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

January 17, 2014

Comments

I get Self Love and Loving Others.

We should.

I know why on Christ's terms.

But you haven't told me why I should on your terms, other than that we should. Then you said organisms that want to, should do.

Can you explain?


I should love.

Why?

I quoted your sentence.

Perhaps you can explain the organism who wants to, should do, and so on. It's your statement, and it seems I've read you correctly. Perhaps you can explain?


I would find that helpful at this point.

You quoted my sentence which used words that you introduced in your effort to force my theory to fit your false presupposition of "is/ought" based on the fallacious concept of moral duty.

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. If do not want to starve, you "should" eat. If you want to do what is right then you "should" do what is right. I get the impression you think that "should" has some other meaning. Maybe you "should" explain what you think it means if you want this discussion to progress.

Okay, that sounds about right.

If you want to, you should do.

The "goal of the organism", as you noted.

My Happiness.

Well, we were here at this end of regress about 30 posts ago, RM. No need for the circle.

I get Self Love and Loving Others. We should. I know why on Christ's terms. But you haven't told me why I should on your terms, other than that we should. Then you said organisms that want to, should do. Can you explain?

Yes, I would be happy to explain it again. Self love is not something that a person "should" do in a moral sense. It is what any rational, healthy, and whole person does do. The question of morality relates to how self relates to others, and that is given in the Golden Rule.

But why should a person be fair, you ask? Because fair is an essential aspect of what it means to be moral, and moral defines what a person "should" do. It's really not that complicated.

Now you say that you "know why on Christ's terms". Oh really? Please explain that to me. How does "Christ's terms" explain anything? I really would like to know.

Thanks!


Actually, RM, I'm satisfied that we've finally agreed that the goal of the Self is the source of supposed-to in your theory. My goal, my supposed-to. And so on. You can now proceed to build your towers as high as you'd like. At least we know the "real" foundation.

I should love.

Why?


This appears to be the root of your confusion. Love is not something that you "should" do in the sense of fulfilling a moral duty or command. In your scenario, it is the "moral duty" that supplies the motive force that is supposed to cause you to act as if you "loved" when in fact you may be hating the person. That's the confusion wrought by Christianity. My theory replaces moral duty with love itself. Love is the motivation to love others. Love is an end in itself. Moral "duty" is not an end in itself. It is not based in fundamental ontology of being. Love is the root of all. SELF LOVE is the motive power of all morality. It is ludicrous to ask "why should I love myself." That is the the first axiom of my theory - self loves self. You would have known this if you have read my article. But that's ok - i don't mind repeating myself.

My moral theory is a scientific theory based on the scientific definition of objectivity. It is an axiomatic theory based on two fundamental axioms and two primitive concepts. This follows the pattern of scientific theories such as Newtonian mechanics, quantum physics, and relativity. You really should read my article if you want to refute it. As it is, you are just shooting in the dark

Well, we were here at this end of regress about 30 posts ago, RM. No need for the circle.
Yes, you returned to where you began - in utter ignorance of the most basic elements of the normative moral theory that I have presented.

I granted you earlier (perhaps you missed it?), BTW, that you really mean something like:

[Want] = [Tend To Do] and would not use "should" in the way we use "ought".

This is, it seems to me, a pure descriptive being presented as the final Prescriptive.

What is, is, and what is, should be..... and so on...

My goals (the organism's goals). My rules (the organism's rules).

I'm satisfied with that.

Normative?

So, do I read you right: you are now leaving the organism's goals and regressing instead to Cultural Norms?

Do I read you right?

Perhaps you'd like to regress instead to genomic music the tune of which we dance to? That's about as blind-axiomatic as we can get and still stay within all known physical systems. Or, perhaps we break free of such systems and then find ourselves again in Organisms-Goals, or, Cultural Norms.

Normative? So, do I read you right: you are now leaving the organism's goals and regressing instead to Cultural Norms?

Do I read you right?


