Values, Care & Sincerity

No set of values is of higher/lower integrity than any other set. Value is a tool used by the living used to discern that of high/low relevance, and that of positive/negative affect.

A set is only as good as it reflects the interests of that which subscribes to it.

If two sets of values are held by two living beings, with both sets reflecting their respective owner’s interests perfectly - which set can be said to be greater?

My answer: Neither. I say they are both of equal integrity. They are both equal. They come from the same place, and serve the same function.

Who’s welfare is of greater integrity?

Who’s existence …?

Who’s influence …?

My answer is the same.

When speaking of equality, there’s many facets, implications and contexts that could be intended, and likewise, unintended - depending on the individual communicating.

One spectrum is that of rights. A tool that can enable co-operation between multiple parties. The method is to respect the interests of all parties, regardless of what they are, and devise a strategy where there is mutual benefit without anyone’s interests being undermined.

To my mind, the best foundation for healthy co-operation, is that which distributes equal priority to the interests of all parties involved, as opposed to a framework that helps one party, at the expense of another - i.e. discriminates against the welfare of a certain party.

More fundamentally, this tool is a guide. If one has high regard for the other, they will not want to cause harm to the other.

Thus, to list the best means of interaction with the other, the shoulds and should nots, gives one more freedom to move. How?

It enables one to act without fear of causing harm to the other, as long as one factors in the other’s rights, one can have confidence and thus devote less energy to doubt/worry.

Beyond this, rights ensure that anyone within the system are influenced to treat all others within the system to a standard that the system deems acceptable.

One has family, friends, self. If their welfare was at risk, one would devote energy to protect them. If one has the assurance that the environment will not harm them, one again has more energy to focus on other things. One need not be inhibited by concern for the welfare of that which one values.

Think if one cared for all, they’d surely see equality in rights and positive treatment as being ideal.

There are many things nested within living beings and that which they present/offer that I attribute high value and/or respect to - awareness, sentience, creativity, connection, purpose, care, beauty, love, origin - to name a few. Due to this, I intrinsically value and respect living beings. This regard is contrasted with that of lifeless matter, which holds much less esteem in my eyes. The living are constantly at risk of becoming lifeless, thus this high value for the living is particularly relevant when responding to that which causes potential to that end.

If my choice was between a living being perpetuating it’s state, or a lifeless thing perpetuating it’s state, I’d always side with the living - excluding the possibility that changing the state of the lifeless would put another living being’s welfare under threat.

I want to enable life, and better yet, quality life.

The differences among people in relation to that which I value about them, is relatively small. There is discrepancy between the value I attribute among people, but the discrepancy is largely cosmetic.

For example, due to all the qualities that I value nested within people intrinsically, they’ll get maybe 90 ‘value points’ right off the bat, irrespectable of all other factors.

The rest of it maybe give or take 10 points. Therefore, regardless of who you are, I care about you very strongly.

When someone hurts someone else, to me, it’s like a friend hurting another friend. I’m like, ‘Wtf man? C’mon. You don’t need to do that shit. We can all get along. Stop the fighting T_T’

Inequality infuriates me to no end. Assholes accuse me of being a coward for wanting equality - that I’m just some incompetent fuck trying to mask my insecurity, or better yet that I’m being dishonest and at my core really only care for small groups of people (As though I don’t feel torment at the shit that happens to people, indiscriminately).

In reality, I’m being honest to my nature. That of a living being who loves life, and wants it to flourish, not suffer.

I’ll continue on my path, thank you very much.

  • Ben

If TZM, or whomever, were to deal with all the lower levels of the hierarchy of needs for every human, and eliminate all violent conflict that would only make a small dent in equality.

One of the main values of most likely every human is the specific esteem and various forms of company of other humans; this value becomes central for most after their necessities have been met. The fact that many people have a large discrepancy between what they value in that regard and how others value them in that regard, makes even the conception of equality absurd - in the short term.

Long term, why not, people can be made to be almost equal even in the sense of obtaining value in terms of each other. And this can be done before humanity is leveled, genetically speaking, into a relatively homogenous grey mass.

This semi-equality, couldn’t be sooner than after all those alive today are gone and replaced by new generations. What TZM, or whomever, would have to do is indoctrinate every child in the idea that despite what innate qualities they have or qualities they earn, they have no more value than any other, and neither deserve nor should expect any more value from others.

I’ll reply to this after I sleep.

I’ll leave you with this -

TZM advocates a lot more than just supplying people’s basic needs. Look into it.

People have mutual interests.

We don’t need to live at the expense of others. We can still realize our ideals without undermining others.

X cares 100 for X, and 50 for Y. X can compromise to realizing 80% of ideals, so as to not undermine Y. If X cares for Y, to undermine Y isn’t ideal in itself. Therefore, X could never fully realize all ideals, if any involve undermining Y.

Treating people well doesn’t mean we need to treat them identically. Equality is about treating people well.

TZM is interested in the health of people/environment. If something isn’t working, it can be addressed. No one practice is set in stone.

Edit: Moved to viewtopic.php?f=25&t=186063

Upon consideration,

You’re derailing this thread too.

You already made a thread specifically for TZM, therefore, to critique it in this thread makes no sense, apart from to derail this thread. To imply, ‘I’ve made accusations about TZM’s integrity, therefore, everything said in this thread is nullified’.

In reality, this thread is comprised of specific beliefs held by me. Therefore, unless you specifically have the intent to respond relevantly to the beliefs expressed by me in this thread, you’ve no place responding. Critiquing TZM has no relation to the views expressed here.

Since your words are just loaded accusations regarding what you think TZM stands for, I will not continue further discussion with you about the issues you’ve currently raised within this thread. I will however, reply to these comments within the TZM thread (later).

Please stay on topic, or don’t participate.

Far too much “All A or All B” presumption. The only issue with Man is “How Much”, not “Which”.

Which is why it was said that the only improvement to Man’s understanding comes through mathematics (dealing with quantities, not necessarily realities).