« Clarifying, Not Banning | Main | Only One Question: What Is Marriage? »

January 17, 2014

Comments

While your Self values that definition of fair, other Self's find it quite fair to employ slavery on utility.

Normative. Setting specific. And all grounded in the Self.

My value is as valuable as your value.

Prove otherwise.

You seem to not value what I value. But we are equally valuale. My values are what your values are, ontologically speaking.

scblhrm wrote:

Axiom.

Yes, scientific theories are designed to explain a broad body of diverse facts based on a small set of axioms and primitive concepts. E.g. Newtonian mechanics is based on the primitive concepts of Euclidean spacetime and point particles with mass, and three axiomatic laws of motion. Likewise, my moral theory is based on two primitive concepts (Self and Love) and two axioms

1) Self loves self

2) Moral Symmetry (Golden Rule)

I contend that my theory explains all moral facts. I explain this in this article.

http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/25/the-logic-of-love-a-natural-theory-of-morality/

So I'm just supposed to drop what I value and value what you value?

Why?

You seem to not value what I value. But we are equally valuale. My values are what your values are, ontologically speaking.

Yet you devalue what I value.

Why?

Can I devalue what you value, like you devalue what I value?

Is it fair, symmetrical, that your Self's values can dominate my Self's values, but I cannot equally, symmetrically devalue what you value?

RM,

I asked you where "supposed-to" came from and you led me to the organism's goals as that source, as described in the quote above by you.


Do you know retract this?

If so, then where is the source of "supposed-to"?

Typo:

RM,

Do you now retract this?

RM,

Initially I thought your theory was meant to explain the real world.

I see now that it is really just your own personal way of comming up with a blind, inexpliable / axiomatic reason to be nice.

In Atheism, that is the only kind of reason there is to "value".

Can anyone come up with their own blind axiom by which to value actions and so on?


That is to say, can any Self take this path of blind axiom to back up their own moral goals?

Or just your Self?


Here is RM's regress of "supposed to" / "should",

"Now you want me to explain why an organism "should" do anything? There is no explanation in any moral system if you don't state the goal of the organism.."

[Goal] = [Should].

In RM's moral system, we find that it takes the Self formulating its own blind, inexplicable, axiomatic reasons to behave a certain way, to moralize. That is based on the Self's Goals, and, those Goals ground the Should / Suppoed-To of that Self, it morals.


We find then in this symmetrical appliction that all Selves can so formulate blind, inexplicable axiomtic reasons to behave a certainn way, to moralize, and that such will be based on that Self's Goals, and, therein, it "should" behave that way, based on axiomatic morals.

The principle of moral symmetry is here revealed.

Hmm,

How many typos can there be?

Let' try this:

In RM's moral system, we find that it takes the Self formulating its own blind, inexplicable, axiomatic reasons to behave a certain way, to moralize. That is based on the Self's Goals, and, those Goals ground the Should / Suppoed-To of that Self, its morals.


That is the basis of RM's regress out of his own subjective blind axiom and into biology: "There is no explanation in any moral system if you don't state the goal of the organism.."


We find then in the symmetrical appliction of morality's bedrock that all Selves can so formulate blind, inexplicable axiomtic reasons to behave a certainn way, to moralize, and that such will be based on that Self's Goals, and, therein, it "should" behave that way, based on those axiomatic morals.

The principle of moral symmetry is here revealed, grounded in the value of the Self.

Actually, this is a good demonstration of the inevitable result of Atheism. Unable to ground morality in biology or any other location, we end with people coming up with blind axioms in order to justify their preferred behavior.

RM is a good example, as are the many other normative belief systems the world over.

The Self in Privation searches for, and never finds, the firm, fixed formula of love.

Such is only found within Immutable Love Himself.

Revision:

Actually, this thread this is a good demonstration of the inevitable result of Atheism. Unable to ground morality in biology or any other location, we end with people coming up with blind axioms in order to justify their preferred behavior.


RM is a good example, as are the many other normative belief systems the world over. Sam Harris ends in the same blind, inexplicable axiom in his "Moral Landscape". He is honest enough to realize that in Atheism the identity claim of [Wellbeing] = [Good] is false identity claim, for wellbeing is grounded in the Self and as such all sorts of ugly things can populate the "good" peaks of his moral landscape. We see the same result here with symmetrical ontology amid the world's various self-invented normative systems.


