Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Xonas Pitfall]

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Anton Rogachevski What's the problem with bombing 50,000 kids?

Hmm… this sounds like a ‘should/ought to do.’

[Xonas Pitfall]

I think what bothers me is that a lot of talk about truth and goodness sounds clear until you actually try to use it in real life. Saying Truth means no double standards, treating others how you want to be treated, loving your neighbor, etc... all that sounds good and is True, but it doesn’t really answer much questions in the relative. It doesn’t tell you whether human life should matter more than animal life, or how to think about plants, or more unconscious humans, or differences in awareness and identity. You realize you still need some "biased/imperfect" pragmatism to weigh things.

It also feels shallow when moral discussion turns into just pointing out hypocrisy or corruption without dealing with the complexity. That kind of backseat moralizing is easy because it doesn’t require taking responsibility for decisions. It just keeps exposing contradictions in others or yourself without actually offering a serious framework for what should be done when values conflict.

Let’s say you are a high alien race and you realize how fundamentally limited humans are, and you think the only way to expand and propel the universe in a better direction is to kill off the species. How do you reconcile that with truth or goodness? Do you just say higher consciousness has priority over lower consciousness, and if so, who decides that and why should that be accepted? If you imagine yourself as a living being among humans, you would not want to be dead, but at the same time, if you stay aligned with your idea of progress with truth, you might justify it.

Let’s say you see a bunch of rednecks hating on postmodern movements, and in response you create a Jaguar ad to show support and be more open-minded and nonjudgmental. Even if the ad is seen as ugly or not fitting the target audience, you might still defend it by saying you were trying to stay aligned with truth.

In medicine, people have to decide who gets limited treatment. In politics, people argue about fairness versus stability. In culture, people argue about openness versus tradition. Even everyday things like animal ethics or environmental choices force tradeoffs between values.

You need actual priorities and some acceptance that choices will never feel perfectly clean. And as soon as you enter the land of priorities, you enter the land of biases. Who gets to decide those biases? How do we know which bias is good and which bias is bad? You instantly run into the need for some kind of collective moralism, or shared “oughts” and “shoulds,” because otherwise there is no clear way to act.

The spirituality of “Truth” works in the abstract as an ideal, a pointer, or a kind of aid, but in the relative world it gets much messier. Just repeating truth, truth, truth starts to feel a bit backseat-gaming-ish to me, because situations force you to choose between competing values rather than just name them.

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

They can't just forget their identity and pretend they are not jewish.

Yes they can.

Being Jewish is some bullshit humans made up.

Edited 16 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

I think I found a way to take the argument out of morality in the following way.  Not saying I agree with this, but I thought about it and am trying to steelman it.

Truth is Reality itself

Reality = God / Absolute

Misalignment = self-deception

Self-deception = suffering / corruption

So alignment with Truth isn’t “moral”, it’s structural.  It's more like metaphysical hygiene.

[Anton Rogachevski]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes they can.

Being Jewish is some bullshit humans made up.

That is incorrect. "Humans" can't make it up, God can, and he did, it was necessary for him to learn all the good and bad lessons the hard way, they way evolution works. God isn't absolved from the evolutionary process, rather it is the evolutionary process. 

You are trying to judge the flower to grow faster, but nature doesn't work the way you want it to.

Edited 15 hours ago by Anton Rogachevski

[Joseph Maynor]

Some people will take the there is no morality thing as an excuse to not temper their morality.  If there is no good or bad, then anything goes and  therefore I have a pass to basically act without questioning the conduct or feeling blame or shame.  When the ego gets a hold of there is no morality, it can become problematic with certain individuals.  It can set up a stance that there is only morality if I feel like it situationally.  

[gettoefl]

5 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

That is incorrect. "Humans" can't make it up, God can, and he did, it was necessary for him to learn all the good and bad lessons the hard way, they way evolution works. God isn't absolved from the evolutionary process, rather it is the evolutionary process. 

You are trying to judge the flower to grow faster, but nature doesn't work the way you want it to.

God is immune to evolution. Only I change. To block out God every moment. God is happy to wait. In fact, its role is just chilling. It is not aware I am even gone. I just tell myself I am gone to prove change exists. Luckily God gave me a tool to stop bs'ing. It is called forgiveness. Forgive this silly dream and be back to chill with the blissful changeless.

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes they can.

Being Jewish is some bullshit humans made up.