No, you read it exactly backwards, and in doing so you revealed your fundamental ignorance of the most basic definitions used in moral philosophy. Descriptive morality is defined by cultural norms and is contrasted with normative morality which is based on universal rational principles. Here are the definitions given in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either

1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a) some other group, such as a religion, or b)accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

This appears to be why you are so confused. You don't understand the most basic terms used in moral philosophy.

So every human is aiming at the same goal?

This is interesting.

I guess now you'll leave the organism's goals, leave Cultural Norms, and appeal now to Frequency / Hertz.

Okay.

So we'll say the most frequent appetite is the Prescriber and all the other appetites are non is-s.

Do I read your right?

Evolution has not valued, and currently nurturing, all the itches housed within rape, and thus the mechanism of rape is you know-not-what, and, also, evolution has valued, and is currently nurturing, B and C and D.

But we'll pick, arbitrarily, D as the foundation for our theory, even though all humans also want/do B and C.

Is that about it?


So every human is aiming at the same goal?

I'd be happy to pursue more of your rabbit trails after you write something that indicates you understand the meaning of a normative moral theory (which is what I am proposing).

It is Hertz then?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Animals and People are kind and also kill.

Is it the Hertz of such wants/supposed-to's that defines right?

RM you are again describing what is, and then saying that is your source of supposed-to.

Is that about it?
If you are not interested in rational discourse, why are you commenting?

RM,

You are again describing what is, and telling me that that is your source of supposed-to.

You seem to want to tweek it by claiming the most frequent (highest Hz) appetite is the bedrock of morality.

That is fine, but that is what I hear you saying.

Am I mistaken?

Evolution and Genome is a good regress, I'm just curious if that is where you are now shifting towards?

"Value" is a rather funny thing in evolution's history, past and present, when it comes to those drives and itches powering biological machines pan-world


It seems you mean to find the most frequent, highest Hz appetite and base all of morality on whatever that may turn out to be, and, to change that base when it, over time, shifts.

Do I read you correctly?

It seems to me that outside of Immutable Love, your attempt at offering Mankind a fixed bedrock of morality until the sun explodes is unreasonable.

I grant you No-God.

But I cannot grant you anything better than shifting sand unless you give me some proof of such a thing.

And it seems you are wanting to offer something better than shifting sand?

RM,

You are again describing what is, and telling me that that is your source of supposed-to. You seem to want to tweek it by claiming the most frequent (highest Hz) appetite is the bedrock of morality. That is fine, but that is what I hear you saying.

Am I mistaken?


In the words of Wolfgan Pauli, "you are not even wrong." (Which means you are so far off track that your comments are not even worth correcting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Okay,

Perhaps you can clarify your appeal to evolution?

You're not giving me much to work with here, RM.

It seems you mean to find the most frequent, highest Hz appetite and base all of morality on whatever that may turn out to be, and, to change that base when it, over time, shifts.

Do I read you correctly?


What are you babbling about? I have not written a word about any "frequencies". I have explained the two fundamental axioms and two primitive concepts that are the foundation of my theory. You have shown no understanding of any kind. You didn't even know the freaking definition of a normative moral theory! And yet you continue spewing your random confusion? Whatever. It's late. Good night. I'll check tomorrow to see if there are any relevant comments in this thread.

It's not that I mind this new regress even further back into the machine, but, as it's a new one, I don't really know what you are getting at.

Can you explain?

Supposed-To?

Organism's goal / want / is then our should-to or our "does".

That is clear enough.

I'm not sure how evolution changes that, I mean, we've evolved to where we are now, and so that "where we are now" is the "right for right now" and so on.

Self's goals.

Organism's goals.

Cultural Norms.

Evolved appetites.


Is one of these your end of moral regress?

If so we can call it quits as I'd be satisfied with any of them.

Should I add a non-biological axiomatic "Love" as the end of your regress?

It's not that I mind this new regress even further back into the machine, but, as it's a new one, I don't really know what you are getting at. Can you explain?
Your tactics are intellectually and morally perverse. You have been inventing "moral regresses" of your own that have nothing to do with anything I have written, and then you falsely assert that I am constantly changing my regress when in fact I have not changed anything at all. I have consistently grounded morality in self love and the principle of moral symmetry (Golden Rule).