As Love's Ontology in Scripture's A to Z predicts, we find Man, or, the Self in Privation searching for, and never finding, the firm, fixed formula of love.


Such is only found within Immutable Love Himself, that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us] Who is our timeless E Pluribus Unum.

There are no Atheists:

Atheist’s various quests for Love are quite telling. That they believe so strongly in Immutable Love so as to insist on blind, inexplicable axiom to justify their vibrant belief in Immutable Love rather than go on without It is even more telling. Sam Harris and RM are real world demonstrations of that peculiar landscape Man in Privation awakes to find himself within. Void of Immutable Love we find that Man within the prison of the Isolated-I, within the Pure-Self - void of Love’s Immutable Other - yet searches for Him, yet writes of Him, yet preaches about Him, yet persists in defining His Ontology in their varied and necessarily fragmented endeavors to find His Enigmatic Thread which should one seize hold of and trace to the End of all regresses one would find, at the end of Consciousness, at the end of Reality, that firm, fixed formula of Love.

They search for what they know is the truth of the matter, though all regresses within the Isolated-Self fail to divulge such a Thread. They are following the evidence, inching ever closer to Love’s Immutable Topography.

In their vigorous preaching of a kind of Immutable Love as the End of all regress, in their dynamic asserting that such a Firm, Fixed Whole does in fact somehow End all moral regress, in their belief that such a Whole lies at the End of all Consciousness, lies at the End of all that is Mind, and in their unending re-defining of their own definitions to ever more closely approximate His Topography, we do not find the mock belief of Is-Not but rather we find the robustly demonstrated belief, knowing, and discerning that such and End not only Is, but can somehow be found there at the end of all their currently fragmented sightlines.

They write books about such a Thread.

They formulate theories about such a Thread.

But all regresses found in all such books, in all such theories born out of Man’s Privation end not in Love, but instead end in the Mutable Self wherein all is shifting sand as all definitions end in mere subsets which prove to be no more than fragments of the Whole they seek to find, write about, preach on, and believe in. Man does not search for what he believes Is-Not, nor does he search for what he believes cannot be found, rather, Man in Isolation testifies, by his searching, by his writing, by his preaching, that he does in fact believe that such an End of all Regresses looms near. Man within the Self’s Isolation is – necessarily - void of Love’s Immutable Other and is therein necessarily inside of the Loveless Outside, external to that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us], that Whole Who is our timeless E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love.

Inside of the Outside we find Man relentlessly reaching up into that Whole and ripping out definitional fragments thereof as he attempts to formulate his mutable definitions of Immutable Love. In such necessary fragmentation we find Man’s Madness as all Moral Systems end void of the Whole, as some systems are part the shifting fragments of Self, wrenched out and swollen to madness by magnification, as other systems are part of the shifting fragment of Other, wrenched out and swollen to madness by magnification, and as yet other systems are part of the shifting fragment of Us, wrenched out and swollen to madness by magnification. Man in Privation ever seeks to define Love’s Immutable Whole there at the End of all Moral Regress, but such proves to be a futile effort for all definitions which the Self in Privation can formulate end necessarily as fragments thereof for all his definitions derive their very “definition” by and in their relational constitution to the Whole that is that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us], that Whole Who is our timeless E Pluribus Unum, that Whole that is the [Ever-Actual], Who is Himself Immutable Love, as, but for His Timeless and Unchanging Landscape, the very word “definition” is itself a word without definition.

All definitions of all Moral Systems and all the bits of madness found within all of them can be traced back to this process (fully described by Scripture’s [A to Z]) of Man in Privation reaching up into the Necessary Whole and, unable to amalgamate with Him, grabbing what fragments they can of the Undeniable Shadow cast by His Undeniable Light and launching out into inevitable frustration with it. Man has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary color in the spectrum.

“.........if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm........” (W.L. Craig)

“..........The fact that four people could not agree on the objective truth related to the suspect in this case did not refute the objective nature of the suspect, and their disagreement was not evidence against his existence. All were certain a suspect existed, and all would readily admit his existence was not a matter of personal opinion. In spite of this, none of them could agree entirely on his description (his nature)……” (J. Warner Wallace)

“The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary color in the spectrum…” (C.S. Lewis)

The comments to this entry are closed.