How one should live.

[Ecmandu]

Reality with other people besides you in it always causes problems (existence can have an infinite number of eternal forms - your reality is within existence)

The way in which one ought live their life is understood when the depths of philosophy and existence are understood.

When there's more than one person in the same reality, it always solves as, "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't"

The ought, is anything besides that.

We have a vast being, each of us.

This being is capable of hallucinating reality from eternal forms.

The way I try to describe this is:

"Let's say you hold a mirror up to someone and punch the mirror! It doesn't hurt them at all!"

A hallucinated reality from eternal forms gives us a perfect no harm, 100% consensual system. If you don't like someone's body in this multidimensional hyper-mirror, just change the mirror. If you don't like parts of their being that involves personality and/or intelligence, again, shape the mirror to change their consciousness signature. Like a thumb print, we all have unique consciousness signatures.

The reality forever and ever, becomes 100% consensual for beings, and it's the only way to get around the zero sum, damned if you do, damned if you don't reality we currently share.

[Ecmandu]

I'm thinking you have histrionic personality disorder, which would make you a female, it's very rare in men.

Debate me on what I wrote in the above post, any and all.

100% consensual conditions including the percent that you consent to being non consensual...

Is perfection of all problems.

But, Iambiguous doesn't read this and think "I'll go the only way humans are axiomatically proven to go, I'll just still talk about my "hole" because I have histrionic personality disorder"

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm not really sure why anyone would want to solve iambiguous's hole. I had no illusions. But everytime you go up to the question "how do you bring this down to earth" you inevitably greatly hone your philosophical skills.

Cause if it's not about the Earth, what the goddamn fuck is it about?

I do dislike his dishonesty, where he is the most abstract of all and yet demands one use no abstractions. But this seems not to detract from the genious of his question.

This is, I think, what iambiguous is. He figured out an incredibly good question and knows it. So he asks it all the time. He may have nothing else, but he knows he has this. I would do the same. Just keep asking it. That counts as philosophy. The muses forgive him his pedant dishonesty.

[Pedro I Rengel]

In fact, if he honestly asked himself the question, he would be undone and the question lost. That would be tragic.

"How can I bring the question of being as becoming down to Earth, in the world of conflicting Goods, where Dick and Jane can understand what the fuck I'm saying?"

[Pedro I Rengel]

Screw Dick and Jane. He could apply it to some particular circumstance of his own. But he won't tell us who he really is, so he's at least safe from us making him ask it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

What ought I to do?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Phenomenology, which is bullshit, is the protective shell around the incredibly valuable question: how do I force my most intellectualized beliefs to actually face reality?

[Pedro I Rengel]

It is itself a perfect ethics. Because whether intellectuals bring their up in the sky hooks contraptions down to Earth or not, those contraptions will have massive effects on what goes on on Earth.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I may not have wondered what Manifest Destiny actually means in particular day to day conflicting goods scenarios, but it certainly will affect thos scenarios when they occur.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Or Equal Rights for All Men.

Or Intersubjective whateverthefuck, it's socialism.

Or The Dictatorship of The Proletariat

Or Free Love

The list goes on and on.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Will to Power was beautiful, because it could only even be noticed by hardened philisophers. But then he died and his proto Nazi sister got a hold of some of his notes and they made a monstruosity. You can bet your sweet ass the first question Nietzsche allways asked after Wagner was how do you bring this down to Earth? His sister? Her only question was probably What would impress my antisemitic friends?

[Ecmandu]

Pedro, you 8 chain posted a thread that disproved moral subjectivists without actually discussing it.

I'm challenging anyone on these boards to prove me wrong ....

I have more meat than my first two posts, and will actually have a debate:

Me vs. iambiguous and surreptitious (to make it somewhat fair

[surreptitious75]

There is no one objective universal truth for how one must live their life
That depends upon your moral code which is not the same for every one
Equally so upon your psychological character which is also not the same

[Ecmandu]

There is no one objective universal truth for how one must live their life
That depends upon your moral code which is not the same for every one
Equally so upon your psychological character which is also not the same

That's all an outcome issue. Sure, you can cut your foot off, but if you want your foot, then it's morally wrong to you. To say there are no universal truth for how one should live their life, is to state that there are no outcome issues for you or others.

[Karpel Tunnel]

There is no one objective universal truth for how one must live their life
That depends upon your moral code which is not the same for every one
Equally so upon your psychological character which is also not the same

That's all an outcome issue. Sure, you can cut your foot off, but if you want your foot, then it's morally wrong to you. To say there are no universal truth for how one should live their life, is to state that there are no outcome issues for you or others.

No, it would be saying that we cannot objectively determine which outcome issues are morally better.

I know people who had abortions (shush, Iamb)- and thought this was morally acceptable - and one who did not have one though she had not wanted to become pregant- because she thought it was immoral. She refused to get an abortion despite dreading the pregnancy, the child, et.. I cannot determine, despite all outcomes who was morally correct.

Can you give us an outline of the formula for determining outcome measurement.

[Ecmandu]

There is no one objective universal truth for how one must live their life
That depends upon your moral code which is not the same for every one
Equally so upon your psychological character which is also not the same

That's all an outcome issue. Sure, you can cut your foot off, but if you want your foot, then it's morally wrong to you. To say there are no universal truth for how one should live their life, is to state that there are no outcome issues for you or others.

No, it would be saying that we cannot objectively determine which outcome issues are morally better.

I know people who had abortions (shush, Iamb)- and thought this was morally acceptable - and one who did not have one though she had not wanted to become pregant- because she thought it was immoral. She refused to get an abortion despite dreading the pregnancy, the child, et.. I cannot determine, despite all outcomes who was morally correct.