Perhaps tomorrow RM you can tell us why we should love.

You said that if an organism has a goal of loving then it "should do" loving (not "ought" but rather "tends to").

This is a descriptive presented as the prescriptive.

You say your theory is better than that, and seemed to hint at evolution as an aid for your case.

But all in all you've not shown us anything but descriptives.

And that is dangerous, RM, because there are all sorts of terrible things in the real world to describe.

We can't ignore large chunks of reality just for the convenience of our theory.

Self Love?

Love Other?

I got that.

But why?

Because organisms which want to love tend to love?

You seem to be saying that if I want to love, I'll tend to love (your supposed to) and, if I don't want to love, but instead want to be King, then, I'll "tend to" force my way into the throne, or, in your theory's terms, I am morally supposed to be King.

Your theory does not seem to differentiate. I'm not sure it can. Though I am sure you can, and will.

But your preference seems to have no weight in your theory's conclusion.

If an organism wants to be King, it seems, in the language and semantics of your theory, then it just is the case that that organism is -- morally speaking -- supposed to be King.

I see no real ability here in the semantics of your theory to differentiate between loving my neighbor and conquering him.

Now, if and when your theory comes up against the real world, with these real powering-fuels within the Self, is it at this point which you resort to blind axiom to assert "pick love, not domination" and is it the case that you want us to believe that this blind axiom is biologically based, in real things within real organisms, and just inexplicably takes all the domination "stuff" and just sweeps it under the rug, leaving the love "stuff" there on top without equally qualified, equally present, fuels?


scbrownlhrm wrote

Now, if and when your theory comes up against the real world, with these real powering-fuels within the Self, is it at this point which you resort to blind axiom to assert "pick love, not domination" and is it the case that you want us to believe that this blind axiom is biologically based, in real things within real organisms, and just inexplicably takes all the domination "stuff" and just sweeps it under the rug, leaving the love "stuff" there on top without equally qualified, equally present, fuels?

Your comments indicate a total, absolute, willful, blind ignorance of the purpose of a normative theory of morality. The purpose of such a theory is to explain moral facts in terms of a small set of axiomatic principles and primitive concepts. I do not "resort" to "blind axiom" when examining real world cases. Your comments are utterly incoherent, ignorant, and absurd. They have nothing to do with my theory at all.

scbrownlhrm wrote

Perhaps tomorrow RM you can tell us why we should love.

I answered this question and you ignored my answer, and now you ask the same question again. I thought you were just idiotically dense, but now I am beginning to think that there is a method to your madness, that this is your strategy designed to confuse. You pretend to be confused about the meaning of my theory to create the false impression that it is my theory that is confused. Your tactics are intellectually and morally perverse. It is not surprising to find them used so freely here on a Christian forum.

Here again is the answer I already gave. I present it for the benefit of others since you have demonstrated you have no interest in rational discourse and that you despise the truth.

This appears to be the root of your confusion. Love is not something that you "should" do in the sense of fulfilling a moral duty or command. In your scenario, it is the "moral duty" that supplies the motive force that is supposed to cause you to act as if you "loved" when in fact you may be hating the person. That's the confusion wrought by Christianity. My theory replaces moral duty with love itself. Love is the motivation to love others. Love is an end in itself. Moral "duty" is not an end in itself. It is not based in fundamental ontology of being. Love is the root of all. SELF LOVE is the motive power of all morality. It is ludicrous to ask "why should I love myself." That is the the first axiom of my theory - self loves self. You would have known this if you have read my article. But that's ok - i don't mind repeating myself.

My moral theory is a scientific theory based on the scientific definition of objectivity. It is an axiomatic theory based on two fundamental axioms and two primitive concepts. This follows the pattern of scientific theories such as Newtonian mechanics, quantum physics, and relativity. You really should read my article if you want to refute it. As it is, you are just shooting in the dark

But I still don't see how to differentiate between "should" dominate vs "should" love.

They seem equally weighted.

I find a bit of happiness in both.

Is it just "more" happiness = should?


