The Best from "Quillette"

  • 53 Replies
  • 793 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2018, 08:41:04 pm »
I'd agree with you, there is more to us than just our comprehension of the rational. Perhaps better to say that we should always see our political opponents as persuadable. They are not incarnations of a view, but they may stridently hold a view that can, with persuasion, be changed.

Where I think the rational aspect of our nature comes into it is I'm not sure how one can deal with argumentation without recourse to reason and still maintain a healthy politic. Admittedly one can make an emotional appeal for compassion, and perhaps that appeal to humanity is more central to a good discourse than pure reason...or perhaps there needs to be balance.

I think this is central question, how to establish the proper Ground in a meta-political sense rather than any particular issues.

Well, you are probably right.  However, if we can acknowledge that action, an more importantly stances, are largely taken on irrational grounds, we might stand a better chance?  Then again, maybe not.

I think the whole issue of polarization is the issue of the insistence of no common ground.  That is, the active denial of common ground.  Can we rationally convince people it exists, if they willfully disbelieve?  I think this might be why Peterson is somewhat right, it probably needs to be narratively delivered instead.

I'm not sure Harris is making an appeal to reason so much as attempting to enshrine his views - and his own mental ability - as the Highest Rational. But this leads to a variety of questions - he debases compatibilism but then tries to reinvent the wheel of that very concept, he talks about an "Obvious Good" without getting into the question of the Source, he dips his toes into immaterialism & Buddhism ego-death while trying to skirt around the metaphysical questions.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Harris said that any moral philosophy just bores him so he pays no mind to it.  With that kind of stance, is it any wonder he blithely disregards the metaphysical?

But then everything Bakker has written on Three Pound Brain would be blasphemous? I'm not in complete disagreement with you, it's a complicated question - is everyone able to handle the nihilism inherent to a variety of world views?

Of course what is Nihilistic varies between people. If I was told God knows the future of my life and all my choices that seems pretty depressing but others would be elated to be convinced of such a thing.

Well, maybe?  But the thing is, what knowledge breaks me or you might plausibly edify someone else?  Because it depends on what their values were before and what their values become after?  So, it's hard to say, definitively what really would be universal blasphemy.  I don't think that precludes it not existing though.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 564
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2018, 02:33:12 am »
I'd agree with you, there is more to us than just our comprehension of the rational. Perhaps better to say that we should always see our political opponents as persuadable. They are not incarnations of a view, but they may stridently hold a view that can, with persuasion, be changed.

Where I think the rational aspect of our nature comes into it is I'm not sure how one can deal with argumentation without recourse to reason and still maintain a healthy politic. Admittedly one can make an emotional appeal for compassion, and perhaps that appeal to humanity is more central to a good discourse than pure reason...or perhaps there needs to be balance.

I think this is central question, how to establish the proper Ground in a meta-political sense rather than any particular issues.

Well, you are probably right.  However, if we can acknowledge that action, an more importantly stances, are largely taken on irrational grounds, we might stand a better chance?  Then again, maybe not.

I think the whole issue of polarization is the issue of the insistence of no common ground.  That is, the active denial of common ground.  Can we rationally convince people it exists, if they willfully disbelieve?  I think this might be why Peterson is somewhat right, it probably needs to be narratively delivered instead.

Regarding Common Ground I think most people would agree on some basic moral Principles, even if how they prioritize these tenets in different situations shifts.

One valuable thing would be the recalling of such Principles, wherein the set of Principles you have should transcend tribalism and should ask something of you. When people's Principles end up asking much of others but little of the Principles' advocates you're likely to see disintegration of Ground. (As one conservative whose name escapes me said, if one wants to spread the idea of strict constitutionalism one should find places where it gives liberals what they want at the cost of conservative desires.)

Now the conviction we have for these Principles is, in some sense, irrational in that it can go against a Reasoned course of action. But even our recognition of Reason/Rationality is intuitive, a kind of personal gnosis shared amongst our species. IIRC Schelling calls Reason the Groundless Ground -> Perhaps our Principles also lie in that mysterious Darkness?

