Infanticide

[SpheresOfBalance]

Can I quote you on this exquisite expression of secular love and tolerance? You could make Oprah cry and give her hope for the future of humanity.

I don't think Oprah would be particularly amenable to your views; she seems far too realistic being the business woman she is. But I do believe the one you auditioned for the honor to conjoin with you, having so much in common, was an excellent choice for a private tête-à-tête on the future of humanity. Maybe you can both collaborate on a self-published book on Amazon that, without infringement of secular heresies, warn against the evils of secularism while propagating the eternal value of your Eternal Values!

You are becoming as hostile as Greta.
Your initial proposal is hostile, you fool! Words and concepts got you confused, yeah it's pretty obvious! Do some infanticide right now, this very second. Surely relative to me your a crazed infant. Stick a loaded gun into your mouth pull the trigger and blow your ignorant brains all over the ceiling, go ahead practice some relative infanticide! Because trust me, relative to your opponents, it's clear to see, that you're surly an infant!

Look into the mirror, you have become that "thing" which you fear, as if it shall scare that "thing" away, you fool you!!! Can you say, "CRAZY?

If I want to write on my great great grandfather's paintings and his depiction of the interactioos of elemental forces within the context of the "light, what could be gained by exposing such a conversation to hostility and ridicule? Perhaps DaM can relate something of their experiences which would be pertinent to my intent. There are a lot of ideas you can attack and ridicule that are impersonal. This subject is personal so can only be discussed with those free of the compulsion to ridicule and attack what is not understood rather than being open to conscious contemplation.

I learn from you. I experience the power of habitual resistance to ideas which threaten acquired defensive preconceptions. How can the question of infanticide be discussed IRL which invites people to drop defensive preconceptions in pursuit of understanding as opposed to self justification? I have to learn this.

Becoming a demagogue is easy. It requires learning how to act. Projecting the power of the great awakening ideas requires experience and sincerity. These people are rare.

P.S. Don't be a further fool for all to see, don't do as I recommend above, instead, think for once about the point I make, stop being a relative fool, stop showing us your ass! It's embarrassing!

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote

Trouble is, Nick, there's fire outside the cave so it would seem advantageous to stay safely inside the cave. The alternative is to walk into the flames and be turned into a tasty side of longpig, ready to be et by the cave dwellers

Yes this is how most think which is why they ridicule those seeking freedom from psychological slavery offered by cave life. What could be more frightening then that which destroys the imagination offering the security of slavery?

[Nick_A]

SoB

P.S. Don't be a further fool for all to see, don't do as I recommend above, instead, think for once about the point I make, stop being a relative fool, stop showing us your ass! It's embarrassing!

If you were as good at thinking as you re complaining you may get somewhere. You still haven't explained what is wrong with infanticide if there are no eternal values. If the greatest reality is that which we create, it is insulting to question a mother's right to infanticide. If she cannot be caught and charged with murder there is no logical reason to oppose this being called a baby having no objective value. The fact that the mother may want to eat it or sell it just means it could have a subjective value

[Nick_A]

Seeds

Now unless you believe that the sole and glorious “purpose” of all living beings in general is to generate fertilizer for the universe, then you have our relationship to the universe totally backwards.

As I've said, the purpose of organic life on earth is to transform substances by the functioning of it bodily processes and this transformation primarily serves the earth.

What do you believe the purpose of organic life on earth is? What does it do. If you determine what it does, is it unreasonable to consider it its purpose? Do you believe this complex living machine of integrated parts designed to eat itself and reproduce is an accident serving no purpose?

[Dubious]

You still haven't explained what is wrong with infanticide if there are no eternal values.

Infanticide should be one of your eternal values being fully accepted, found perfectly reasonable and completely justified by Plato himself, one of your chief enlightenment gurus and expounder of Eternal Values. Explain that!

To quote Will Durant:

Plato will call for the exposure of all feeble children and of those born of base or elderly parents.

Why is it EVERYONE thinks you're a complete mental screw-up...except one who has the same "cultist" mentality as you.

[Nick_A]

You still haven't explained what is wrong with infanticide if there are no eternal values.

Infanticide should be one of your eternal values being fully accepted, found perfectly reasonable and completely justified by Plato himself, one of your chief enlightenment gurus and expounder of Eternal Values. Explain that!

To quote Will Durant:

Plato will call for the exposure of all feeble children and of those born of base or elderly parents.



