Thoughts, Observations and Questions.

It has been awhile since I have posted here.
How have you guys been?

This thread will consist of brief observations of mine and so on.

What, in your guy’s opinion, is the ideal type of society? What sort of government would it consist of? What sort of culture would it have? What type of values?

Modern day feminism has got to be one of the greatest farces of all time.

The origin of it in the West began on delusional views of some tyrannical patriarchy in America that oppresses women.

While it is true that there were some areas where women were not treated fairly, there was never any oppressive patriarchy in the United States.

Feminists just disingenuously imagined things, like, for example, that women in the 1950’s 1960’s were forced to stay at home and be house-wives,
when, in reality, they were free to live in their own homes. Also, in regards to education/colleges not accepting women and women not having access to proper
education, there were public libraries that had all the information they required, free of charge, so they could become intellectual and knowledgeable.

These are a couple of the major foundations of modern day feminism and they are essentially erroneous and exaggerated.

In addition to this, feminists often complain about the most trivial and asinine of things that supposedly occur in the United States, while turning a blind eye to very legitimate violations of women’s rights over in the Middle East.

The prevalence of feminism in the world is amusing and only betrays the level of mass idiocy across the globe.

The SAM Co-op. A SAM Co-op is a small cell formed of from 4 to 75 people that is one of millions of self-sufficient similar cells of the body of Mankind (similar to a family). Each SAM Co-op is governed by a specific Constitution although each has its own amendments. Every Co-op is “internet-connected” by a specific network for sake of News, Philosophy, and Trade. Thusly, each cell forms its own culture, values, and life-style. The details get drawn out, but that is the basic idea.

One where everyone is hardwired for universal altruism
Because of human nature this can never exist in reality

I agree with an ethic or spirit of universal altruism.

World peace begins with the family, good parents.

Children who are well loved, with gentleness and warm kindness, become ideal human beings.

Deep compassion and love for other people will brings heaven to earth.

Can a conscience be taught or is it an inherent aspect of a person? These choices we make are ours when push comes to shove and even though we may frown upon our options, they exist. “No” always exists just as “Yes” always exists or am I forgetting something?

Conscience is mostly conditioned in using inherent fears and hopes.

Welcome back, then.
I been above average, as far as I can tell.

A good society is made of good individuals.
An emphasis on virtue would seem to be the answer.



In the past, when I have tested my conscience, I don’t remember any fear or hope prompting my intention to see what would happen or my after the fact physiological reaction, what did happen, which ranged from self-disappointment to self-disgust. Describe this fear or that hope for I surely don’t understand how that type of self-awareness can be conditioned into existence.

What are your guy’s thoughts on transhumanism and artificial intelligence?

I see these things as manifesting in the near future.


But what virtues would they be? Any virtues or particular virtues which would uphold/sustain a good society?
"Good* is kind of a flimsy word.
I also think that good is according to one’s own perception and often “ego” and it has been known to burn people at the stake, for instance.
So-called good people have also been known to do NOTHING when evil rears its ugly head and thrives.

I’d say that a good society is actually made not of individuals, but of partners, partnerships, clans.

individualism has ruined every civilization where it took hold. Humans are worth nothing to each other if they are oriented primarily on their individuation. All that makes a human society work is if humans desire to spend their lives in service of a higher cause.

In such a society, there is a lot for freedom of individualism. But individualism is like the cherry on the cake, it has not power to create, to serve, it isn’t valuable. Its just a symbol, not a thing.
Each overly individuated person will eventually kill himself or move back into some fold - or create his own community.

You see this, for example, in Hollywood, where a lot of aspiring individuals live, who, when push comes to shove, all turn out to really want to be cattle in a stable, and are supremely happy when they only have to moo and be shoved around by some institution.

Some individuals worth their salt did exist. Casanova comes to mind. No philosopher is an individual, and no artists or politician - profoundly creative people have their soul intertwined with the peoples of the Earth.

The latter part of the above may be true but this does not mean that they are not individuals. I intuit that if they were not, they could not be as profoundly creative as you say they are. They all express themselves from within a different core and life experiences.