I agree with you that narratives have value here -> Fostering these Principles is likely accomplished by Myths - hence why fairy tales and comic books are useful means of promoting good values. Perhaps what we need are Myths that speak to those older as well, compelling enough to recall the necessity of applying Principles with a minimization - if not elimination - of caveats.

Quote
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Harris said that any moral philosophy just bores him so he pays no mind to it.  With that kind of stance, is it any wonder he blithely disregards the metaphysical?

I think I recall him saying something similar - it's easy to dismiss ethics if you think we can use the right combination of brain-scans and computers to bring about a moral society I guess.

Quote
Well, maybe?  But the thing is, what knowledge breaks me or you might plausibly edify someone else?  Because it depends on what their values were before and what their values become after?  So, it's hard to say, definitively what really would be universal blasphemy.  I don't think that precludes it not existing though.

Well it may not be universal blasphemy but hard to see how any humanism survives materialism...At the very least we should balance out that which is life-negating with that which is life-affirming, maybe some Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead for starters...
« Last Edit: November 03, 2018, 02:43:13 am by sciborg2 »
Health Resources:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12NfnxYU5ZSur-RahRNI-bNMnTjxE12vyGWmY46Xq2h0/edit

Register family with 911 services. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, legal aid, etc.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2018, 02:07:16 pm »
Regarding Common Ground I think most people would agree on some basic moral Principles, even if how they prioritize these tenets in different situations shifts.

One valuable thing would be the recalling of such Principles, wherein the set of Principles you have should transcend tribalism and should ask something of you. When people's Principles end up asking much of others but little of the Principles' advocates you're likely to see disintegration of Ground. (As one conservative whose name escapes me said, if one wants to spread the idea of strict constitutionalism one should find places where it gives liberals what they want at the cost of conservative desires.)

Now the conviction we have for these Principles is, in some sense, irrational in that it can go against a Reasoned course of action. But even our recognition of Reason/Rationality is intuitive, a kind of personal gnosis shared amongst our species. IIRC Schelling calls Reason the Groundless Ground -> Perhaps our Principles also lie in that mysterious Darkness?

Well, it isn't just Principles and prioritizaion though, it's how those principles are used to "reason" through the cypher of Values.  So, we can almost all agree that murder is wrong, but then what do we define as murder?  Is killing in war murder?  Is abortion murder?  How we evaluate these things definitely lies, to some degree io the "Groundless Ground" of Reason, but I don't think it is 100% by any means.  Where do our Values come from then?  I think they are "pre-Reason" and do originate somewhere in the preconscious mind, but since we don't often delve in there, it's murky at best.

I agree with you that narratives have value here -> Fostering these Principles is likely accomplished by Myths - hence why fairy tales and comic books are useful means of promoting good values. Perhaps what we need are Myths that speak to those older as well, compelling enough to recall the necessity of applying Principles with a minimization - if not elimination - of caveats.

Perhaps something of the issue is that we are full on allegories, now-a-days, but distinctly light on myths?

I think I recall him saying something similar - it's easy to dismiss ethics if you think we can use the right combination of brain-scans and computers to bring about a moral society I guess.

I think he also wrote it at the end of his book, The Moral Landscape.  It's a "nice" idea, that we could "science" our way out, but likely then the "way out" is worse than the problems at hand.

Well it may not be universal blasphemy but hard to see how any humanism survives materialism...At the very least we should balance out that which is life-negating with that which is life-affirming, maybe some Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead for starters...