RM,

Your theory focuses on one part of reality: the genomic itch toward nurture. You ignore the itch towards selfishness and fail to provide a prescriptive as to why we should favor one or the other. You merely describe organism's goals and seem to leave it there. That is fine, but this is not a theory which provides even a start at accounting for reality as we find it.

I appreciate your desire to only focus on the "love stuff", but there is far more in our reality in play, fueling the Self.

If you cannot provide a mechanistic construct to choose between the goal of domination and the goal of love, then I fail to see how your descriptive theory is helpful in understanding reality in any way at all.

It seems atheism's regress ends in one of, or all of, the following:

A Self's own goals.
An Organism's own goals.
Cultural Norms / Beliefs.
Evolved appetites.

I'm not sure there is any other location for the end of a moral regress housed within atheism.

Whereas, we find within that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us Who is Himself our Timeless E Pluribus Unum, our Immutable Love, the necessary embrace of Love, of Person, and of Unity as the end of all regresses, that necessary Grain which, should one run one's hand against it, one can find only splinters and fragmentations.

scbrownlhrm wrote:

If you cannot provide a mechanistic construct to choose between the goal of domination and the goal of love, then I fail to see how your descriptive theory is helpful in understanding reality in any way at all.

My there is NORMATIVE, not "descriptive". I already explained this to you. There is no excuse for your continued error. Here is what you wrote yesterday:

Normative? So, do I read you right: you are now leaving the organism's goals and regressing instead to Cultural Norms?

Do I read you right?

And here is how I responded:

No, you read it exactly backwards, and in doing so you revealed your fundamental ignorance of the most basic definitions used in moral philosophy. Descriptive morality is defined by cultural norms and is contrasted with normative morality which is based on universal rational principles. Here are the definitions given in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either

1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a) some other group, such as a religion, or b)accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.



This appears to be why you are so confused. You don't understand the most basic terms used in moral philosophy. And worse, you now have demonstrated that you are literally incorrigible because you refuse to learn even when the facts have been repeatedly explained to you.


RM,

Yes, Normative, as per your definition, houses this: "....given specified conditions...." Such as, say, the Culture which has developed to sacrifice children, there in those "specified conditions" all the reasonable people quite reasonably agree that such is the best course of action.

So, on your terms, child sacrifice (those specified conditions do/did exist) can be the morally right action, even, say, beautiful.

This is your definiton.

Not mine.

Or, do you mean here to put forth a different interpretation to "given specified conditions" ?

And, you still have not told us how your theory answers the question of "supposed-to" dominate vs. "supposed-to" love.

How, RM, do you answer that question? By Normative practices agreed upon by people living under a specific set of conditions?

scbrownlhrm wrote:

Yes, Normative, as per your definition, houses this: "....given specified conditions...." Such as, say, the Culture which has developed to sacrifice children, there in those "specified conditions" all the reasonable people quite reasonably agree that such is the best course of action.

Those are not "my" definitions. Those are the definitions given in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And your caricature of them reveals that you are utterly incapable of understanding basic English. You have read them to mean exactly the opposite of what the professional peer reviewed philosophers intend them to me. You are utterly irrational.

Perhaps you can explain how Normative values and specific sets of cultural conditions in which reasonable people agree on A or B or C is meant to be read, then, RM.

Can you explain it?

Or, perhaps, apply it to answer the question of how your own theory answers the question of "supposed-to" dominate vs. "supposed-to" love?


RM,

Based on your previous regress to an organism's goals being the source of "supposed-to", it seems to me (based on that regress) that if an organism wants to dominate, then, in the language and semantics of your theory, it just is the case that that organism is - morally speaking - "supposed-to" dominate, just as, if an organism wants to be loving, then, in your use of semantics, it just is the case that that organism is - morally speaking - "supposed-to" be loving.

Of course, Normative Values do weigh in there too, as they add shape to the organism's particular likelihood of valuing A vs. B, and so on, and so the two sort of merge.

Domination being quite rational and moral in many sets of specific conditions and agreed upon by its most reasonable members within that set, it seems that we just cannot say "supposed-to" in any universal way, whether such be love or domination, and so on.

