also:
http://reclusland.tumblr.com/post/776895898/electricity

I heard there is not a lot of evidence for gradualism

I don’t know enough about that to say. Personally, I favor punctuated equilibrium, but that’s not based on any scientific evidence. As long as everything’s just theories, I figure I’m free to choose as I please. :)

I think its funny how much this lines up so closely with the whole “Age of Aquarious/2012″ meme, even though I’m pretty sure those 4 scientists don’t take that meme seriously.

The scientists propose that, in just two centuries, humans have wrought such vast and unprecedented changes to our world that we actually might be ushering in a new geological time interval, and alter the planet for millions of years.

Could humanity as a whole create beautiful things with our collective conscious creative energy? I don’t know. I hold that possibility open but I see it having lots of diversity, like all the species in the tropics creating a rainforest ecology. On an individual level it looks like chaos. bug eat bug.

I wrote that twice somehow. But I’ll keep it. That’s what it comes down to. If you think there are just too damn many languages, ethnic groups, sub cultures, belief systems, political ideologies, governments, religions…and you think this is just an impossible situation, that must be rectified…..seriously, I think that is Anti-Christ type energy.

For all intents and purposes that is what evil is. Its in all of us in various proportions.

I think as people become more and more sceptical its harder and harder to feed on peoples energy. The energy feeding is from creative energy through faith and belief. When you believe a lie given to you by a person you see as a spiritual authority it creates a psychic bond.

Two big Vampire institutions still in existence are the Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church. There are some other big cults like Jehova’s witnesses, The Unification Church (moonies) Scientology, probably there are cults overseas I am not aware of.

So anyway, in a global society its hard to create some big cult large enough to capture the creative energy of the entire human population. Maybe its impossible. I don’t think it would be a good thing anyway.

I wondered if Nietzsche would pop up. In the book the original quote is from, the author actually says that the /only/ post-enlightenment philosopher who makes any sense morally is in fact Nietzsche. But then he goes on this historical quest to see what the enlightenment threw out (largely, any sense of human purpose), and comes to the conclusion that “a big clusterfuck of people arguing their own particular special interests” is in fact not as it ‘should’ be.

Just some context.

In my last comment, I was trying to bring the conversation to a close.

I did see some commonalities between your “As far as not being an autistic or a socipath and therefore having empathy and recognizing the existence of other minds. I mean sure I can get with that. I operate from that perspective.” and my “For me, its a question of taking self-interest for granted. I can’t ever NOT act in my own self interest, at least in some way.”

They both involve starting from one side of the debate and moving toward the other. That’s all I meant by it.

You don’t see how we agree if I liked those two quotes and agree with them and you disagree and dislike those quotes. But I do. And I think Nietzche has a point as well, although within the context of this conversation he is being brought up in opposition to the other quotes, so yes, they seem to contradict each other. But they don’t have to.

I do not find them to be “necessarily antagonistic”. You do. And that’s OK.

What do you think of this quote?

“And how could there exist a ‘common good’! The expression is a self-contradiction: what can be common has ever been but little value. In the end it must be as it has always been: great things are for the great, abysses for the profound, shudders and delicacies, for the refined, and, in sum, all rare things for the rare.”

That’s Nietzsche.

For me, its a question of taking self-interest for granted. I can’t ever NOT act in my own self interest, at least in some way. So then, taking that, what else can I do to include other people’s needs as well? Its the flipside of the same argument, which ends in the same result, actionwise.

Because otherwise you are trying to be God. You can neither act completely selflessly nor know what is best for other people. All you can do is join the clusterfuck and try to get what you want.

I mean how can you presume to fully know what is best for yourself and what is best for another person and act to harmonize the two rather than just going after what you think is best for yourself and letting “God” harmonize things? I am not talking about hurting the other person, as in physically assaulting them or killing them.

I am talking about asserting yourself, acting in your own interest and leaving it to the other person to exert equal pressure and to act IN THEIR self interest. So that you arrive at a mutually agreeable solution, as a SIDE EFFECT, inadvertent on your part.

I am responding to the philosophical line of discussion that elicited these quotes:

“… what education in the virtues teaches me is that my good as a man is one and the same as the good of those others with whom I am bound up in human community. There is no way of my pursuing my good which is necessarily antagonistic to you pursuing yours because /the/ good is neither mine peculiarly nor yours peculiarly – goods are not private property.”

and this:

““will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya’s teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of chastity under Maitreya’s guidance. They will have torn the net of the passions, they will manage to enter into trances, and theirs will be an abundance of joy and happiness, for they will lead a holy life under Maitreya’s guidance.” (Trans. in Conze 1959:241)”

Seems like these quotes are about being one with some grand impersonal absolute that then renders you supernaturally able to get along with everyone else, because you would then have no wants differing from some common good.