Could it be that "The Truth" itself is rather life-negating, because the fundamental principles of the Universe are basically agnostic to life itself?
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Blueberry Psūkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2018, 03:32:54 pm »
I think the struggle in this conversation lies in how challenging it's been to determine if we have free will. If we have free will, then we will be unable to find the source of thought. If we don't have free will, then evolution/cause and effect will eventually explain everything you're talking about. These layers of consciousness, ground, culture all being a result of pool balls after all - just because the same ball can be in all locations at once doesn't mean you're still not playing pool. And I have some ideas on why the ball appears in all locations it could be at the same time while in only 1 position when observed.
Remember to brush before bed

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2018, 04:08:28 pm »
I think the struggle in this conversation lies in how challenging it's been to determine if we have free will. If we have free will, then we will be unable to find the source of thought. If we don't have free will, then evolution/cause and effect will eventually explain everything you're talking about. These layers of consciousness, ground, culture all being a result of pool balls after all - just because the same ball can be in all locations at once doesn't mean you're still not playing pool. And I have some ideas on why the ball appears in all locations it could be at the same time while in only 1 position when observed.

Well, I don't think it can simply be reduced to a binary though.  As in, I don't think it's as simple as their being 100% free will, or 0%.  Because Dataism has largely proven "correct enough" to be highly predictive and effective.  Meaning, we are not 100% free o of from influence, suggestion, or determinism, even if our Will is free to some degree.  I think the Will could function as if free, but largely does not.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
  • Blueberry Psūkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2018, 04:38:14 pm »
I think the struggle in this conversation lies in how challenging it's been to determine if we have free will. If we have free will, then we will be unable to find the source of thought. If we don't have free will, then evolution/cause and effect will eventually explain everything you're talking about. These layers of consciousness, ground, culture all being a result of pool balls after all - just because the same ball can be in all locations at once doesn't mean you're still not playing pool. And I have some ideas on why the ball appears in all locations it could be at the same time while in only 1 position when observed.

Well, I don't think it can simply be reduced to a binary though.  As in, I don't think it's as simple as their being 100% free will, or 0%.  Because Dataism has largely proven "correct enough" to be highly predictive and effective.  Meaning, we are not 100% free o of from influence, suggestion, or determinism, even if our Will is free to some degree.  I think the Will could function as if free, but largely does not.

Apologies, don't mean to drag this back into that long thread on Free Will, we all expressed ourselves ad nausea back then. BUT - if we're anything more than a mobile pile of chemicals, then we have free will. If we're not, then it's just a function of capacity to discern all that's discernible - which would be everything. Just a matter of time and evolution. If at any time in your life, you made at least one decision outside of programming/evolution/conditioning/manipulation/societal norms/DNA/, then you have free will as it just takes one time to exercise it to prove it. We're not there yet, we cannot tell if we've ever done that conclusively, it's still just a guess one way or the other. The capacity to exercise Free Will, genuine autonomous agency, is Free Will even if never leveraged.
Remember to brush before bed

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2018, 05:27:04 pm »
Apologies, don't mean to drag this back into that long thread on Free Will, we all expressed ourselves ad nausea back then. BUT - if we're anything more than a mobile pile of chemicals, then we have free will. If we're not, then it's just a function of capacity to discern all that's discernible - which would be everything. Just a matter of time and evolution. If at any time in your life, you made at least one decision outside of programming/evolution/conditioning/manipulation/societal norms/DNA/, then you have free will as it just takes one time to exercise it to prove it. We're not there yet, we cannot tell if we've ever done that conclusively, it's still just a guess one way or the other. The capacity to exercise Free Will, genuine autonomous agency, is Free Will even if never leveraged.

Well, we don't really need to get into a debate about if it actually exists or not.  The question really is, how determinable and able to be manipulated is our will, generally.  Not individually.  Of course, any individual is capable of deciding whatever.  But, the fact that people are generally predictable and so generally manipulable, must speak to something.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2245
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2018, 07:44:54 pm »
Quote from:  H
Well, we don't really need to get into a debate about if it actually exists or not.  The question really is, how determinable and able to be manipulated is our will, generally.  Not individually.  Of course, any individual is capable of deciding whatever.  But, the fact that people are generally predictable and so generally manipulable, must speak to something.