Everyone has a different set of scales. You could, in principle, be me and therein, having been born into and having grown up in my set of specific conditions, you very well may have a set of scales which weighs Happiness based on A and not B (or B and not A), or, which weighs expansion of influence above happiness, or less than happiness, and so on.

Those scales seem to have all sorts of different types of weights, as there are all sorts of fuels powering the Self.

It seems all moral landscapes are ontologically equal, all equally grounded in the ontology of the Self.

The Normative Moral Theory presented in this thread by RM is quite robustly developed, even if wholly incoherent with love.

It tracks along the lines of a kind of ontological fact that within the ontological integrity which is the Self we find the Moral Landscape in all its varied ontological objectifications as the very definition of “value” is not the deterministic program which itches towards violence, nor the deterministic program which itches towards nurture, for should such objective facts be the source of beauty, of good, of the moral landscape then all itches would be praised by nature alone and no Self would be needed for any moral landscape. But that won’t do for “value” is that which the Self weighs, and, in weighing, preferring, and in preferring, delighting, and in delighting, acting, and in acting, actually touching the objective world with The-Self’s subjective force of will, and therein that which The-Self defines as good is objectified, and therein the Self is quite happy, full of integrity of Mind, Heart, and Action laid atop the stage that is its world.

Morality is thus in this view entirely naturalistic, and objective, like a pair of scales. The varied fuels which power the Self are real engines, doing real work, generating real push as the real Self finds real, objective, delight in those varied fuels each of which just are the best, grounded in the Self’s force of will, and, Normatively speaking, rational people in many and varied settings pan-world want now Fuel A, want now Fuel B, and so on, as each Self and Setting varies, because rational people want what is best, and the best just is now Fuel A, now Fuel B, and so on, as the ontological moral landscape is full of happy creatures happily dominating, happily nurturing, happily exercising might , happily employing compassion.

We find in these delights the Integrity of the Self, as valuing Self brings the Self to a state of being whole, undivided, perfect in composition, unity, wholeness, and completeness, as the Self is there ontologically firm, actual.

Morality in these varied Moral Landscapes is fundamentally ontological, as is the fuel which powers the Self towards Violence, as is the fuel which powers the Self towards Nurture, as is the fuel which powers the Self towards Might, towards Compassion. Indeed we find that Love of Self is the root of morality, and that love is modulated through the mathematical coordinates of this universe’s spherical coordinate system of three-dimensional space as the world we find at our fingertips is found to house Integrity in all its Moral Landscape as each dimension accurately houses those objectified values streaming from that core nadir of authentic human will which is the sole source of meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe, for all that lies external to The-Self is in fact Loveless. All appeals which The-Self levels are thus to The-Self as The-Self creates its own meaning, perhaps inexplicably free of genome, perhaps not, it matters not. By the Principle of Indifference each Self finds no justification at all to prefer the fuel which powers It-Self over any other fuel which powers any other Self, as all Moral Landscapes are equally grounded in the ontology of The-Self.

This is where the real, true definition of “Ought” comes from, per this Normative moral theory. In regress we find that “supposed-to” is, in moral semantics, simply that which the Self sets as its own goals. Should the Self want to be King, then, morally speaking, it is “supposed-to” dominate, and, should the Self want to be nurturing, then, morally speaking, it is “supposed-to” be nurturing. Yes, "ought" is the root of much confusion about morality. The typical "is/ought" question. We find that "ought" flows directly from the concept of value which is intrinsic to any conscious Self. The love of Self is the root of all morality. It is the only reason any Self can love anything. In this Normative Moral Theory, love of Self replaces the traditional concepts of "duty" or "moral obligation" or "the good" which are all divorced from the fundamental ontology of the Self. The integrity of Self is the root of everything and that is why all flavors of “supposed-to” stem entirely from the Self in the moral semantics of this theory.