Can you give us an outline of the formula for determining outcome measurement.

You missed my OP. The whole point of the OP was to prove that reality with more than one person always causes problems.

Abortion is simple. If there's a cosmic messiah, this being would by definition be impossible to abort. The rest of it hinges on the mothers determination that she cannot be a hands on parent in her capacity, and doesn't trust anyone else to raise her own child. But those are approaching micro proofs. My OP is a meta proof...

If everyone lives a 100% consensual reality, by hallucination their own reality from an infinite number of eternal forms i the manner it suits them, even consendually deciding they only want 80% of the reality to be consensual for them.... and it is just as hyper-realistic as this reality ... then you have objectively solved all subjective issues, and proven an ought for what to strive towards in this world absent that, which can also be calculated (a less zero sum world) and what the goal is - entirely hallucinated reality.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If everyone lives a 100% consensual reality, by hallucination their own reality from an infinite number of eternal forms i the manner it suits them, even consendually deciding they only want 80% of the reality to be consensual for them.... and it is just as hyper-realistic as this reality ... then you have objectively solved all subjective issues, and proven an ought for what to strive towards in this world absent that, which can also be calculated (a less zero sum world) and what the goal is - entirely hallucinated reality.

If they do...?

First you have to demonstrate this is the case. That is an 'is' proof, but not an easy one.
Second, there is no morality in such a universe. There is no need for one.
Nothing could possibly be immoral. And nothing would be moral. These would be meaningless.
There would simply be preferences.

All that eliminates is true victims.

[Ecmandu]

If everyone lives a 100% consensual reality, by hallucination their own reality from an infinite number of eternal forms i the manner it suits them, even consendually deciding they only want 80% of the reality to be consensual for them.... and it is just as hyper-realistic as this reality ... then you have objectively solved all subjective issues, and proven an ought for what to strive towards in this world absent that, which can also be calculated (a less zero sum world) and what the goal is - entirely hallucinated reality.

If they do...?

First you have to demonstrate this is the case. That is an 'is' proof, but not an easy one.
Second, there is no morality in such a universe. There is no need for one.
Nothing could possibly be immoral. And nothing would be moral. These would be meaningless.
There would simply be preferences.

All that eliminates is true victims.

There are billions of victims, simply because the man or woman down the block either is or is not sexually active with you - zero sum - immoral

Go back to my op.

What this proves is that this world system itself is immoral. Any solution to that, has to, by definition be moral.

[surreptitious75]

To say there are no universal truth for how one should live their life is to state that there are no outcome issues for you or others

There are outcome issues but they are not the same for everyone and so they cannot be universal because they are subjective
For there to be a universal truth everyone would have to accept and live their life by the same moral code without exception

[Ecmandu]

To say there are no universal truth for how one should live their life is to state that there are no outcome issues for you or others

There are outcome issues but they are not the same for everyone and so they cannot be universal because they are subjective
For there to be a universal truth everyone would have to accept and live their life by the same moral code without exception

And I'm giving you that moral code based on your own standard - everyone living out their preferences unimpeded - until that occurs, society should move to a less zero sum system.

[surreptitious75]

everyone living out their preferences unimpeded

This is not rigorous enough to be a universal truth based on a moral code that is acceptable to everyone
Not everyone can live their lives without either imposing on someone else or someone imposing on them

[Ecmandu]

everyone living out their preferences unimpeded

This is not rigorous enough to be a universal truth based on a moral code that is acceptable to everyone
Not everyone can live their lives without either imposing on someone else or someone imposing on them

Like I stated earlier, you can choose to use the exact consciousness signature from the eternal form or change it, you can make it as easy or difficult as you prefer. Who are you to tell people that they need to be domineering or dominated ... that's for them to decide.

[surreptitious75]

Who are you to tell people that they need to be domineering or dominated ... that is for them to decide

Do they have the moral right to dominate me when I do not want to be dominated
Do I not have the moral right to resist all domination of me that is against my will

[Ecmandu]

Who are you to tell people that they need to be domineering or dominated ... that is for them to decide

Do they have the moral right to dominate me when I do not want to be dominated
Do I not have the moral right to resist all domination of me that is against my will

I wasn't talking about this world. I was talking about completely hallucinated realities.

Since this is the apex of what ought one do, absent that manifesting, working to alleviate zero sum in this world is congruent with the apex. Different contexts, different rules.

It reminds me of a Sikh story where one person is chosen to harm no life, so the others use brooms to sweep away ants (which are likely killed) so that this person is kept pure. They know their ideal and try to manifest it in this world.

[Fixed Cross]

In fact, if he honestly asked himself the question, he would be undone and the question lost.

Exactly.
The question is a statement of his own capacity to question.
He taunts: do I not question? This is what the will to power does in the type Iambiguous.

That would be tragic.

Which is good literature. Would it not be worth reading his undoing step by step, discovering the evil power of honesty?

"How can I bring the question of being as becoming down to Earth, in the world of conflicting Goods, where Dick and Jane can understand what the fuck I'm saying?"

Ultimately the good needs to be defined to be proven different. But the good by that time is gone. Whats problematic about the approach is that it is really a one sided question; "was the killing inevitable?" This is the tragedy behind it all, the fact that there are only conflicting goods; the will to power allows only conflicting entities. Pain is the answer. Regret, remorse, deep melancholy, this is what Dasein becomes when it questions its right to self-value, to bias; to try to "solve" the given of bias is just misguided, the results desolate.