If we wanna turn this into a thread on manipulation, well I have scores of stories. None good.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2018, 07:49:23 pm »
Quote from:  H
Well, we don't really need to get into a debate about if it actually exists or not.  The question really is, how determinable and able to be manipulated is our will, generally.  Not individually.  Of course, any individual is capable of deciding whatever.  But, the fact that people are generally predictable and so generally manipulable, must speak to something.

If we wanna turn this into a thread on manipulation, well I have scores of stories. None good.

If you want, make a new one.  I'm sure we'll collect some thoughts on it.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 564
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2018, 08:40:53 pm »
Well, it isn't just Principles and prioritizaion though, it's how those principles are used to "reason" through the cypher of Values.  So, we can almost all agree that murder is wrong, but then what do we define as murder?  Is killing in war murder?  Is abortion murder?  How we evaluate these things definitely lies, to some degree io the "Groundless Ground" of Reason, but I don't think it is 100% by any means.  Where do our Values come from then?  I think they are "pre-Reason" and do originate somewhere in the preconscious mind, but since we don't often delve in there, it's murky at best.

Perhaps something of the issue is that we are full on allegories, now-a-days, but distinctly light on myths?

I think he also wrote it at the end of his book, The Moral Landscape.  It's a "nice" idea, that we could "science" our way out, but likely then the "way out" is worse than the problems at hand.

Could it be that "The Truth" itself is rather life-negating, because the fundamental principles of the Universe are basically agnostic to life itself?

I agree that there will always be disputes, but the part of the Ground that we can stand on is "Murder is wrong." Even if there are caveats just having some established values like that is important. But even more trivial concerns than murder are part of the Ground, specifically how we believe we should interact with each other when in disputes over the correct direction for society.

I think you might be on to something with the heaviness of allegory...but if you could go more into detail that would be much appreciated...

For myself I think the mythic resonance is being leeched out of our institutions, so the unifying power of being blessed to be in a democracy is downgraded. I also think the notion of having to sacrifice for your Principles is leeched away, the priority given to demanding someone else acquiesce to the Principles you hold.

Additionally we have to admit the good of reality tunnels we dislike - so for my liberal self better the conservative who wants to be a guardian for women as daughters of God than the misogynist who thinks women are cum dumpsters that can be raped with impunity, or the one who is against gay marriage but not throwing gays off rooftops. A sustaining of the Ground is the proper cultivation of the opponents who we prefer and could respect - but of course if the bar is set so no one to the right/left is of value then the Ground itself is chipped away.

As for Truth being life-negating...perhaps, perhaps not. But has enough mind-share been given to the Life Affirming side? Quilette doesn't seem to care, they seem intent on expounding about free thought even as at least a few of the authors cut at the fabric that gives words like "Freedom" and "Thought" value in this life.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2018, 08:46:51 pm by sciborg2 »
Health Resources:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12NfnxYU5ZSur-RahRNI-bNMnTjxE12vyGWmY46Xq2h0/edit

Register family with 911 services. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, legal aid, etc.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2018, 09:44:32 pm »
I agree that there will always be disputes, but the part of the Ground that we can stand on is "Murder is wrong." Even if there are caveats just having some established values like that is important. But even more trivial concerns than murder are part of the Ground, specifically how we believe we should interact with each other when in disputes over the correct direction for society.

Right, but the problem comes in in how we take the "fact" of "murder is wrong and operationalize it to the real world.  In other words, how do we define it and identify it.  It's plausible to call any killing murder.  It's also plausible to consider some killing not murder.  And so our values, that is our judgement, will determine where to apply it and where not to.

I think you might be on to something with the heaviness of allegory...but if you could go more into detail that would be much appreciated...

Well, it was something that just sprang to mind while I was typing.  It's something about an allegory being a sort of, I guess you could say, a story where characters embody abstract principles and then play out scenarios.  The myth though, is based in more archetypal content.  Still "abstract" in a sense, but in a far less "rational" manner.  So, an allegory would more be able "freedom" and a myth about "self-love."  I mean, it makes sense, because now-a-days, we fancy ourselves all fully rational, fully conscious creatures.  So we tell ourselves stories about how rational and conscious we are.  But the truth is far closer to the fact that we really aren't.  So we ditch any stories that don't fit our paradigm.