The issue with these arguments is that, for example, an LGBTQ nonbinary or whomever else person might also say to you, “Why can’t you just forget being a man? Why can’t you just forget being a woman? Truthfully, we aren’t really just human or gendered either; we are made of nerve impulses, chemicals, and social and biological identities! You feel certain impulses based on your genitalia and on social cues that were implanted in you since infancy. Why is there such a fuss over all of this? We are all creatures of light and consciousness anyway. That way, we wouldn’t conflict with anyone on this issue! ”

People have strong biases toward identities they feel close to. It is difficult to pragmatically resolve these conflicts; that’s why saying “Truth will resolve everything” feels a bit too shallow in the relative sense, IMO.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Why can’t you just forget being a man?

That's exactly what I'm working on.

[gettoefl]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

The issue with these arguments is that, for example, an LGBTQ nonbinary or whomever else person might also say to you, “Why can’t you just forget being a man? Why can’t you just forget being a woman? Truthfully, we aren’t really just human or gendered either; we are made of nerve impulses, chemicals, and social and biological identities! You feel certain impulses based on your genitalia and on social cues that were implanted in you since infancy. Why is there such a fuss over all of this? We are all creatures of light and consciousness anyway. That way, we wouldn’t conflict with anyone on this issue! ”

People have strong biases toward identities they feel close to. It is difficult to pragmatically resolve these conflicts; that’s why saying “Truth will resolve everything” feels a bit too shallow in the relative sense, IMO.

Do want you want in the relative world. Be who you are in the absolute. The two do not conflict or interfere. 

[UnbornTao]

Forgetting?

[gettoefl]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

Forgetting?

There are two forgettings. If you forgive you eventually forget. If you forget and didn't forgive, karma coming after ya.

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, gettoefl said:

There are two forgettings. If you forgive you eventually forget. If you forget and didn't forgive, karma coming after ya.

Got it, thank you. 

[Xonas Pitfall]

6 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

Do want you want in the relative world. Be who you are in the absolute. The two do not conflict or interfere. 

I agree, but my exact point is that saying “just be who you are” in relative terms causes many conflicts and wars. That is why you need to deal with these issues through relative pragmatism and moral reasoning. You cannot resolve them with abstract notions of truth alone. You can use truth as an ideal or a guiding pointer, but everything else often turns into backseat moralizing and criticism.

“Do what you want in the relative world” is what exactly brings conflict between people, because I have my way of wanting to be and they have theirs. Saying “forget your identity” or “forget your attachments” may sound appealing, but who gets to decide that your identity is not important enough to justify conflict? How do you resolve that in practice? I hope I am making my point clear. Saying “it is just due to a lack of care for truth” is absolutely true, but too reductionistic on a practical level.

Edited 15 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[gettoefl]

2 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Got it, thank you. 

💞

[Dan502]

"Can" and "Can't" are to some extent just words that people use to describe their expectations about the future.

 

[gettoefl]

3 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I agree, but my exact point is that saying “just be who you are” in relative terms causes many conflicts and wars. That is why you need to deal with these issues through relative pragmatism and moral reasoning. You cannot resolve them with abstract notions of truth alone. You can use truth as an ideal or a guiding pointer, but everything else often turns into backseat moralizing and criticism.

So be a chameleon in the relative world. I only support Arsenal since they are going to win the league. Next season I'll will be back with City.

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, gettoefl said:

So be a chameleon in the relative world. I only support Arsenal since they are going to win the league. Next season I'll will be back with City.

Yes, but these are easier things to “play around with, be a chameleon.” What happens when a country is trying to suppress and change the language you use, the culture you feel comfortable with, and how you survive? Again, I agree that ideally we could be playful, but this also completely denies reality.

[gettoefl]

1 minute ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Yes, but these are easier things to “play around with, be a chameleon.” What happens when a country is trying to suppress and change the language you use, the culture you feel comfortable with, and how you survive? Again, I agree that ideally we could be playful, but this also completely denies reality.

My identity is immutable. How I roll day to day is up to me. I can choose ways that make life easy or ways that bring suffering. Nothing is fixed in the relative. It's all good.

[zurew]

21 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Some people will take the there is no morality thing as an excuse to not temper their morality.  If there is no good or bad, then anything goes and  therefore I have a pass to basically act without questioning the conduct or feeling blame or shame.  When the ego gets a hold of there is no morality, it can become problematic with certain individuals.  It can set up a stance that there is only morality if I feel like it situationally. 

I dont think the majority of people have a psychology that would allow them to actually do whatever without any psychological pushback.

But regardless how many people have that kind of psychology , one thing is for sure -  you wont persuade psychopaths to not do bad things by talking about moral realism.

They wouldnt care at all .