MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You are welcome to falsify (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Morality = Reciprocity
MORALITY = RECIPROCITY You don’t understand. it’s empirical. scientific. It doesn’t matter what you i or anyone else opines. You are welcome to falsify (a) goods and bads refer to caloric income or loss, existential or projected (b) morality refers to reciprocity. (c) it’s a necessity of the physical universe. (d) the human biological reward system reacts like all others to gains(reduction of costs) and losses (costs). (e) Complete Reciprocity requires: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. However we maintain fairly accurate assessments of one another’s cost benefit to us. (f) philosophical sophistry leads to undecidability on this subject is due largely to attempts to produce a via-positiva definition of morality – which is only possible for norms – instead of a via negativa definition: we can only know what is universally immoral (negative), what is moral(positive) is whatever is not immoral (negative). This is true for all knowledge, and why science defeated philosophy even in ethics and morality: because we can only know what is false, and trivially true, but anything that is not false and substantive is open to continuous revision. (g) given the cost of calculation (reason), and given the cost of collecting information (evidence), the human mind wants to reduce costs by reliance on imitation and intuition (repetition of imitation). And therefore we want via-positiva means of determining good choices. So the market demand for via positiva morality exists, but the supply of imitative moral rules is produced by via negativa: what is not immoral. (h) it is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral(reciprocal). We conflate. It’s natural. But a question is only moral if it relates to others. It is only preferential if you prefer it, it is only good if others prefer it. For a moral condition to exist requires influence upon others by externality. All those statements are falsifiable, You will not be able to falsify them. FWIW I’m probably the best person working today on this subject so you might want to try to learn something by questioning your premises.
-
“Curt, Please Define Mindfulness?”
“Curt, Please Define Mindfulness?” https://t.co/450C0T6U3G
-
“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (recipr
–“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle
-
“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (recipr
–“It is common for people to confuse the good (productive) with the moral (reciprocal).”– Curt Doolittle
-
“Curt, Please Define Mindfulness?”
“CURT, PLEASE DEFINE MINDFULNESS?”
—“What do you mean when you use the word “mindfulness”?”— Andrew Cordeaux @AndrewCordeaux
1) I mean the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal. 2) But with preference for the stoic method (self authoring, virtues of action), the epicurean objective (within one’s control), testimonial (scientific) knowledge, the play (ritual), and team sport, festival, and feast (celebration). 3) The buddhist method, originally practical and insular evolved into semi-mystical, and survived the attack by monotheistic abrahamism, where the western schools that were practical and action oriented, were destroyed by design by the Abrahamic conquest and dark age. 4) East asian ritual, and Hindu ‘way of life’ survived as well. Each of these methods of physical, mental and emotional discipline reflects local demand given local degree of agency during the period of transformation. (although buddhism was imposed on japan unfortunately). 5) So I use ‘mindfulness’ in the sense that all groups sought to meet demands for some technique of achieving mindfulness of their eras by slightly different means. Since buddhism developed the most direct analysis of the objective, the terminology evolved into a universal. 6) But as in all things, the stoic method, epicurean objective, and scientific(empirical) paradigm, and pursuit of agency(dominance) rather than withdrawal (submission), reflect the european rather than african, semitic, hindu, east asian metaphysics: realism, naturalism, agency.
-
“Curt, Please Define Mindfulness?”
“CURT, PLEASE DEFINE MINDFULNESS?”
—“What do you mean when you use the word “mindfulness”?”— Andrew Cordeaux @AndrewCordeaux
1) I mean the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal. 2) But with preference for the stoic method (self authoring, virtues of action), the epicurean objective (within one’s control), testimonial (scientific) knowledge, the play (ritual), and team sport, festival, and feast (celebration). 3) The buddhist method, originally practical and insular evolved into semi-mystical, and survived the attack by monotheistic abrahamism, where the western schools that were practical and action oriented, were destroyed by design by the Abrahamic conquest and dark age. 4) East asian ritual, and Hindu ‘way of life’ survived as well. Each of these methods of physical, mental and emotional discipline reflects local demand given local degree of agency during the period of transformation. (although buddhism was imposed on japan unfortunately). 5) So I use ‘mindfulness’ in the sense that all groups sought to meet demands for some technique of achieving mindfulness of their eras by slightly different means. Since buddhism developed the most direct analysis of the objective, the terminology evolved into a universal. 6) But as in all things, the stoic method, epicurean objective, and scientific(empirical) paradigm, and pursuit of agency(dominance) rather than withdrawal (submission), reflect the european rather than african, semitic, hindu, east asian metaphysics: realism, naturalism, agency.
-
Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity
Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity https://t.co/e0A353eyrx
-
Can You Relate In-Group vs Out-Group to Morality = Reciprocity
—“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont
Morality = Rules of cooperation INGROUP VS OUTGROUP 1. Ingroup, 2. outgroup … a. outgroup trade, … b. outgroup boycott, … c. outgroup competitor, … d. outgroup parasite … e. outgroup predator Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral) Ingroup always requires reciprocity. Ingroup oten requires investment (risk) Ingroup often requires insurance Ingroup may require subsidy. Outgroup by definition only requires utility. Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity Outgroup does not require investment (risk) Outgroup does not demand insurance Outgroup does not require subsidy. Outgroup non-cooperation is dis-utilitarian Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy Outgroup enemy is harmful Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale. Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason). But spectra require disambiguation and thought. There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra).