Comments on Pro Libertate: Helot on Wheels

If the 'state' doesn't exist, then the...

2009-09-28T12:22:43.637-06:00

If the 'state' doesn't exist, then the armchair philosopher's presuppositions -there's too many to count- of 'society' and 'class', by his own criteria, also cannot exist; nor does any other collective group for that matter whether that entity purports to possess perceived authority or not. But apart from the existentialist perspective, an essentialist would hold that these collective bodies and arrangements do exist somewhere in the universe (small 'u', I'm not a pantheist).

"The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions ...

2009-09-22T12:26:52.864-06:00

"The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of the various states purportedly offer ironclad, black-letter protection against unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. Yet any American who operates an automobile may be stopped at any time by a uniformed tax-feeder and compelled to undergo a blood test -- if the donut-grazer in question affects to believe that the driver is intoxicated, whether or not there is evidence to support that belief."

Yet almost no one ever even questions the legality of the so-called government requiring private people to have a driver's license to operate their private cars on the public roads or the legality of requiring private owners to register their private cars. This is the first abuse/crime of the so-called government, not the subsequent abuses following "traffic stops." Why not check into this huge and universally-accepted abuse? Does anyone dare? Wouldn't everyone be surprised to find that all the statutes for such regulations apply only to commercial drivers and vehicles, which term, "commercial," is very narrowly defined and does not include private cars used privately.

Anymore, I have a hard time sympathizing with victims of abuse by cops when they willingly signed up for it when they registered their cars and acquired a driver's license.

Let's go to the root of the problem first, eh?

Don, I'm afraid you're hijacking a thread ...

2009-09-22T01:13:01.761-06:00

Don, I'm afraid you're hijacking a thread where it would be wiser to simply put up your own blog to espouse this philosophy. Just suggesting.

LG... You are so correct about the Russian theater going on. But isn't it interesting, nay prophetic, that the drums beat louder and faster with "new and improved" revelations of EVIL Iranian existential threats and machinations while the white knights in DC and Tel Aviv plan on riding to our rescue.

Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhtttt.

Same tune. Same rhythm. The warmongering plagarists are costuming up and getting ready for another act in this our sad bloody play.

A cat has got everyone's tongue -apparently. ...

2009-09-21T19:45:44.261-06:00

A cat has got everyone's tongue -apparently. We've either gone over our limit, their heads, or put them all to sleep.

I'll give it one more try, tying this discussion back into the notion I began asserting, that the state does not exist, and that such a stance is the only possible way to address the problems cited by this article, an increasingly intrusive and abusive class of individuals that think they are licensed by the state to do the obscene things we read about, and that are becoming increasingly frequent in our society.

It is from the time-accumulated notion these abusive individuals have in their view of the world about the scientifically established cultural superiority of their supposed state, that they take to reinforce the idea of their non-existent license to do what they do.

It is similarly part of the hubris-license of every individual that declares and conducts war, tortures or invades the body of another or their privacy -with a license they would say came from their state, -but which actually only comes from their view of a state that clearly does not exist.

Political scientists of every ilk have too many fallacious assumptions they would agree upon -for any of their assertions to have any real relationship to the one reality that actually does exist.

This is easy to surmise in light of the infinite complexity of the Universe, and how that sure notion couples with yet a larger infinity that can only be imagined -when we let people ramble on about things that do not exist.

We are willing dupes then.

Our minds are finite, if complex.

Reality is infinitely complex by comparison.

Our minds have a sometimes movable but limited range in every expression, observation, or experience.

That limited range is best observed as we consider our fallible memories. It is seemingly easy for us to fill in the blanks.

The inherently limited range of expression, observation and experience is why our memories fail to conjure an exact reality for our perception.

This same inherently limited range of expression, observation and experience is also why our dreams do have every appearance of reality.

It is as if we had a deck of fifty-two playing cards fulfilling the entire range of all our expression, observation and experience. The seemingly infinite variety we experience in life is due to however many hands we are dealt with just such a limited number of these same cards.

Life is played out then with just the same fifty-two cards over and over again, but with no two card-hands seemingly ever dealt exactly alike.

Shuffle the deck all you want.

But unless we deny the existence and change the nature of the card game we all so incongruently play, we will make no human progress.

Human progress can only be measured in our success at discovering the open door to free will.

We all want to be free. We all also want to be moral.

So few will ever be either.

Best, Folks- Enjoy, -but don't trash the place.

Sans- It's good to hear someone deny they'...

2009-09-21T10:35:46.065-06:00

Sans-

It's good to hear someone deny they're less than wholly scientifically oriented.

However, such an unrequited denial does not address the problem that to view science as merely a tool, is a virtual surrender to what is an immoral belief system.

When I read such a statement, (that science and its discoveries are just -tools) I wonder how the person saying it would react if I said, eugenics is merely a tool, or, weapons of war are merely tools.

One of the common fallacies that came out of the Enlightenment, is that science is amoral, and that we all have the right to academic freedom.

I warned everyone some time back, that the moral sense common in our society is barbaric and unrefined. And that the moral imperative would provide an insight that would shake some ideas free from the tree of supposed knowledge.

Let me provide yet another example.

This example goes to the notion that science is amoral, and that we each have an inalienable right to our academic freedoms.

I love that -Enlightenment- word, "inalienable" but I do not endorse most of the notions surrounding it.

So, here we go hypothetically: -Were I a scientist, that made a discovery, -a simple breakthrough in scientific concepts that altered my scientific perception and opened a new avenue of discovery-, a breakthrough that made possible the very easy and very cheap construction of a device that would destroy the world, -Would it be immoral for me to post my discovery on the Internet?

This is -of course- a rhetorical moral question. And -what we can learn from it comes from acknowledging, -this is what every scientist in the world is looking for, just such a breakthrough, to impress his friends, his colleagues
and his similarly composed scientific acquaintances.

It's not just the use of such a device that is immoral. We know from our common study of human nature, some jackass would make such a device.

It is also the publication of the discovery of such a device that would be immoral.

And, it further is also -the search- for such a device that is immoral, if we accept the undeniable condition of an infinitely complex reality that can provide an infinite number of such devices, -if we look for them.

Scientists are no different from any other group of jackasses on the planet.

Almost everything about our approach to proactively shaping reality is scientific today.

It is ALL immoral.

Now, consider this greater stretch of an imagination.

What if I could discover some biological, political, psychological or social truth -that if this truth were simply uttered into a young woman's ear, -it would immediately cause her to very seriously commit suicide? We can even consider that such an utterance might even cause a large percentage -if not all women- to commit suicide.

There are such things. And they too are immoral.

What I am trying to do is to broaden the spectrum of what we consider to be immoral by focusing on a more distant horizon of truth, human truth, which is all that we can consider in a reality we accept as being infinitely complex, and well enough out of the reach of our utterly insufficient contemplation.

Clearly, what some would say is their academic right, I consider to be utterly immoral.

I am so appalled by those who claim an unfettered academic right, -I have since come to the conclusion that merely to claim academic freedom is an immoral stance.

There are some things human beings are not equipped to deal with -and these things exist in the complex reality in which we all exist.

Don Robertson, I can honestly say that at this poi...

2009-09-21T07:53:50.180-06:00

Don Robertson, I can honestly say that at this point, I have nearly no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that I am some sort of scientific progressivist, believing that science can accomplish anything. That ain't the case. I'm not one of those people who believe we can live forever, so long as we bow down before the idol of SCIENCE and cleanse our bowels with W.K. Kellogg's Amazing Health Cereal and purify our humours with Graham's Vitality Biscuits (especially efficacious at expeditiously evacuating the black bile! 23 skidoo!)

Science is a tool, like a gun. You can use it to slaughter people, or save people. Science shows us what we can do, not what we ought to do.

I've never advocated toying with telomeres to make us live longer or healthier, and I’m not a eugenicist. As far as I know, no one else here is, either. Not for nothing, but you seem to be ignoring what people are saying, and insist on projecting your own ideas of what they believe onto them.

-Sans Authoritas

Humans cannot overcome their human nature, and esp...

2009-09-21T06:10:44.378-06:00

Humans cannot overcome their human nature, and especially the widespread, irrepressible moral gall to think they can let loose cannonballs through the air, and that these cannonballs might do God's will.

You come here to say that you understand perfectly well (among many other things) how far cannonballs fly through the air, how the trajectory of a cannonball can be plotted, and the force with which your cannonballs will land, and even -where your cannonballs will land.

And I am saying, "Yes, Sans. And I have been -over there- where you are intending to land your cannonballs, -and there are children playing over there -right where your cannonballs are going to land.

And what I am saying is that -no matter where you toss your your infernal cannonballs on this earth -there are children playing at the party that is life.

These children deserve not to have the party spoiled by someone who professes to know how to shoot cannonballs.

I am saying this as a categorical truth, and I am further saying, stop lobbing your cannonballs, because you haven't studied well enough the effect -of knowing how to lob cannonballs- upon humanity to consider doing so immoral a thing.

I am even saying, stop studying how to lob your scientific cannonballs. It is a vile and immoral thing to leave create libraries of such knowledge for the future and the possible, likely and even inevitable misuse, as human nature is ever so prone to the misuse of knowledge.

And if that's you toying with the human genome, you can stop doing that too, -for the very same reason.

No one knows the effect, the unforeseen negative consequences, -of knowing how to toy with the human genome- will reap upon the unsuspecting world of humanity.

The infinite complexity of the Universe describes for all of us exactly how the door of scientific discovery will create and unleash an infinite variety of weapons of mass destruction, and an infinite variety of -accidents of mass destruction- too.

We both can list the history of these accidents. I can demonstrate how these accidents have progressively gotten more devastating as science has "progressed".

In light of what humanity has learned about science, the moral course for all of us is to explore Categorical Knowledge.

Science is dead.

Sans- "I never proposed that we should not f...

2009-09-21T06:10:06.320-06:00

Sans-

"I never proposed that we should not fear doing evil. I proposed that we should not fear doing what we prudently and rightly perceive as good for fear of what potential evils may result."

You force my point about the need to acknowledge and thoroughly explore Categorical Knowledge by this wrong-headed assertion of yours.

Not only should we not fear Categorical Knowledge, embracing Categorical Knowledge is the only path by which any of us might "prudently and rightly perceive" any worthy moral course.

As philosopher however, when any imperfect human intellect, as all of ours are, -cites Gods in an attempt to rain down upon any thread of discussion the common fallacy of human-made hail, fire and brimstone of some suggested human omniprescience -being brought to bear from the tips of his own fingertips tapping away at his computer keyboard, I am appalled at the carnival nature of the pretender to the greatest throne of all.

Do you, like Caesar, mock reality and claim to speak as God, Sans? Does God speak directly through you?

I think you owe everyone here an apology for your blasphemy. These are the sort of presumptions made by those who would say they represent the state. They are presumptions like the vile Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham would make, that he knows what God wants all of us to do and believe.

It is a stretch too far to sustain in any discussion worth considering, for each of us knows all too well, -neither the state or you are embodied with the omniprescience of God.

You fall from a greatest of heights in your blasphemous misdeed when you state, -that God could not make reality infinitely complex. You know what God cannot do, Sans? Well, golly, Sans.

If that is true, you should tell everyone what God cannot do. Pray tell us all what God cannot do -in all the infinite complexity that -that must necessarily include, -if your assertion is correct that only God is infinite, and of course as a consequence -God could not make the Universe infinite...

You have massively stumbled over the crux of your own argument -right where your much more common human sense of being a superman led you.

The phenomenon of the Ubermensch, the SuperMan cape that is dragged about -behind all of us -must be overcome if anyone is going to think and express themselves cogently.

If I am not mistaken, no one knows what God cannot do, Sans. And I think I am not mistaken.

Each of us knows what humans cannot do, however.

Continued ----

Hey Will, I think you have solved the energy cris...

2009-09-21T03:03:24.053-06:00

Hey Will,

I think you have solved the energy crisis! Just hook some of these gasbags up to a windmill and we could generate enough electricity to run all of North Dakota for the next twenty years.

I gave up reading about halfway down. Felt like I was wading through the Okefenokee Swamp.

What was it you were complaining about again? Oh yeah, thugs controlling our lives.

Now, THAT's a problem.

-Lemuel.

PS: Will, If you recall, when Obama was elected, I sent you a private sending saying, "Ignore the bluster of the Russians threatening to place missiles in Kaliningrad. It's all Kabuki theater for the engagement of the voters. The Russians love Obama, and he them, and they will all kiss and make up as soon as their respective electorates have digested the story of how tough their man is." You remember that? Was I right or not?

I also told you the Russians hate the Jews. (It's mutual, and has been for about 400 years.) Bibi Netanyahu & Co's recent secret visit to Moscow was not voluntary - they were summoned there to receive a tongue-lashing and a threat: That if they continued trying to scapegoat Russia as a supplier of missiles to Iran, (by hijacking Russian ships bound for Libya on the high seas preparatory to murdering their crews and loading captured Russian missiles on board,) as a means for Israel to justify bombing Tehran, Russia would take drastic steps, which might include supplying Iran with things the Jews would not like them to have. Believe it or not. (Just like Ripley's.)

I'm going to send you something else I just heard, but not for publication, since it names names.

Don Robertson wrote: "That someone would co...

2009-09-20T19:40:22.614-06:00

Don Robertson wrote:

"That someone would come along and say, "I have the key to solve the problem, and all we need to do is to ..." Well, -if they are not advocating ceasing to do something, they're doubtlessly like so many other advocates of the past that led us along the well-worn human path of folly."

Ceasing to do something? When it comes to human behavior, we should not "cease" to do something, but we should do more of something. For example, we do not merely want a cessation of murder, we want people to fill their lives with respect for human life so they do not murder. Cessation indicates creating a void where there was action.

As I said before, evil is the privation of a due good. It is a lack. If the due good is present, there is no privation. We don't want people to abstain from doing things, we want them to do things more fully. We don't want people to be less evil, we want them to be more virtuous. You could tell someone, "Stop lying," but what you are ultimately saying is "Tell the truth," which is a positive thing. When you say, "We should stop doing foolish, evil things," you are ultimately saying, "we should do wise, good things." This is because evil is not a thing to do. Evil is only done negatively, in relation to a positive good. Murder is an act encompassing a lack of respect for innocent human life. Rape is a sexual act that has a lack of consent of one party, and therefore a lack of respect for the positive dignity of a fellow human.

-Sans Authoritas

I'm not a consequentialist, nor am I an ideali...

2009-09-20T19:28:27.749-06:00

I'm not a consequentialist, nor am I an idealist, Don Robertson. Like Richard Weaver said, "Ideas have consequences." I don't believe that whatever I believe becomes true because I believe it. I believe in a universal moral law, binding all men, and that men do not create the moral law, but merely recognize the moral law to a greater or lesser extent. I also believe that a set of physical laws exists, and that no matter what you believe, those laws remain in force. I've never been one to repeatedly smack my head against a brick wall and claim that maybe in some alternate universe, hitting your head against a wall doesn't hurt, or that perhaps slaughtering innocent people is not contrary to the universal moral law over in the Opposite Universe.

I never proposed that we should not fear doing evil. I proposed that we should not fear doing what we prudently and rightly perceive as good for fear of what potential evils may result.

We should treat others well in our respective lifetimes. We should be good stewards of the planet, in order that future generations may not be harmed by our actions. I never claimed the contrary, though you appear to have perceived me as making that claim.

As for an "infinitely complex" universe? The universe, as a physical entity, is not infinite. Hence, it cannot be infinitely complex. Only God is infinite. And He is infinitely simple. The "world of the forms," or what we today might call the moral and physical laws, have their existence in and of God, but they are not God.

Human beings whom he created enjoy a share in the infinite. It is an infinity in which I hope we all get to participate once our body-soul composites have separated. And thank goodness this happens. This universe gets a bit cramped for our souls. I need some elbow room.

-Sans Authoritas

Will, this is not a post but an email to you being...

2009-09-20T16:58:59.691-06:00

Will, this is not a post but an email to you being I have no address to send you an email. If you remember Cam Hall who was involved in the crash that killed a family, the Perfects. The happened at Beacon Light and 55. The wife and mother of the five week old baby that was killed is the daughter of a good friend of mine and in fact Steve Wood is the pastor of my church.
Cam Hall set up the crash so Lasinka (spelled wrong I'm sure) would hit Tony Perfect's car which was parked in the waiting lane in the center of the road to pull into the north bound traffic.
The Ada County police knew it was a set up by Hall and were moving in that direction. The president of BSU stepped in and got the state police to take over the case. In fact the black box in the pick up that hit the Perfect's car recorded the last five seconds of information. The truck was doing 97 mph and was on Hall's bumper but the state police said that Hall may not have been speeding.
Want a real story this is one and I'm sure Steve would have no problems allowing you to talk with Wade Woodard his lawyer in dealing with this case. Talk about evil allowing a baby killer to walk and in fact play football in Canada after serving only ten days in the county lock up. Some how BSU football players seem to be royal in the valley.
If you want to go with this one you can reach steve at steve at zona dot com.
Best to you and yours Will.

To act regardless the consequences of our own obvi...

2009-09-20T14:15:38.143-06:00

To act regardless the consequences of our own obvious inability to perceive of all the consequences of that which we may want to do, is simply reckless and lazy, even barbaric -while we have this new categorical avenue of research available to us -that might serve us better in making our moral choices.

Again, Sans, the Universe is infinitely complex. That's a given -and impossible to refute.

We do not have the mental horsepower to approach comprehending completely even a small fractional part of this astonishing Universe of ours.

And honestly, we are here for such a short period of time, during which time we spend most of it goofing-off, or napping, it's not likely any of us is going to become even modestly omniscient in the near term interregnum of our turn at interim-genius either.

There are a lot of geniuses in the world, Sans, and they are responsible for the majority of the completely wrong theories and conjectures. And the self-professed geniuses of the world are responsible for 100% of all the wrong results -exactly because they are supposedly smart enough to know better -and tell the rest of us, what they should know better.

But they do these things because they haven't a clue about their moral responsibility to the future, because they're reckless hotheads, or because they are seeking fame of some sort, or, perhaps just a smile from some pretty girl with golden curls?

I'm just saying, we all have a responsibility to the future that outweighs our desire to alleviate our own discomfort in the present.

Also, -the examples are countless, but by-in-large, every scientific solution creates tenfold the problems the original scientific solution was originally meant to address.

Your intention to tell me, your solution, or solutions, the ones that come out of your scientifically-trained mind, have more efficacy than bothering to figure out what Categorical Knowledge is first, just isn't going to fly.

It is not just lazy. It is arrogant and selfish to ignore the impact the all-too-predictable mistakes will likely have on the future.

That future soon enough will be the present -and full of complaints like yours, and likely fuller with the complaints -about the loose guns we have today trying to make the world better a better place, -regardless that the evidence is -they will only make matters worse -without at least some categorical knowledge to act a restraint to their solution-trigger finger.

If something is categorically true, it cannot be ignored, unless we would wish to make the same mistake over and over again due to our intentional ignorance.

So go back and read my post and accept the challenge of trying to disprove the categorical nature of the moral imperative of life.

Once everyone that task is met with defeat, I will then explain to everyone where all our other knowledge, including our religious beliefs, fit into the scheme of things in an epistemological sense.