[tab]Turner's seascape.jpg[/tab]

The Inter-connectiveness of the artist within his universal community is not the same as being part of the “herd” or something like the Borg.
I intuit that without his own personal individuality and unique personality, the artist could be nothing but a sardine in a can of sardines.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Advanced Robots

Morality as a form of beauty

Many people today claim that morality is subjective or relative, but it’s, actually, the case that morality is objective.
Many people also claim that beauty, in particular, physical and artistic beauty, are subjective, when, in reality, they are objective.
People may have slightly different preferences in regards to what attracts them most, but these preferences are negligible as pertains to
whether or not beauty is subjective or objective. There are certain universal characteristics that stand out across, essentially, all
cultures as to what is beautiful or aesthetic. For men, having an athletic, muscular body (v-taper, six-pack abs) is generally what
women find attractive. A voluptuous, curvy body is generally what men find attractive in women. People don’t arbitrarily decide to make
up what they find appealing or aesthetic in other people or things - it’s something innate they recognize. So, too, with morality, certain virtues, such as
compassion, kindness, love and integrity are universally recognized as being aesthetic or noble. This is because these virtues express something inherent to
existence itself. They are manifestations of the highest reality: God.

This is useful, a phenomenology of morality.

i stopped calling anyone a ‘narcissist’ with pejorative connotations a long time ago, due to a moment of insight that suddenly seized me, at which point i shouted ‘eureka’; the measure of the excessiveness of someone’s pride, or vanity, or grandiosity, is not something that can be assessed by another person. if such an attempt is made, all that will be revealed is the criticizer’s vulnerability to the threat of his own shortcomings by comparison. the very notion of narcissism, whether clinal (as in the DSM) or out of some philosophical narrative, springs directly from resentment and in some cases ressentiment. and here’s why.

that someone appears excessive in the above things, isn’t an indication of how he truly feels about himself. it may be that to you he appears obnoxious, arrogant, what have you, but what if that person, while maybe feeling superior to you, still isn’t satisfied with himself? ‘ah’, you say. i think i see where this is going.

joe is an awesome athlete, and quite proud of his talents. so much so that he would not hesitate to say ‘i’m better than you’… but what we don’t know about joe is that he, himself, thinks he could be better, could improve, and that by comparison to still others (but not you), he thinks he’s woefully inferior.

now which is any evidence of the true measure of joe’s vanity and/or pride here? how we feel when we resent the fact that he thinks he’s better than us, or how joe feels when he examines himself and realizes his disatisfaction with himself and desire to improve?

see what just happened there? to call someone’s pride and vanity excessive can only mean ‘we are offended by his confidence’. it cannot mean we’ve identified some unjustified and over exaggerated sense of importance or value in joe’s mind. joe really becomes quite modest when he is critical of himself. it’s only compared to you that he is better… something you resent. and he shall not be aware of his superiority, for that would be narcissistic and unfair!

the doctrine of narcissism, along with being so many obscure and ambiguous narratives in clinical psychology, is nothing more than a blanket-statement to categorize anyone who tries to distance himself from the herd. the same goes for that pseudo-diagnosis ‘sociopath’. sociopathology is the resentment doctrine of narcissism taken to the fifth power. it’s rests fundamentally on the grey area between organic disease and ‘mental disorder’. because psychologists can’t argue on a scientific level that an alleged organic condition of sociopathology is a trait that can’t promote the ‘fitness level’ in strictly biological terms, they resort to moralizing… and call it a ‘mental disorder’.

be weary of anyone who calls you a narcissist, and remind them that despite your superiority to them, there is always more room for improvement in yourself. instead, look for those who are fellow narcissists… exceptional people with extraordinary talents, and are certain enough of themselves to not even notice the arrogance of others. not because they don’t notice, but because they can’t notice, on account of them not being able to feel threatened or resentful of someone else.

few things are more adorable then two modest narcissists working together to improve themselves even more.

it would really come down to this; if you can say you’ve found someone who genuinely feels that they have no room for improvement, then you can say you’ve found a narcissist. good luck with that. see even the most clearly undeserving of the vanity they have - [insert any Crap artist, for instance] - still are not completely satisfied with themselves and whether secretly or not, are not as great as they really want to be.

and if there is nothing worth the merit of one’s pride, which we find excessive, what exactly is the problem? we’ve merely found a fake narcissist, and this is even worse! it is an insult to the true narcissist!

this plate of scrammbled eggs is a perfect opportunity to show you how easy it is to get everything wrong when you attempt to do philosophy.

