RM shows the logic of how PtA can be turned against itself via manipulations in “the situation” (outside influences) as INCENTIVES for lowering the threshold of self-value and valuing-activity. By altering one’s perceptions of the EFFORT needed to value X, distortion is introduced as the self is distanced from its ACTUAL valuing-activity and “meaning”-perception of X.
When we take short-cuts to higher values we produce affective tendencies in the self (or “will”) to distance from value, and in value (action, necessity, consequences, power and ideas-thought capacity) to distance from self. Not only that, but this progressive destruction of capacity for responsibility and living has tendencies to be self-sustaining, it leads to the development of inertia, an “anti-gravity” of subjective de-acceleration.
The final conclusion of such a phenomenon can only be death, in one form or others.
I would also advise against taking short-cuts in one’s development, because it stifles true sustainable growth/joy and sets one up for a fall.
However, I would not say that this act is insincere, for the individual has a will to get out of their current position, but they are devising a strategy (skipping steps) based on false hope - that it could work -, when in reality it is not effective.
Skipping-steps can provide temporary relief, if not relied upon.
It could be compared to taking drugs, ‘Let’s get straight to the feeling good part’.
As arguability may be de associated into the scheme, the effect, rather than the affect, may prove to be more determinental. As such, skiPping steps will seem more of a matter of design rather than one of choice. As such the responsibility aspect is automatically negated. But what of it? People do it all the time, it is a matter of a natural tendency, a hereditary trait, rather than an imposition of the will.
This is where the morality issue fails at the level of the is/ought, and it is here that philosophy as a whole is totally responsible for the abdication of it’s primary responsibility.
If I had the slightest clue what you had tried to say, I would have addressed it more directly. But as it was, I merely commented on the one part I know about.
So the honest response on your part would have been, “What do you mean when you say this, and that, and this thing over here?” Then we get to clarify our respective positions.
No, the honest response was that I couldn’t even decipher enough to ask an honest question, so I stated what I did know enough about with the hopes that it wasn’t in offense to whatever you had said.
But hey, interpret and judge as you will.
… and I still haven’t the slightest notion as to what makes you think that RM has anything to do with Christianity.
Ok, let’s break this down. Firstly I’ve not (yet) said that RM has anything specifically to do with Christianity. I’d like to focus here first.
This means that entities/beings (like us, with “consciousness”) have certain “good” or rational/correct ways of perceiving things. You and I probably agree that these ways of perceiving are correct if they observe and understand reality, and incorrect if they fail to observe and understand reality. Specific to the individual being itself, the “reality” will partially be the specific needs and concerns of that being. Thus there is also a perception of how our own perception is either correct or incorrect. We might call this secondary perception “reason” or “self-consciousness” maybe, or you can pick a term that you think fits best.
So what happens when the situation a being is in, via peer pressure or social incentives or other manipulations makes this “self-consciousness”, this perception of one’s perceptions of correctness or incorrectness skewed? For example, a being values a certain thing but other people around it exert pressure to conform to another value standard wherein that certain thing is not valued; therefore the being acts as if it doesn’t value that thing. This is a skew between perceptions and actions.
What I am claiming about these skewing situations is that: they happen because there has been additional effort (energy requirement) added to act or not act in certain ways. I was connecting this to PtA because “potential to affect” seems to literally mean the power of beings (or of literally ANYTHING) to cause something. X causes Y, therefore X is a PtA of Y. Right? Or rather, X has certain POTENTIALS to affect, and Y happens to be one of those potentials becoming realized.
What I mean by this is that the long-term consequences of having one’s perceptions of values, or our perceptions of our own perceptions of correct understanding of reality, distorted by outside influences/incentives causes the gradual decay and eventual destruction of the being itself. This happens because it slowly undermines that being’s own conditions so that it can no longer sustain itself (it cannot self-value). So this not only introduces chaos into the being, by confusing its ability to perceive correctly, but it also makes it more cowardly and it loses trust with its own senses and values.
It seems that PtA’s, over time, would tend to build an inertia because the being/person/object on which the PtA acts is also somewhat responsive to that PtA, and is adapting to it over time.
Well, I use the terms; Rational Logic
and Perception or Appearance (the conscious evaluation of reality in place of the reality itself). Consciousness ≡ Remote Recognition.
What happens when someone begins to try to alter their perception for sake of getting along with society?
So you are talking about self-influence brought about by a society that might or might not be in an actual beneficial direction, a self-defeating adaptation?
I sure as hell won’t argue with that. That is one of my most fundamental complaints about society’s methods and aims.
You might be separating PtA from the being a little too much. Every being is merely a clump of changing PtA (as is everything). What makes a being sentient is the particular way the PtA fluctuates within it, causing a consciousness (remote recognition) that helps (hopefully) the being respond more rationally to on coming hopes and threats and toward longevity, anentropy.
So essentially, anything that actually assists the sentient being remain sentient is of “positive value”. That might include tools and equipment, discerning techniques, knowledge concerning healthy habits for mind and body, historical records of other’s attempts,…
And anything that reduces those things is “negative value”.