Why is it EVERYONE thinks you're a complete mental screw-up...except one who has the same "cultist" mentality as you.

If you would think as good as you emote you may discover an important question. How does respecting survival of the fittest as a natural value relate to respect for life as an eternal value? Let's see how you can complain that away for the safety of avoiding contemplation.

[Arising_uk]

Man serves the universe in two ways. Animal man or the lower parts of the collective human essence serves the same necessity as all organic life. It transforms substances by the workings of its bodily processes. Whenever you eat and breath for example you are transforming substances. it is the objective purpose of mechanical life.

Pretty much all matter is involved in transforming substances into something or other it's basic physics and chemistry. The objective purpose of living things appears to be to reproduce and the bodily processes are to fuel themselves so that they can achieve this purpose.

However, the theory is that Man is also potentially capable of serving a higher conscious purpose of connecting the realities of above and below - levels of reality through conscious evolution. Since we remain attached to the results of our lower nature, we are incapable of acquiring conscious understanding. We refuse to inwardly turn and experience our conscious potential but insist on justifying the desires of our lower nature. ...

The best method so far for connecting 'levels of reality' appears to be science and not metaphysics or religion.

Either way we serve universal purpose either as animal man or conscious man. The norm is through the bodily processes of animal man. Only a very few have the need, courage, and will to know themselves - to have the conscious experience of themselves to be able to consciously connect the higher with the lower so the lower can be nourished by the higher energies associated with the consciousness. The Great Beast will win and keep its sheep together. Only a few can transcend our sheepish nature.

And yet you propose that we are all sheep for your universal master?

[Nick_A]

Arising

Pretty much all matter is involved in transforming substances into something or other it's basic physics and chemistry. The objective purpose of living things appears to be to reproduce and the bodily processes are to fuel themselves so that they can achieve this purpose.

But why reproduce if organic life is not serving an objective purpose? You can do better than that.

The best method so far for connecting 'levels of reality' appears to be science and not metaphysics or religion.

Science functions by duality and measures and compares phenomenon in linear time. Levels of reality are connected in accordance with the universal laws of the triune universe. Science by definition limited to dualism cannot measure the triune universe or the relative vertical qualities of now.

And yet you propose that we are all sheep for your universal master?

No, if that were the case the Ways would be useless and Man would be forever riding the wheel of Samsara. But the human condition that results in the collective psyche of man becoming the Great Beast isn’t natural and some can realize the reality of their situation and make the necessary efforts to become human as opposed to an atom of the Great Beast. I believe that surviving the adverse effects of technology will require the awakening influence of these individualistic black sheep the world hates. If it will be sufficient is a real question.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB

P.S. Don't be a further fool for all to see, don't do as I recommend above, instead, think for once about the point I make, stop being a relative fool, stop showing us your ass! It's embarrassing!

If you were as good at thinking as you re complaining you may get somewhere.

You still haven't explained what is wrong with infanticide if there are no eternal values.
Then you are indeed dense! You're a dumb-ass, if my point isn't abundantly clear. But then I've always seen your posts as lacking any real intellect. I usually never say point blank what my answer is. Instead I usually make a case that shows another's as the foolhardiness that it actually is, (Analogy's and Metaphors.) It's all about the implications contained within the words. If "shoot yourself in the brain pan" doesn't make any sense to you, RELATIVE to your OP, then you could shoot yourself in the head and do no damage, as there is no THINKING apparatus up there to begin with! Your answer to your proposal of infanticide is the same as that which stops you from shooting yourself in the head, dumb-ass! To live outside the golden rules implications, means your a dumb-ass! Or maybe stark raving mad! Take your pick!

If the greatest reality is that which we create, it is insulting to question a mother's right to infanticide. If she cannot be caught and charged with murder there is no logical reason to oppose this being called a baby having no objective value.
And so I'm sure you probably objectify women as well!

The fact that the mother may want to eat it or sell it just means it could have a subjective value
You're a fucking moron, obviously!

So If I come over to eat you it's OK, as you'll have subjective value from my perspective? Who's perspective matters most? Because I'm obviously older than you so you're effectively my infant. Why draw an arbitrary line at mother and child? How about the wise and the naive? You might taste good with your mouth permanently shut after a stint on the barby drenched in barbecue sauce... Sound good to you?

Yeah and I'm sure the child wouldn't agree either, given as much time as you've had to learn. Well not that we can necessarily say that you have in fact learned anything.