It's a far rosier picture than the picture painted by the schema of our scientific heritage.

One thing is sure. If we are not going to detract from the future by our own lives, we need to protect all diversity, -including all religious diversity.

Diversity of every sort is one of the most cherished attributes of our existence. And as such, we have a moral duty to protect all diversity.

Homogenizing the world into some common scientific view has been demonstrated by the recent history of the last few centuries -to be an utterly immoral mistake.

I believe in free will. I believe we can pull back away from this scientific view by exploring Categorical Knowledge for clues to our existence, -before we go one inch further on the scientific path that seems so hostile to any human future.

Sans- First you're not following the line of ...

2009-09-20T14:15:02.843-06:00

Sans-

First you're not following the line of discussion closely enough to allow a cogent response to your assertions. You have brought to bear a point I again -might attempt to exhaust here.

"The question at hand is not "possible detriment," it is "does the possible good of this action outweigh the risk of possible detriment?" I realize you are not advocating this, but I will point out that living life in fear of possible detriment is more detrimental than any possible detriment, including death itself."

First of all, and I have covered this well enough already, the Universe is infinitely complex.

"Infinitely" means we have little ability to ferret out a viable solution to any of these problems proactively.

It is the solutions of the past, that are the focus of every major complaint concerning all our problems in the present.

That much is sure about the results of those who would continue to try to make life better. There is nothing better than life, and the more we put it at risk, the more detriment we are causing.

That someone would come along and say, "I have the key to solve the problem, and all we need to do is to ..." Well, -if they are not advocating ceasing to do something, they're doubtlessly like so many other advocates of the past that led us along the well-worn human path of folly.

Even the perpetrators of 9-11 were individuals like yourself, ready to do something to affect some necessary solution -they had in mind.

Environmental-scientists are readying to address failings of the climate they see manifest in our technological society, -with yet more technological gambles perfected with their own scientific knowledge sets they have labored to assemble -that describe exactly how to destroy the world as best as they can figure out.

You might see something eerily wrong in this approach. When I point out the environmentalists' folly, I generally follow it waving my index finger about one ear in a circle, while singing, "Cuckoo! Cuckoo!"

And yet you say, "[...] living life in fear of possible detriment is more detrimental than any possible detriment, including death itself."

Really? Is it really?

Look, Sans, you're a bit of a loose gun in this world. But you serve a good point here.

There are plenty of things that could happen that would be worse than fear, or -moral gratitude- for the chance at life, as I would express it.

Life is like a party, Sans. Enjoy yourself. Don't wreck it for everyone else. That's your basic moral duty. Be a gentleman, and try not to pick fights with the other guests.

And -whatever you do, have some moral respect for those who are coming to -the party of life- after we all leave.

They shouldn't have to wallow in the destruction caused by some aggravated and itchy-scratchy need to do something to prove someone had no fear of doing whatever it was -but mostly because it isn't going to affect them while they're alive!

Continued----

Don Robertson, There's nothing selfish about...

2009-09-20T12:19:23.634-06:00

Don Robertson,

There's nothing selfish about taking care of your own needs first. If you tried to take care of everyone else's needs solely, you would die. And so Jesus did. As Fulton Sheen said, he was the only person who came into this world with the purpose of dying. The rest of us are born to live.

There is nothing "selfish" about helping another person. As individuals, it is impossible for us to perform an act without having the act have some relation to ourselves. That is not "selfishness." We are called to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Can you find fault with such an idea?

Don Robertson wrote:

"The moral imperative also forces us to ask, WHO (if anyone) has the right to gamble -when the wager of such a gamble -is going to include some possible detriment to the future? WHO can do that, morally?"

Life is a gamble, Don Robertson. Walking down the street is a gamble. Driving your car is a gamble. The question at hand is not "possible detriment," it is "does the possible good of this action outweigh the risk of possible detriment?" I realize you are not advocating this, but I will point out that living life in fear of possible detriment is more detrimental than any possible detriment, including death itself.

As you say, Don Robertson, the State, as an entity, does not exist. The State is an evil. Evil does not exist in itself. It only exists in relation to the good, in the way that a shadow "exists" as an absence of light. The State of which we speak is the institutionalized physical manifestation of the evil idea that one may legitimately initiate aggression and violence against one's fellow man. We don't keep the violent manifestations of evil ideas in existence by recognizing the evil of those ideas. We combat the violent manifestations of evil ideas by pointing them out to people, and offering better ideas to them.

-Sans Authoritas

The Golden Rule says, Do unto others - The moral ...

2009-09-20T08:47:51.723-06:00

The Golden Rule says, Do unto others -

The moral imperative says, BEFORE you do unto others, -do for the future, what you would have had the past do for us.

The moral imperative says, -it is a selfish instinct we placate when we feed starving Africans in their desert surroundings -because- if we -consider and contrast- the view of the moral imperative that commands us to first inspect the likely result of our humanitarian efforts, to see if we will not in fact make the lot of those desert Africans worse -by providing food for a population explosion that will help create and leave many more stranded, starving, and suffering Africans in the desert of the future -when the food aid we can provide today -runs out.