For myself I think the mythic resonance is being leeched out of our institutions, so the unifying power of being blessed to be in a democracy is downgraded. I also think the notion of having to sacrifice for your Principles is leeched away, the priority given to demanding someone else acquiesce to the Principles you hold.

Well, we are pretty sacrifice averse now too.  Because we live lives, generally, for those of us who are at liberty to type this kind of shit out on the internet, that feature very little sacrifice.  Pretty much whatever we need, we go to the store and buy.  In fact, the very conception of sacrifice is largely lost of people now, I think.

Additionally we have to admit the good of reality tunnels we dislike - so for my liberal self better the conservative who wants to be a guardian for women as daughters of God than the misogynist who thinks women are cum dumpsters that can be raped with impunity, or the one who is against gay marriage but not throwing gays off rooftops. A sustaining of the Ground is the proper cultivation of the opponents who we prefer and could respect - but of course if the bar is set so no one to the right/left is of value then the Ground itself is chipped away.

Well, this might well be an effect of our "global culture" that is easily the worst aspect of it all: the idea that there can be only one right way to live.  There simply cannot be any other ways which might work.  This isn't my idea, it one from Daniel Quinn's works (for better or worse).  It isn't something explicitly ever stated, but is implicit in every single aspect of these kinds of disagreements.  Liberals are sure it is only correct to be liberal, and conservatives that it is only correct to be conservative.  It cannot be the case that it might be OK to live a life on either side.

As for Truth being life-negating...perhaps, perhaps not. But has enough mind-share been given to the Life Affirming side? Quilette doesn't seem to care, they seem intent on expounding about free thought even as at least a few of the authors cut at the fabric that gives words like "Freedom" and "Thought" value in this life.

Well, that I'm not sure about.  But if it's true, perhaps fundamental truth is a bad aim.  Perhaps something more like inter-subjective truth, or better yet, lived systems of what works and what doesn't.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira

themerchant

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Captain Slogger
  • Posts: 885
    • View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2018, 11:12:00 pm »

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 613
    • View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2018, 11:41:51 pm »
^lol
Take a look at this article too https://quillette.com/2018/10/23/the-unspoken-homophobia-propelling-the-transgender-movement-in-children/
This site must not have many readers or it would probably have been taken down by rampaging SJWs LOL

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 564
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2018, 08:11:04 pm »
Right, but the problem comes in in how we take the "fact" of "murder is wrong and operationalize it to the real world.  In other words, how do we define it and identify it.  It's plausible to call any killing murder.  It's also plausible to consider some killing not murder.  And so our values, that is our judgement, will determine where to apply it and where not to.


Well, it was something that just sprang to mind while I was typing.  It's something about an allegory being a sort of, I guess you could say, a story where characters embody abstract principles and then play out scenarios.  The myth though, is based in more archetypal content.  Still "abstract" in a sense, but in a far less "rational" manner.  So, an allegory would more be able "freedom" and a myth about "self-love."  I mean, it makes sense, because now-a-days, we fancy ourselves all fully rational, fully conscious creatures.  So we tell ourselves stories about how rational and conscious we are.  But the truth is far closer to the fact that we really aren't.  So we ditch any stories that don't fit our paradigm.

Oddly enough it seems to me the sacredness of Life extending to one's political opponents is not a rarity but definitely something being eaten away at. It's a bit crazy to say but "Murder is Wrong" may become a lodestone for the remaining sane among us regardless of our political inclinations.

Hmmm...I do think you are on to something about needing to cultivate the "irrational" part of ourselves, that deeper-Darkness/higher-Light.

There's definitely something to be said about our inner narrator, our connection to stories and how this impacts our consciousness, and how this all ties into the deeper self.