I call it “reverse solipsism.”

The fact is you are a person, you do have peculiar interests and desires and so does everyone else.

As far as not being an autistic or a socipath and therefore having empathy and recognizing the existence of other minds. I mean sure I can get with that. I operate from that perspective. But there seems to be some desire to get past the flipside of this, namely your own self interest. Can you have empathy and compassion for yourself? As an individual Can you compete with others, wrangle, negotiate, bargain etc and not feel guilty?

I am just skeptical that a person can arrive at the point of selflessness on the one hand and the wisdom on the other of knowing what is best for everybody.

I said: “to the benefit of as many people who are involved as possible.”

It’s along the same lines as your kite flying club metaphor, you have to see who else is in the park and figure things out accordingly.

Any search for an absolute common good as a first step is ludicrous. The absolute common good is synonymous with God.

Instead, I am suggesting that, once in an actual real life problem, the way to look for a solution is to search in the direction of the common good. It resolves things more completely, because there’s less resentment.

You seem to be trying to find a single rule for behavior, and that “direction of the common good” is, personally, the closest thing I’ve found.

Any thing based around any spelled out behavior or response won’t work, its too limited and we’re too likely to fall asleep into the single behavior we’ve adopted and not notice when it’s no longer appropriate.

Situations vary endlessly and any single rule that works at one point will just end up becoming a dogmatic belief at some other point. We have to learn to let go when necessary (and ‘necessary’ is dictated by circumstances).

All I know is that when I’ve found myself in trouble, I’ve experienced the best results when I try to understand and account for the other person’s point of view. Just making the conscious choice of thinking about the other person as well as myself seems to work better, in the end, even if it’s not obviously logical at first.

I think in a nutshell what I am saying is this: There might be a “common good.” I am agnostic on that. I do think, often there is a hidden order to chaotic systems and that there seems to be some correlation between chaotic societies and free societies. Centralized control is a big buzz kill for me. Give me a brawl, a clamorous debate.

Its like Powerful corporations having “free speech” now and being able to give unlimited spending on political candidates. Everything is a fight. You have to fight to be heard. If you get shut out you have to go underground and be Indy. If you can’t afford to express your views on aa t.v. ad you better spray paint it on a wall.

You have no “right to free speech” you have a RESPONSIBILITY to your self to speak your mind and be heard!

They all want to fly kites, so they want parks to fly kites in. So Their club has common goods common to their members. Other people want to walk dogs, sun bathe etc. in the parks, so the dog walkers and the kite flyers and the sun bathers all have some negotiating to do.

But as far as them all having some “absolute common good” they all need to conform to first in order to each get what they want, i don’t believe in the existence of such a thing. I think they should all just concern themselves with getting what they want. They will no doubt have to compromise, but each person’s primary responsibility is their own good.

I am not caling for solipsism. But I think a type of “reverse solipsism” is present in most common forms of morality and that its simply insane.

Its totally nuts. We just accept it because its so common. Part of this insanity is played out in our representative democracy. We have the insane idea that there are people who can actually discover, understand and work for “the common good” on our behalf. nuts!

Most things in life function smoothly without our understanding of how the operate. We mostly just have a illusion of control.

I think morality is just a game we play. Its mostly about judging other peoples behavior rather than our own,too.

I don’t agree with that at all. That’s legality, things written down and held as dogma. What you’re describing is not true morality, it’s a social moral code, which yes, can sometimes devolve into mere gossip and name calling.

As soon as you leave all that behind and try to act freely in the world, you run into the fact that other people exist, and that they are not you. There is conflict there, and morality is the skillful resolution of that conflict to the benefit of as many people who are involved as possible. And it can be a great struggle, but the more conscious effort put into trying to resolve things to everyone’s benefit, the better the long term effect, karmically speaking.

We can’t make up a rules about this, it has to come out the actual situation we find ourselves in. All participants have to be taken into consideration as much as possible, and an attempt made at resolving the matter to everyone’s optimal benefit.

And that’s a really general guideline and even it’s not exactly true. Words mean absolutely nothing without a context.

I think ideally it would be better to pusue your own good spontaneously by following what gives you joy and makes you feel alive. The problem is you get a little beat up naively just doing that. I think if everyone just joyfully spontaneously followed their own good though, things would work out (after a little haggling) for everybody.

occasional infidelity? Gossip?

besides that what? Speaking harshly to someone?

I think morality is just a game we play. Its mostly about judging other peoples behavior rather than our own,too.

Persuing your own good can seem like it puts you in conflict with people pursuing theirs because a lot of people are confused about what they want and not very assertive.

I think its god to be skillfully selfish, in that case.