You certainly haven't understood something as basic as, 'one can't expect for themselves, anything they won't give to others.' It's a pretty basic concept really. Are you familiar with, 'tit for tat?' Tell me, in the minds of those participating, once started, does it ever have a natural stopping point? Is your thinking a model for the Hatfields and McCoys?

That you try and frame nonsensical ideas as intellectually sound doesn't legitimize them as being so.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Arising

Pretty much all matter is involved in transforming substances into something or other it's basic physics and chemistry. The objective purpose of living things appears to be to reproduce and the bodily processes are to fuel themselves so that they can achieve this purpose.

But why reproduce if organic life is not serving an objective purpose? You can do better than that.
Yet the universe had no obvious purpose, as if it necessarily could, in causing life here, yet your dumb-ass exists with no real objective purpose at all? Objective purpose from any particular humans perspective, is moot! The father of us all, the universe, and our mother, the earth, says so!

The best method so far for connecting 'levels of reality' appears to be science and not metaphysics or religion.

Science functions by duality and measures and compares phenomenon in linear time. Levels of reality are connected in accordance with the universal laws of the triune universe. Science by definition limited to dualism cannot measure the triune universe or the relative vertical qualities of now.
Funny how you use the puny concepts of humans to speak of the universe as if it's bound by them. The most dangerous of us all are the ones that profess to know above all others. 'I only know, that I know nothing.' --Socrates--

And yet you propose that we are all sheep for your universal master?

No, if that were the case the Ways would be useless and Man would be forever riding the wheel of Samsara. But the human condition that results in the collective psyche of man becoming the Great Beast isn’t natural and some can realize the reality of their situation and make the necessary efforts to become human as opposed to an atom of the Great Beast. I believe that surviving the adverse effects of technology will require the awakening influence of these individualistic black sheep the world hates. If it will be sufficient is a real question.
Obviously your mind is far too steeped in mythology, to recognize your ignorance! Someone as fearful as you so obviously are, shall probably never really learn of the truth of things.

[Nick_A]

SoB

And so I'm sure you probably objectify women as well!

Well they often make attractive objects so why deny the senses. This brings us to the next question:

You're a fucking moron, obviously!

If I as a moron meet an attractive woman and get lucky making me a fucking moron, isn’t that more satisfying than just being a moron?

You certainly haven't understood something as basic as, 'one can't expect for themselves, anything they won't give to others.' It's a pretty basic concept really. Are you familiar with, 'tit for tat?' Tell me, in the minds of those participating, once started, does it ever have a natural stopping point? Is your thinking a model for the Hatfields and McCoys?

Why do you consider your old fashioned approach superior to the modern subjective approach to justice? From a discussion between Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus. And Thrasymachus:

Thrasymachus who represented the new and critical view, propounded the radical theory of justice. He defines justice as "the interest of the stronger". In the other words, might is right. For while, every man acts for himself and tries to get what he can, the strongest is sure to get what he wants and as in a state the Government is the strongest, it will try to get and it will get, whatever it wants for itself. Thus, for Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state or we can further define it as "another's good". Laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is treated as violation of justice. Socrates criticises the defination of justice given by Thrasymachus and he says just as a physician studies and exercises his power not in his interest but in the interest of a patient, the Government of any kind shall do what is good for the people for whom it exercises its art. But Thrasymachus advances some more arguments in support of his concept of justice and injustice.

An unjust is superior to a just in character and intelligence.
Injustice is a source of strength.
Injustice brings happiness.

Why is your subjective belief in the Golden Rule superior to Thasymachus’ belief that might makes right? Don't we create our own reality? They are both based on subjective values?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SoB

And so I'm sure you probably objectify women as well!

Well they often make attractive objects so why deny the senses.
Only to those with less intellect!

This brings us to the next question:

You're a fucking moron, obviously!

If I as a moron meet an attractive woman and get lucky making me a fucking moron, isn’t that more satisfying than just being a moron?
Only if it should be satisfaction, at the expense of another, that could and eventually shall be reversed, is preferred. Live by the sword, die by the sword! Or quite possibly worse.

You certainly haven't understood something as basic as, 'one can't expect for themselves, anything they won't give to others.' It's a pretty basic concept really. Are you familiar with, 'tit for tat?' Tell me, in the minds of those participating, once started, does it ever have a natural stopping point? Is your thinking a model for the Hatfields and McCoys?

