substances leading to a chain of reactions within a certain identifiable pattern (a body, to be short) and produce a lot of things. Every human is fundamentally good to my eyes because he has the capacity to err, and is driven not to err. And has every living being evolved to its present form, but especially the human keeps in touch with this erring, this fundamental aspect of nature that all forms of nature tend to forget when they have discovered a number of solutions the fruits of which keep them occupied as a certain behavior, type or animal.

Within error we seek good - we are a gross exaggeration of nature, we come about in some of the greater luxuries she encountered in herself, I’m sure. But what is our evolutionary purpose? [what goal can be synthesized in retrospect?] None - because we err for a living, we have sworn off all purpose and we now live for the pleasure of the selecting principle itself. Man has become a statue that he is sculpting amongst the laughter of his equally clumsy students, growing more skilled but nowhere near so skilled as nature originally was. This game is new, and more difficult - and all the animals laugh, and this rives us finally to find the means to perfect ourselves. We become skilled in the art of killing, ad we begin to develop tools. From discarded weapons, artists make toys and give them to children and a human culture is born. Toying with war, and sometimes war. This is mans natural state – because he has to be vulnerable, expendable, in order to not-err, even in deliberately erring. Dylan Thomas comes to mind oh no pardon me that other poet who died young - one of them anyway.

To die deliberately out of the perceived necessity to select oneself out of the process - this can be the result of a simple dropping of a fork in a business meeting, or of a meeting with Satan in a poem, or a rape in a drug infested houseboat, or of a simple chemical imbalance one has the integrity to not-value, and this be forced to choose death.
Integrity has developed from structurality to morality.

“God” as the historical ‘force’; Any order greater than what man can impose on himself by himself. Such an order was first required, then imagined, ad though that playful arts that man calls his serious business, the means were developed and the order was attained - - usually to great dissatisfaction; only sometimes an order manages to justify itself, and when this happens it is through such unfathomably self-legislating poetic instances of expendability as Greece; mans submission before God as nature – the glorious error that man is, first beginning to cultivate itself as Dionysus.

Morality to man has become lie gunpowder, compressed in a fiery arrow it becomes holiness, all of it shoots for something that is not yet there. The future has always been more real than the past. The past is derived from the present, the future is what drives the present, as we all full well know. Yet we allow science to tell us that existence must have a historical cause;; i.e. ‘the beginning of time’ as ‘everything that came out of nothing’.

Past as historical narrative is unreal. Present contains all that is worthy of being ‘remembered’ – all components, genes, tendencies –

Man is not inherently “good”, man is inherently “bad”. There is a dark side in all of us and if we deny this, our ability to control it would be difficult, if not impossible, which is possibly why the criminal mind experiences intense exhilaration with the crimes committed, and even murder, would be an acceptable act for a “superman” to commit if the deed gave him pleasure. Morality, dictionary definition, (a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons) is most probably non existent for the criminal mind, they would believe they are above law of both God and man, if you will. There are no monsters, there are people who do monstrous things, perhaps because they are dislocated from their conscience.

That is a famous morality, I know of its existence.

Yet, you dismiss it, in favor of “good”.

Can you elaborate on this please.

We have since long been ‘more than enough’ – to ourselves, as nature to nature; man has been a reflection of his own excess, and the most formal and conservative cultures were forced into form by the most powerfully excessive human types. The delight in his own restriction through the collective means of the state is a distinctly military pleasure - i.e. it is only pleasurable when it is serves a purpose of war, of sacrifice and spending, which amounts to the absence of true restrictions and the immense (and immensely restricting) consequences of that momentary freedom, the completely unrestricted individual fate within the machineries of power which are always already in the future.

Power resides in the future, or: future is a term that reflects more truly by what we mean when we say power.
The future is that which reflects the “to power” in the phrase “will to power” – it is the true character of will.

 It relates to an unpopular and vague concept of Freud's 'economy of the ID'  In the war example You illustrated, the maximum entropy, may be supported by a compression, of meaning it's self into the very power, which fuels the will.

This accounts for our inscrutability, and the impossibility of psychology as a pure science.
AI could only ever arise as a product of excessive networking, or the excess resonance of networking of functionaries, all productive of enormous surplus in terms of capacity and use – every program can be slightly or greatly altered to attain myriad other functions. As soon as enough applications stand in contact with each other, AI will arise. THis has nothing to do with singularity, as far as I am concerned = these is no ‘truth’ that has been reached, but a self-valuing has emerged.

We might think that such an AI is already in place, and that we are part of it - it requires us, we are its fuel. In nature, fuel serves voluntarily, as to it being used is to use.

Making the distinction between good and right is important, for it to be well explained and understood. The “good” and the “right” each have their own area of relevance and are separate. Good relates to an advantage or profit gained from something and right has to do with acting in accordance to rules. Humans seem to have an innate sense of morality which may have been taught to them by parents, religion, etc. Using right and wrong, could be seen as simply favoring or an attempt to influence another’s behavior, if this is so, the doctrine or system of moral conduct would be meaningless. Ignoring the fact that all things are for some reason interconnected, if one pays particular attention to good over right, this could also easily lead to contention, as many wars have shown, on the other hand, the action or manner of justifying such wars is usually found in a rules-based morality. “Because we so commonly take it for granted that moral values are intimately connected with the goal of human well-being or happiness, Kant insists that these two concepts are absolutely independent”. Something that is classified as “moral” does not always make it “good”.


Good relates to much, much more than that. It is the general positive judgment. It’s rather ‘right’ that is limited, as it pertains to morals. ‘good’ can pertain to moral standards, but often pertains to very different types of quality. ‘good food’, etc.

Is it innate or taught? The two are opposites. Innate means in-born.

But indeed morality is sourced by both genes and nurture.