Positive value ≡ toward anentropy Negative value ≡ toward entropy
Value ≡ that which strategically brings one closer to his goal (harmonious survival => Anentropy). Perceived Value ≡ that which is perceived to strategically bring one closer to his perceived goal.
Objective Sentient Value ≡ that which strategically brings a sentient being closer to anentropic sentience.
Remote recognition is sensation? Does remote recognition include both recognizing things outside of the self (objects, colors, relations and change, etc.) AND things inside of the self (feelings, thoughts, values, etc.)?
Yes, that was my point too, but the creation of societies is necessary or at least inevitable, therefore the give and take exists. Finding common values often seems to mean partially or fully denying one’s own values that are counter to the values of others. Also, our own personal values will be forms of the dominant social values of the environments in which we are raised, to a very large degree.
Yes.
And in connection with that, I am wondering what a society that did not produce self-defeating adaptation would even look like.
Agreed.
Basically it’s “logic”, the relations between PtA’s that form higher kinds of relations producing the ability to recognize and respond to, and also to store in memory and to imagine/anticipate.
How would you classify languages? To me these are technologies that re-program consciousness (at the level of its PtA’s) through direct logic pathways: objects (concepts) are able to be created and stored and manipulated (words) based on rational patterns (grammar) to ensure consistency and actual relations between those objects, thus creating a secondary reality inside the brain that is partially analogous to the reality outside of the brain.
Is survival/anentropy the highest goal? Might it be possible to set goals higher than this, or at least to place the survival/anentropy of something other than oneself as more important than one’s own survival/anentropy?
Certainly; Rationality ≡ the state or quality of being rational or logical Rational ≡ rationed logic aimed toward a goal or purpose. Rationed ≡ portioned components that sum to a whole.
vs Logic ≡ consistency in concept association, the proposition that “A is A”.
Basically Logic proposes no particular goal, merely consistency of thought. Much like Science proposes, each lacking in particular “ought” or “Should” and strictly about “Is” and “How” regardless of intent, morality, or health consequence.
No that is merely local awareness.
Consciousness is about perception of remote affects, not actual sensed affects and is an awareness of distant concerns, not merely immediate concerns. Imagined thought is a type of consciousness that is so remote that it can easily be about things outside of reality entirely.
Any mental imaging or processing that is not directly sensed, is a reformation in the mind of something other than what is directly sensed. Any and all of that is “consciousness” on one level or another. Things like mathematics, psychological, and philological understandings are cognitive consciousness (and entirely misrepresent reality). Ego awareness is a consciousness issue.
Yes, but that is called adapting and learning, without which one couldn’t survive the jungle any more than a society (probably less so). I think that your objection is more the same concern as mine, which is the extremely detrimental adaptations that are being promoted in order to displace the natural survival skills/values and bring the individual into social control void of concern for his anentropic state, and rather only concerned with servitude until no longer useful.
I could somewhat describe it, but until you actually start doing it, you wouldn’t recognize it as anything familiar at all. And that is one of the drawbacks. You have already been “infected” with notions contrary to your own health and happiness, and thus you resist notions that would actually bring about the only real hope you ever had. The world of Man is seriously complex and not at all instinctively recognizable (and intentionally so by those who insist on controlling all life rather than merely managing their portion).
Agreed.
A language is merely a form of consciousness, without which one would be less conscious. It is true that language, or any form of consciousness will affect the overall behavior, but it is supposed to do that, else why be conscious at all. I don’t consider a spoken language as anything special. The mind has hundreds of internal “languages” that it creates and utilizes constantly regardless of any spoken language. Language didn’t invent people, despite recent rumors to the contrary.
HARMONIOUS anentropic survival is the highest and there can’t be any higher.
The harmonious aspect is what ends up including the rest of the universe and thus it isn’t actually “self-ish” merely “self-derived”. The purpose of being nice to others is to better serve oneself, but that isn’t as easily understood as it seems. One must get a serious understanding of “self” before jumping onto that “serve myself” thought.
In order to survive longest and reach that harmonious anentropic goal, one must be willing to risk ones self entirely. That isn’t a moral preference issue, but a logical and unavoidable conclusion due to the state of reality (which if handled better wouldn’t be in such a pathetically dangerous state).
An important distinction to make in order to understand RM properly is that a “potential” is merely a “situation”. It could have been stated as “Situation-to-Affect” rather than “Potential-to-Affect”.
But also, RM does not conflate “Possibility” with “Potential”, as is done in quantum mechanics. If the glass on the edge of the table does not actually fall, it didn’t actually have the potential to fall, to “actualize”. Potential in RM does not depend upon the fine details of a situation being known by an observer to dictate what is possible nor what has actual potential.
Every actual potential actualizes. There is no possibility to do otherwise. Every situation that can cause an effect, does cause an effect. If an affect did not occur it is ONLY because it did not actually have the potential to do so, despite how close it might have seemed to have been. “Almost” is not “Actual”.
And actually since the Valuing plays into the Affecting, it can be stated as “Potential-to-Create-Value” is what creates Value. And just as people attempt to assess affects, they attempt to assess value. And their effort to assess value causes value; “Potential-to-Evaluate” causes Evaluation which causes Value.