The consciousness of value itself originates in the ontology of “being a self." Nothing could matter to “the Self" if there were no "Self" for it to matter to. And if nothing matters “to” the Self then that Self cannot value anything because it makes no sense to say the Self values something that does not "matter to that Self". Even if the Self were to sacrifice another Self for its own Self, it could be for no other reason but that the Self matters to itself because that Self loves itself. But note: though the Self’s root sense of value necessarily originates in its own self-being, it does not mean that it, Self-A, could not choose to sacrifice another Self, Self-B, if Self-A sees greater value in its own self. The principle of Indifference will help us see this more clearly a few paragraphs from now. The idea of Integrity is here the foundation of this moral theory. It is the highest value that unites all values in itself and by itself, because it is the essence of what it means to "be".

Dis-Integrity is found quite rationally and scientifically then as we look at Self-determination’s disintegration. In Integrity we find Self-Determination as we find those objectified values streaming from that core nadir of authentic human will which is the sole source of meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe, for all that lies external to The-Self is in fact Loveless. Integrity finds that all appeals which The-Self levels are thus to The-Self as The-Self creates its own meaning, and compromised integrity literally entails a disintegration of the Self, whether physically, mentally, or morally. That's why a lack of moral fuel powering the Self is called "corruption" which comes from the root meaning "to break". It refers to the destruction of the integrity of a Self. When physical fuels end, or, when mental fuels end, or, when moral fuels end, the Self ceases to be complete. Strong Body, Strong Mind, and Strong Fuels powering the Strong Self is the Whole, the End, the Ceiling.

The principle of Indifference is a mathematical concept that basically says that we should treat things with no relevant differences as identical. This is applied in mathematics to justify the calculation of probabilities. We apply this principle to all Selves. We know that Self-A could just as well have been born in Self-B’s condition, or B’s in A’s condition. There is no logical reason to think that there is any relevant difference between any Self in as much as they are each a real Self. Thus, the principle of Indifference, coupled with the Self’s valuing of its own Self, leads to all Moral Landscapes possessing equal ontological value. Self A could, in principle, be Self B, and if that were the case then, each Self’s Values being equal in Value, it would matter to Self-A what the person standing in Self B’s place would do to Self-A, and Self-A finds equal ontological footing to demand what it wills from Self-B, just as Self-B finds equal ontological footing in the reverse direction, for all Values of all Selves are ontologically equal, as the Self just is the source of all value. Thus the Ontological Equality of all that touches the Self follows from basic logic coupled with the idea that all value is rooted in the Self.

Thus this Normative Moral Theory employs the principles of Integrity, of Indifference, of Logic, of Mathematics, and of the Self’s love of its own Self and then couples all these principles leading to the coherent description of the world as we actually find it: all Moral Landscapes possessing equal ontological value as all appeals which The-Self levels are to The-Self as The-Self creates its own meaning, and no Self can find any justification at all to prefer the fuel which powers It-Self over any other fuel which powers any other Self, as all Moral Landscapes are equally grounded in the ontology of The-Self.

Fortunately, we discover a radically different Moral Landscape within the Ontology of Immutable Love. In Him we find that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us] Who is the Unchanging E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love, in Whom all regress ends. God is One. God is Triune. For, God is Love.

In all these vectors we find the world exactly as Scripture describes it. Void of Immutable Love there is only the isolation of the Self in Privation, void of Love's Immutable Other, and therein void of that joyful I-You wherein Man and Love Himself are found in the amalgamation that is E Pluribus Unum, and therein we find Man's Self desperately seeking, but never finding in his isolation, some, any, firm and unshifting formula of love. As we discover in all these theories of the Self in his Privation, there is no such formula outside of Immutable Love Himself. Though, within Him, there is nothing but the firm, fixed topography of that fully singular, that fully triune [Self-Other-Us] Who is the Unchanging E Pluribus Unum, Who is Immutable Love, in Whom all regress ends.

In regress we find that “supposed-to” is, in moral semantics, simply that which the Self sets as its own goals. Should the Self want to be King, then, morally speaking, it is “supposed-to” dominate, and, should the Self want to be nurturing, then, morally speaking, it is “supposed-to” be nurturing.
Your assertion is false. In as much as domination is unfair and unjust, it violates the axiom of Moral Symmetry and so is immoral according to my theory.

Axiom.

The comments to this entry are closed.