The moral imperative also forces us to ask, WHO (if anyone) has the right to gamble -when the wager of such a gamble -is going to include some possible detriment to the future? WHO can do that, morally?

All science is such a horrific gamble in this sense. We live in and amongst the ubiquitous scientific failures of the past.

The evidence is all around us of what we have wrought.

Especially when we add the sure philosophic notion of the infinite complexity of the Universe to the background and backdrop for all our scientific experimental understanding -all these gambles that threaten the future -seem immoral.

According to the moral imperative -it is even immoral to accumulate scientific knowledge that can be misused by the future. -It will be misused, because that is our human nature.

----

When critical of mind, it is all too easy to find fault with the moral imperative too.

Let us focus here. You have a critical mind. We all do.

I have proposed that the moral imperative is categorically true. That it is true without any possible exception. This makes it an impossibly big target not to hit. But no one has yet shown the moral imperative is not categorically true.

This leads to some strange new moral edicts that are unfamiliar.

But, for argument's sake, let us see if you (or anyone) can provide an example where acting within the constraints of the moral imperative -can be immoral, -or-, (and this is the categorical kicker), -if there is an example where we can act outside the constraints -and still be acting morally.

I am driving at giving everyone a better sense of what Categorical Knowledge means, as it is different from empirical (scientific) knowledge, -and how the logical constructs of this new knowledge set has again upset the tables in the temple of all our thought processes.

Thanks for accommodating the discussion- I promise, we will tie back into and get back to a discussion about the non-existence of the state before we end the discussion.

Dixie- I must compliment you on your adept juggli...

2009-09-20T08:47:24.532-06:00

Dixie-

I must compliment you on your adept juggling of these ideas. Of course, we have differences in what we are trying to say, but you have not in the least abrogated the sense I am in the right place, at the right time.

First, I did not say we would always act morally, as you seem to take from my statements. What I meant to impart is, we would always choose to act morally, were we to know how and aware of the choice we are making.

We do not generally know how to act morally in any succinct sense.

I only discovered the moral imperative (again -quite by luck) in 2006. It may take a thousand years before humanity can fathom the depths of what the moral imperative means.

The moral imperative gives rise to a new knowledge set, one far more succinct than any empirical (scientific) knowledge can provide.

The rules of logic and discovery -for Categorical Knowledge- have yet to be written entirely. This is part of my chosen task as a philosopher.

So, I give you the moral imperative of life, simply -from one man to another, seeking to point toward a path where truth might be found.---

The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

The moral imperative is all too easy to agree with. It is pleasing. But its meaning is far more complex than any quick examination of it might indicate.

It conflicts with our empirical way of thinking, entirely.

It also subjugates and constricts our cherished humanitarian instinct.

It turns the Golden Rule into a selfish expression of personal gratification, when it is written absent the preeminent notion of the moral imperative of life.

How so?

continued-----

A web site has a list of U.S. military interventio...

2009-09-20T01:32:45.937-06:00

A web site has a list of U.S. military interventions from 1890-2008 called From Wounded Knee to Iraq: A Century Of U.S. Military Interventions. This is incredible. There are 142 interventions, the same countries over and over. These are the first ones on the list plus a couple off Events in the West. We are doomed and damned and cursed with a curse.

1890, Sitting Bull murdered in confrontation at Standing Rock Reservation. In South Dakota, 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

1890, ARGENTINA, U.S. Troops protect “interests” in Buenos Aires.

1891, CHILE, Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

1891, HAITI, Troops, Black revolt on Navassa defeated.

1892, IDAHO, Army suppresses silver miners’ strike.

1893 (-?), HAWAII, Troops, Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

1894, CHICAGO, Troops, breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

1894, NICARAGUA, Troops, month-long occupation of Bluefields.

1894-95, CHINA, Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

1894-96, KOREA, Marines kept in Seoul during war.

Don, I think by denying the existence of the state...

2009-09-19T09:10:50.992-06:00

Don, I think by denying the existence of the state, and believing that assertion wholeheartedly, you are inescapably and inadvertently enraptured by it. How is that possible, you may be thinking? Well, because if you really ponder it a devotee of Utilitarianism requires Leviathan's assistance, if such constructs as churches are to be disdained, in the grand scheme of things to be truly effective in ever accomplishing "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" by necessity.

Of course, then we're presented with the prospective dilemma of how "good" is to be defined. See, because precisely how and on what basis "good" in ones mind is defined is really the stickler when one has aspirations of doing "the grandest deeds for the most people." Ergo, I get nervous when powerful folk decide to operate purely on a utilitarian basis.

If not Leviathan or the church, who or what can come the closest to providing that ideal? I believe the church has to step up to the plate, and does in many ways, but as the church withers, in the West anyway, the State is the other alternative that is taking (or has taken in many cases already today) its place, again by necessity.