for any direction, left, right, up, or down, all issues come eventually down to morality. so if there is something about the ‘left in the west’ to be criticized, it would need to be a problem that the right, up, and down didn’t also possess. and since the right, up and down also experiences the problem of morality, such a statement can only mean ‘that morality is not like this one, and therefore it is wrong.’ and how is this done? by presuming that morality has different sources, when in fact, it does not.

the next step would be to try and argue that morality is derived from religious doctrine. this, too, is false. morality is a biologically evolved ‘mechanism’, and consists of a combination of behavioral tendencies that have been inherited because they’ve proven to increase the fitness level of the group. the entire range of human behavior, from compassion to violence, has served in some way to be conducive to this, or else it wouldn’t have evolved and would not be present in the spectrum of human behavior.

what he’s done is isolated a small set of such behaviors, called attention to the fact that they are taught to be virtuous by [insert some religion], and forgotten that such behaviors do not have their origins in the teaching of [insert some religion]. the [insert some religion] only proselytizes set x of human behaviors, claiming they wouldn’t exist without [insert god of some religion] creating them.

so this gentleman first tries to vilify the ‘left’ by saying they’re ‘only about morality’, when in fact wherever he’s from is ‘only about morality’ as well. second, he tries to delineate something specific about moral behavior down to a specific religion (which he vilifes, as well), calling it responsible for the virtues he is criticizing, without realizing that those virtues are held in high regard by any practicing culture, be they left, right, up or down, simply because they are ‘intrinsic’ to human behavior.

so for example, he might say ‘compassion practiced by christians or marxists is bullshit, while compassion practiced by pagans is not.’

it’s neither here nor there if a specific culture believes their virtues are ordained by god. so one wouldn’t say ‘culture x is wrong because they believe their compassion is ordained by god’. one would have to say this particular kind of compassion is in question, and proceed their argument from there. and let me save you the trouble of trying to do this and just say; you won’t be able to do that, either.

the rabid foaming at the mind continues:

this is not philosophy… well i mean it is because it’s got all the necessary informal fallacies to be called such… but it’s more of a hyperbolic rant expressing that beautiful existential plummet into frustration and despair. and i say it is beautiful because it certainly is; it is one more exhibit i would present to the court of the crimson king to prove that man is, indeed, a wonderful mistake. and i do this as an indifferent artist who might shake his finger at the gods and shout ‘look what you’ve done to this poor creature!’ for it to even be possible that someone become so entrenched in such a mental abyss of confusion and rage, and have to live it for decades, well… that’s quite the grievance to be lodged against the gods.

in five hundred years, every detail of that misanthropic study above, everything thought to be a great danger to humanity, to the quality of life and integrity… every emergency declared to be a threat to the dignity of man, will be so long gone as to not even be mentioned in history books anymore. if one could look back upon the continuum of that species man and find that meager seventy+ years of that single life that spent its time worrying about everything in a nervous and raging fervor, you’d not have enough time to blink your eye before it was over.

if you feel that you might be such a life, i would direct you toward the blue light, and hope that you might find it before it’s too late.

your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to improve widget production, lower child mortality rates and reduce military expenditures:

now you might claim you don’t want to do this, but you really do. deep down you really do. you just don’t know where to start, that’s all. so, we will be conducting a series of aptitude tests to determine the strengths and weakness of each ILP member, who will then be assigned to their respective positions to perform the necessary tasks to reach our goal.

the guy who wears a dead rat on his head (trump) better fire mueller before mueller brings the whole cesspool down in a blaze of glory, wouldn’t ya think? by the time mueller gets done, that worthless fuck’s whole cabinet is gonna be indicted and on their way to prison. but did it really take the country this long to realize what a despicable piece of human waste was put in the white house? do they not see all the secret handshakes going on? unbelievable.

the house judiciary committee is drilling the fuck out of the acting AG at this very moment. i’ve never seen a guy squirm so much in my life. he evades the questions, then drags out ambiguous answers hoping to run the clock down. as if we don’t know what he’s doing.

nah. this isn’t a witch hunt. a witch hunt would be giving these scum bags too much credit. this is an extermination of a nest of cockroaches.

and why all the long, drawn out judicial formalities? why not just bring in a team of galleanists and be done with it? bada bing, bada… BOOM. no more cockroaches.