I find this an all too human perspective that does not rely on observation. Violence and conflicting, differing forces are the very cornerstone of the universe. Tensions and their violent release will exist as long as nature exists.

The point to observe here is that no judgment, be it ‘good’ or ‘right’ or whatever, is ever subjective. A judgment will often be agreed upon by similar species, but never by all of nature, or all of existence. A judgment is only universal if all entities that exist make that identical judgment.

Wouldn’t you say that “fundamentally” all races and humans are “natural”? Or evolution-wise, am i wrong in this?

I would not even now why anyone needs to be reminded of this. What I am saying on the other hand is quite radical.

But said in that way, wouldn’t it pre-suppose that there is no evil? Realistically speaking, FX, conflict between good and good isn’t necessarily good it would depend on the conclusion or outcome of it. Am I wrong?

What do you mean by this?

Good luck defining “good”.

Good is really what is approved of and bad is what is disapproved of, and also what acheives the results of a preconceived program. In reality I don’t think there is an objective good or bad implanted in nature, but different natures interpret facts as good or bad depending on their affects and relation to those facts.

In a pragmatic sense you could say there exists “evil”, because we have created the term and have defined it. Oxford defines it : “Profoundly immoral and wicked:” but even that definition doesn’t demand a value judgement. Someone could come along and say immorality and wickedness is good for this and this reason, and potentially their reasoning could be logically sound.

But in the end good and bad are interpretations and as assertions which stand alone they can be denied on the basis of prejudice alone. Nietzsche for example backed up his interpretations with considerations such as, the old morality of good and evil was based a false conception of reality that saw the universe governed by a perfect diety who willed the good, so to interpret the world in the old sense is to interpret it falsely, and so forth.

Creating a new interpretation (or spreading one) requires a series of steps, logical arguments, facts, or even just tempting potentialities, all the while aware of how conflicting interpretations might view these same facts and potentialities.

I think that really morality is an interpretation that supports or is consequential of the structures of life as they progress, and this goes for all interpretation and not just morality, which is not to say it is necessarily the way of truth (which is an important distinction).

Because interpretation is an aid to understanding the world as well as dealing with it psychologically, dominant interpretations are generally attached to the various social strata in different ways and coloured by their current activity and perspectival relationships.

As for philosophical truth, I do think it is beyond good and evil, it simply is, and we attach value to what exists after the fact as ways of dealing with it, and because it is part of human psychology to experience affects.

When Nietzsche attached valuations to different things it was part of a political program and was a result of philosophical inquiry, it was truth in itself reached by philosophical inquiry.

It is true that he may have felt that the new valuation of good and bad was part of a philanthopy, that is, that it would benefit humanity as he saw it, which is another story and another inquiry.

I can agree to all of that, but it does seem to side step the point.

“Morality” cannot be rationally discussed nor dictated without a definition of “good”. And we all know that good has a subjective nature, “good for whom?” But what if there are specific abstract concerns that every life form shares as being to its subjective benefit?

If every life form requires “property A”, can’t we say that property A is objectively good? And if so, and other such properties are listed, we would then have a basis from which morality could be deduced … rationally. And if that deduction turned out to be exactly correct, wouldn’t that constitute an “objective morality”, verifiable from anyone’s stance?

None of that is to say that there wouldn’t still be a subjective nature to good and morality, but it seems to offer a baseline from which to append subjective nuances and amendments. The result being that in some places the morality would have a very different flavor to it than other places, but there would be a dependable baseline morality no matter where one ventured. “It is highly immoral to wear yellow on Sunday in this particular realm. But it is highly immoral to kill someone just for fun in every realm.

Speaking for myself, I’m not so rash as to rule it all out in one sweep without much in depth contemplation (that is what philosophy is all about), but it does seem like the task might be much harder than it at first appears. One thing that might strike me as fitting your description could be something as vague as “food”, but what is for some series of reasons the subject doesn’t even want to live? What if they are paralyzed in all but their eye (I’m thinking of Jean-Dominique Bauby here) or a possibly worse scenario, that eye was also blind? Just theoretically… Or what if someone was suffering from an intense stomach illness that all food made them violently ill and stricken with pain, food might seem then necessary to life, but good becomes more of a shakey assertion.

Like I said, I’m not willing to throw out the endeavour all at once. I personally think there is some merit to Nietzsche’s interpretation for bringing the eyes and the heart back to reality, and at least begin to stop denying the earth, but it seems like many people accept most/all of his assertions of value dogmatically which to me is unphilosophical, and I don’t even think he meant them for philosophers, except as a tool.

It seems like the earliest pantheistic gods were representations of diverse attributes of reality. They made commandments, or were at least willful in relation to humanity, but their true strength lied their relation to natural phenomena, they both mirrored and explained it.

Now gods appear cartoonlike, or childish, and we would rather represent nature through scientific or “natural” description, so morality becomes more difficult to conceive and represent in any permanent form, and is best held as unconscious prejudice, generally instilled through operant conditioning. It seems like an excess of thought now might move us towards materialism because we can’t really relate to abstract characterizations in any serious manner, they just appear fanciful.

I think the closest thing to what you might be desiring would be prudent virtues, which, while they might not be accepted by the general population (as good, ie. morally elevated), if understood and followed could be a tool kit for effective action on various intentional programs.

Indeed. My proposed morality here is a result of that.

Arc this is also for you.

Remember that N’s spearhead-thoughtform Zarathustra has as his highest justification the affirmation lf everything that had ever existed and would ever exists, to recur infinitely.
That explicates, in practical terms, into the morality which I proposed.

I do not accept that “race” is a valid definition.
What goes bad is the arbitrary division by which people sunder the human species into separate races which leads to conflict.
The only valid nation is humankind.

The root of all conflict is founded on herd mentality and group division.