The problem with that should be self-explanatory ;).

You apparently did not flunk my moral test about being attached to a machine that momentarily is going to kill either you or the rest of humanity, depending on the setting of a switch within your reach -and- what would be the moral choice?

So, then... Dixie, are you still with me? If so, how do you justify your choice in that moral test?

....

So, Dixie, or anyone else, how did you justify committing suicide in my hypothetical moral test?

In this simple, contrived example it would be a no-brainer for me, but probably not for the reason(s) you have in mind. I'd choose for it to take my life rather than all of humanity, but in this case it's not really suicide since somebody had to forcefully attach me to the machine in question in the first place.

Suicide is in essence "murder of self" without consciously and forcefully linking it to others lives in the process, like the extermination of all humanity to it, a key difference. And the core reason I'd choose myself over the rest of humanity is because I value others' right to life over and above my own when they have no viable choice in the matter as your example implies. The fact that the Utilitarian and Christian mind vaguely align in this particular example is merely a sidebar note only.

Everyone here believes in their free will, do they not?

But you also each would proclaim, that you would always act morally, were you to know how.

We would not always act morally, precisely because we have a (limited) free will and, most significantly, tied in with the fact that the human heart is desperately wicked. We have the free will to allow the Holy Spirit, who resides within believers, to live His life through us or we can choose not to. He doesn't force the matter since He wants us to love and obey Him by choice.

And yes, Don, I know you likely didn't wish me to wax religious, as the world would define it, but philosophy and religion are congruent in so many respects that one can't be discussed and/or debated without the other ;).

This is from Albert J. Nock’s Our Enemy, the State...

2009-09-19T03:25:17.910-06:00

This is from Albert J. Nock’s Our Enemy, the State, described as his “Classic Critique Distinguishing ‘government’ from the ‘state:’”

“He [Thomas Paine] proceeds then to show how and why government comes into being. Its origin is in the common understanding and common agreement of society; and ‘the design and end of government,’ he says, is ’freedom and security.’

“[Government and State] are so different in theory that drawing a sharp distinction between them is now probably the most important duty that civilization owes to its own safety. Hence it is by no means either an arbitrary or academic proceeding to give the one type the name of government, and to call the second type simply the State. The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. On the negative side, it has been proved beyond peradventure that no primitive State could possibly have had any other origin. Moreover, the sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State.”

I am disappointed. This discussion has taken a tu...

2009-09-19T00:50:40.200-06:00

I am disappointed. This discussion has taken a turn into a carnival of statements that grasp for some common obfuscation.

Will no one here venture to explain their choice in the hypothetical moral test I have twice now provided?

Thanks, and no thanks. I await a cogent answer. And no, I will not be baited. But, my patience is limited, and as you can see from the picture of myself I have provided, my time is indeed limited. Make use of it, or I will be gone.

I stated, "I am not the devil," because as some experience the confusion they feel upon confronting their moral selves -they find they are focusing on with revealing acuity, because I focus upon it- leads some to question -that I might be the devil.

I am not. Nor am I a genius, or anything more than someone you might meet in the street. I am someone just truth as best as I have come to know how. Having found one possible path toward truth, I seek to travel along that path by sharing what I have found -while groping in my own darkness.

I am a philosopher. I know better than to blaspheme. I cannot prove there is no God, and nor would I wish to.

I have gone to great and ultimately powerfully successful lengths -elsewhere- to prove it is our moral duty to support all religious freedom to believe -as best as we all can, -because it provides a diversity of life so essential to our human appreciation of our lives, -there is a moral prescription for all of us to support this aspect of our human diversity, -specifically to preserve it for the future.

Yes, our discussion has taken a sharp turn, but I hope without tossing all the passengers out of the coach of this discussion and onto the pavement of their blind, intolerant and ultimately lazy ignorance.

Stand up, and be counted as sentient beings! Again, if you get up off your lazy ass, I will teach you to be moral and exercise your free will. It's about time, isn't it?

The state does not exist any more than any Greek god ever existed. The state, the concept of it, is a self-enforcing delusion, an almost all-encompassing mental trap, and one, I am trying to teach each of you to rise above, -so we may all together finally bring it to heel with our free will -and put it into its proper perspective.

Overcome your common confusion and baseless fear -and answer my question. How do you come to your choice in the hypothetical moral question I have posed for you.

As a bit of an afterthought on my most recent comm...

2009-09-18T23:52:21.218-06:00

As a bit of an afterthought on my most recent comment to Don Robertson . . .

As a thought experiment, let's apply the scientific method to the question of whether the state exists (in a somewhat frivolent Friday evening fashion).

Hypothesis: the state does exist

Observations

Quantitative:
1) the state has physical structures that can be measured. Certainly we needn't look too far wherever we may be to see the edifices of it's physical presence.

And we have over 700 military bases throughout the world so one could argue that yes it does have a quantitatively measurable component in that respect.