Quote
Well, we are pretty sacrifice averse now too.  Because we live lives, generally, for those of us who are at liberty to type this kind of shit out on the internet, that feature very little sacrifice.  Pretty much whatever we need, we go to the store and buy.  In fact, the very conception of sacrifice is largely lost of people now, I think.

Ah I just mean that when one expounds some principle it should be applied in such a way as to show one is as bound by the Principle as one demands other be morally bound.

But your reply does make me wonder if the idea of Sacrifice as part of our relationship with the numinous does falter and affect the Ground.

Quote
Well, this might well be an effect of our "global culture" that is easily the worst aspect of it all: the idea that there can be only one right way to live.  There simply cannot be any other ways which might work.  This isn't my idea, it one from Daniel Quinn's works (for better or worse).  It isn't something explicitly ever stated, but is implicit in every single aspect of these kinds of disagreements.  Liberals are sure it is only correct to be liberal, and conservatives that it is only correct to be conservative.  It cannot be the case that it might be OK to live a life on either side.

Yeah I think is a challenge, after all one has preferences and one has moral imperatives. The former can accept diversity but the latter by definition - or so it seems to me - cannot save as either a temporary state or one forced by some higher moral principle.

Why the Ground is of so much importance, finding the transcendent (or at least agreed upon) principles and promoting them - comes back to the cultivation of opponents. Media should do a better job of showing people who disagree able to argue peacefully - where I think Reason/Logic has the important but not necessarily preeminent role.

Quote
Well, that I'm not sure about.  But if it's true, perhaps fundamental truth is a bad aim.  Perhaps something more like inter-subjective truth, or better yet, lived systems of what works and what doesn't.

I think the challenge here is people are more than willing to try systems that are immoral, to see if they work. Or even being willing to go back to systems that failed but offer a false promise of working.

Without transcendent Ground there is no human society, possibly not even a robotic/android one either. Though I sometimes wonder if our future synthetic children might be the better inheritors of the future than humans could be...
Health Resources:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12NfnxYU5ZSur-RahRNI-bNMnTjxE12vyGWmY46Xq2h0/edit

Register family with 911 services. Also mental health info & hotlines, articles, treatment assistance options, prescription assistance, legal aid, etc.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2320
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2018, 09:22:05 pm »
Oddly enough it seems to me the sacredness of Life extending to one's political opponents is not a rarity but definitely something being eaten away at. It's a bit crazy to say but "Murder is Wrong" may become a lodestone for the remaining sane among us regardless of our political inclinations.

Indeed, it's something that I think is definitely slipping away though.  Basically, a new story every day at how this erodes though.

Hmmm...I do think you are on to something about needing to cultivate the "irrational" part of ourselves, that deeper-Darkness/higher-Light.

No one wants to really explore that, because it is antithetical with the idea that we are fully rational.

There's definitely something to be said about our inner narrator, our connection to stories and how this impacts our consciousness, and how this all ties into the deeper self.

Well, condsidering that the aim, now-a-days seems to be to get a materialistic as possible, via neuropsychology and the like, something so abstract is not regarded as particularly true, let alone particularly important.

But your reply does make me wonder if the idea of Sacrifice as part of our relationship with the numinous does falter and affect the Ground.

Sure, but even as our relationship to the practical.  There is practical pay-off for sacrifice.  In fact, that is plausibly why we regard it with a numinous quality.  Society would not work, if not for our "compact with the future" and that compact is largely sealed with sacrifice.

Why the Ground is of so much importance, finding the transcendent (or at least agreed upon) principles and promoting them - comes back to the cultivation of opponents. Media should do a better job of showing people who disagree able to argue peacefully - where I think Reason/Logic has the important but not necessarily preeminent role.

Media only reflects what makes money, not what is necessarily real or true though.

Without transcendent Ground there is no human society, possibly not even a robotic/android one either. Though I sometimes wonder if our future synthetic children might be the better inheritors of the future than humans could be...

I certainly hope they are, for our sake.
“I am a warrior of ages, Anasūrimbor . . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury.” -Cet’ingira