Why do you consider your old fashioned approach superior to the modern subjective approach to justice?
First, I'd say you've got it backwards! But then that's about your speed!

From a discussion between Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus. And Thrasymachus:

Thrasymachus who represented the new and critical view, propounded the radical theory of justice. He defines justice as "the interest of the stronger". In the other words, might is right. For while, every man acts for himself and tries to get what he can, the strongest is sure to get what he wants and as in a state the Government is the strongest, it will try to get and it will get, whatever it wants for itself. Thus, for Thrasymachus justice means personal interest of the ruling group in any state or we can further define it as "another's good". Laws are made by the ruling party in its own interest. Those who violate such laws are punished because violation of such laws is treated as violation of justice. Socrates criticises the defination of justice given by Thrasymachus and he says just as a physician studies and exercises his power not in his interest but in the interest of a patient, the Government of any kind shall do what is good for the people for whom it exercises its art. But Thrasymachus advances some more arguments in support of his concept of justice and injustice.

An unjust is superior to a just in character and intelligence.
Injustice is a source of strength.
Injustice brings happiness.

Why is your subjective belief in the Golden Rule superior to Thasymachus’ belief that might makes right?
Because Thasymachus’ belief lacks knowledge of the biggest picture.

Don't we create our own reality?
In our own minds! Some of which are megalomaniacal. Ignorance of self motivation, the psyche, still makes one ignorant. I'd say, even more so than most things. But then there are many that only know a world of ignorance! Though in truth it's never really blissful, rather seemingly so, while it lasts. Until the truth sets in, like an asteroid the size of texas.

They are both based on subjective values?
Nope mine is based upon grey matter not muscle fibres; Brain over brawn; Intellect over stupidity. I have a much greater grasp of the ever so much bigger picture.

Sure I can destroy, I was a military man, responsible for everything from a .45 calibre semi automatic, up to and including the big kahuna, (nuclear warheads). Which is one of the reasons I can see more of the, 'biggest picture of them all!' Been there, done that, learned it's lesson!

I know mankind, with his extremely over zealous view of himself, and I'm still laughing today! Unfortunately, he'll probably never be able to prove himself to me, I get further ahead every single day! All I have to do is watch the news as well as certain documentaries. Like looking at an ant farm between two panes of glass. No, I don't step on ants or burn them with my magnifying glass. I simply observe, bitch, moan and groan, then laugh my fucking ass off! Because, at the end of my analysis, he's ultimately quite laughable; feeble minded, as he's quite ignorant of his current condition. Of course that's due to my study of psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, and history, to name a few, added to my job as a military man with a family of wife and children all of whom I love, not excluding, all of mankind, despite him self. Or is that his short term selfishness, unbeknownst to him. Yeah, he can't see the life, for his self, (forest for the trees)! Why? Well of course it's that the glittering prize has blinded him. You see he has a problem with shiny things. Of course his biggest problem is in his "Denial of Death." It's why shiny things mesmerise him so readily.

Peace, my friends!

[Dontaskme]

Greta wrote

Trouble is, Nick, there's fire outside the cave so it would seem advantageous to stay safely inside the cave. The alternative is to walk into the flames and be turned into a tasty side of longpig, ready to be et by the cave dwellers

Yes this is how most think which is why they ridicule those seeking freedom from psychological slavery offered by cave life. What could be more frightening then that which destroys the imagination offering the security of slavery?

Good reply.

Your posts make perfect sense to this one here.

Enjoy your freedom and bliss, no one can ever take that away from you..it's all yours. They can take everything from you but your own mind.

Even name calling is not your mind. I know you mind your own, but I like pointing out the obviousness in every moment.

Be careful what you call yourself it might just stick.

Unless you've got a liquid mind, in which case every sticky thing will be separated from it...water takes no prisoners

.

[Dontaskme]

That you try and frame nonsensical ideas as intellectually sound doesn't legitimize them as being so.

All ideas can be very confusing until that is, you realise where ideas are actually coming from, only then will sense become clear, all confusion is lifted in that moment of realisation.

.

[Dontaskme]

Trouble is, Nick, there's fire outside the cave so it would seem advantageous to stay safely inside the cave. The alternative is to walk into the flames and be turned into a tasty side of longpig, ready to be et by the cave dwellers

Ah, but alas, those who are from the fire have no fear of the fire, for they are the fire that cannot burn itself.

If that's outside the cave..what's inside the cave? what's advantageous about staying safely inside the cave?