2) the amount of effort extracted from those in it's domain can be measured in terms of the effort extracted (normalized to dollar$).

3) the number of non-adherents confined can be measured. The number and percentage of amerikans incarcerated by the state exceeds that of an nation (ideology) on the planet.

Qualitative:

1) it influences the environment that it occupies. I think the anecdote of seeing a cop with a radar gun and it's psychological effects on those in the 'in the beam' speaks for itself.

2) it determines land use in it's domain

3) it extracts perpetual fees for land ownership in it's domain

4) it grant's 'privilege' to use resources that have been paid for by the use of taxation.

These just to name a few, please embellish if so inclined (and no doubt the list will become immeasurably long - as Will is no doubt grateful, albeit in an ironic way, as it provides an endless reservoir of material in which to explore and write about).

The point is the existence of "The State" is measurable, and it is predictable for those who have read history.

Just some musings on a Friday night.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Don Robertson wrote: "No collective has a c...

2009-09-18T23:15:14.412-06:00

Don Robertson wrote:

"No collective has a consciousness. Even a library is mute.

Like-minded furthermore is an illusion."

When I read your comment the statement from "V" in the movie "V for Vendetta" kept popping in to my mind - (paraphrasing as it's been awhile since I watched it) "You cannot kill an idea".

If like-minded were truly an illusion, then it would be unable to have any force other than peer pressure - but, in the world we live in, like minded does indeed exert a force that cannot be denied.

Therefore, the state does exist as is manifest by the force it exerts on those of the collective mindset choose to on those it perceives in it's domain.

It only ceases to exist when the subjugated are willing to make the personal sacrifices required to undermine the ideological resolve of those supporting the ideology to be willing to change the ideology of the collective.

To kill the state means to kill an idea, an ideology. That does not mean that all that is done has been bad, but it has gotten to the point where it does far more harm than good - and thus the state and the ideology, must die.

Unfortunately, those who cling too tightly to the ideology will probably have to die with it, or at least a sufficient portion that is no longer a threat. Therein lies the conflict with non-aggression, the ideological influence is so diffuse in society that cannot be 'surgically' extracted.

A fairly superficial response to a very good question - I know. It is a topic that would require many hours of exploration to reach an understanding.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

"I will teach you all how to be moral, sentie...

2009-09-18T18:41:18.039-06:00

"I will teach you all how to be moral, sentient beings that can exercise human free will for the first time in the history of humanity, -if you are not too afraid to listen and learn.

I am not the devil."

You know, a lot of cult leaders have made that claim throughout the millenia. Pythagoras, Marcion, Carpocrates, Arius, Joachim of Fiore. Us simple folk will just stick with Jesus, thanks.

Unless you have cookies. Do you have cookies? Nevermind. I'll still stick with Jesus.

-Sans Authoritas

One can disagree all they want with Jeremy Bentham...

2009-09-18T13:44:38.583-06:00

One can disagree all they want with Jeremy Bentham who thought dedication to the non-existent state the highest moral calling.

In so doing, they too are chasing fairy tales. Show me the open door to free will, I say.

I can show you, and I will show you.

We are not bees or ants, nor are we the dolphins, whales or the Chimpazees.

We ARE sentient creatures, as are they, but we also have a moral sense, if no one here yet has been made aware of how it works, exactly as it can be made to be understood.

"I'm confused [about morality]."

That's good. You prove my point succinctly when you state you are confused about morality.

You apparently did not flunk my moral test about being attached to a machine that momentarily is going to kill either you or the rest of humanity, depending on the setting of a switch within your reach -and- what would be the moral choice?

So, then... Dixie, are you still with me? If so, how do you justify your choice in that moral test?

Trust me. I have the answer.

It's an exquisitely simple concept I as a philosopher only stumbled across in 2006. It is the answer to Kant's 200 year old conjecture about the Categorical Imperative, and a succinct statement of morality.

I am not the genius many purport to be, or just as wrongly purport to admire in others.

I am just a guy, casually interested in philosophy, who discovered the most important discovery -in the history of all human discoveries, -bar none.

And I state here unequivocally, I just got lucky.

So, Dixie, or anyone else, how did you justify committing suicide in my hypothetical moral test?

----
I don't mean to tease. I will tell you my discovery. I have discovered the wellspring of everything that is moral. I have discovered that which adequately prioritizes all moral reason, as succinctly as clockwork.

I have discovered the moral imperative of life.

And for those who lick their empirical chops just dying to get a shot at me, I will go yet another step further.

The moral imperative of life is categorically true. The is no exception to it.

Morality as it turns out, is exactly like that switch in my hypothetical example, it either points to our morality and free will, or it does not.

Everyone here believes in their free will, do they not?

But you also each would proclaim, that you would always act morally, were you to know how.

I will teach you all how to be moral, sentient beings that can exercise human free will for the first time in the history of humanity, -if you are not too afraid to listen and learn.

I am not the devil.