smittyoneeach's Journal: Merely to irritate fustakrakich

I bought a copy of Thomas Nagel's "Mind & Cosmos". Actually, I was motivated by Paul Rahe over at Ricochet. Interesting read from the outset.
Toss-offs like this worry me, though:

The value of our existence is ours to behold, or deny. In the grand scheme it doesn't matter one way or the other.

And not just because of the tendency toward solipsism. The desire to off-load all possibility of external judgement is both common to the human experience, and a source of Caligulas on those unhappy occasions when the anarcho-hedonist in question has access to power. I reply with a 'No'.

You can't separate mind from brain

[fustakrakich]

And your rather humorous attempts to do so are getting nowhere. You have yet to break the circle and are merely repeating yourself, desperately seeking confirmation for your cultural (conditioned) bias. In the meantime, every discovery we make brings man and nature closer together. Exactly the opposite of what you would have us believe. Your teleological wall is crumbling fast.

A much better counterpoint [thenation.com] to this particular treatise. A couple of the one star reviews were also noteworthy. You probably should h

Re:

[pudge]

You can't separate mind from brain

Prove it.

You ... are merely repeating yourself, desperately seeking confirmation for your cultural (conditioned) bias.

Pot, kettle.

In the meantime, every discovery we make brings man and nature closer together.

Shrug. Never has any discovery brought us further away from dualism, not in the least bit.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I find your need to respond very complimentary

I've no real need to respond to you, but I'm interested in Nagel's work. Some of his other titles are of interest.
While exceedingly comfortable with my own worldview, it's refreshing to read others who don't agree, and see how they try to make sense of the human condition. Actually, it's a hoot.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I'm sure he will rub most of your cultural biases the right way. After all, it appears he writes what he believes, not really anything demonstrable, just something to chase away the monster under the bed... You let me know if he says anything different, okay?

BTW:
anarcho-hedonist.. Now that sounds like a noble aspiration! With all that sex, who would have time for war?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

With all that sex, who would have time for war?

For efficiencies sake, anarcho-hedonists will combine sex with war. Translating the receiving end of endless sexual assault into pleasure is left as an exercise for the victim.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Assault is what you have today, as practiced by the self righteous. My world is a bit more respectful, accomplished through guidance and self discipline, as opposed to punitive and arbitrary reward and punishment meted out by man in the name of his angry, jealous (and of course, false) god.

Re:

[Zontar The Mindless]

JHVH may or may not exist.

Whether He exists is unimportant.

If in fact He exists, He thereby binds Himself to the Wheel of Samsara, just like every other being does.

*This* is what's important.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I'm not sure that our minds, bound within the scope of time, preclude some sort of "existence" outside that scope.
YMMV, JHVH, YHBT

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Speculating on the unknown is not a problem. The 'red line' is when deification and worse, legislation is involved. Religion is a personal experience, and should remain that way.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Tell that to these Progressives, intent on pushing what appears to be a Rousseau-eqsue faith on everyone, whether they view paying taxes as a form of State-worship or not.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

State worship and business worship are indistinguishable. Everybody wants a piece of the pie. You even said it, to paraphrase: Everybody wants a piece of Caesar. It is self interest at play, not driven by any kind of 'morality'. That includes the angle you put forth. Who's that guy who said, Dictatorships aren't so bad, as long as I'm dictator.? I think you've heard of him.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

State worship and business worship are indistinguishable.

After the State plays the "Get in ma belly" card and devours the economy, and equality of opportunity decays into equality of condition, I fear you've a point.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The state has all but officially been privatized. It must answer to business, or it will be destroyed by same. I don't know why you expect anything else from an institution born of aristocratic corruption.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The state has all but officially been privatized. It must answer to business, or it will be destroyed by same. I don't know why you expect anything else from an institution born of aristocratic corruption.

Do you mean owned by the Federal Reserve cartel?

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The banking, communications, energy, transportation, drug, etc. cartels extend far beyond the Federal Reserve. It is these cartels that allow a government (not just ours) to exist, and only as long as it complies with their demands.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You seem to be headed into Alex Jones territory here.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Don't know the man. I'm just pointing out that this is normal animal behavior. A stage we are going through.

Personally, I don't differentiate (man's)authority by its source. It's all corrupt, due to our nature. It simply cannot be any other way. To say otherwise is like saying a scorpion won't sting you if you get too close. You know that parable. It's what we do. Follow the chain and you will find that we are a mere extension of the laws of physics (which most of your institutional religions are guilty of

Re:

[Zontar The Mindless]

A friendly warning:

It happens every so often on Terra that one of the local autochthones figures out that, yes indeed, he's really just a domesticated primate.

Then he makes the mistake of sharing this insight with the other domesticated primates.

The reaction of the others to this news normally expresses itself, very predictably, in either of two ways:

1. They kill him.

2. They turn him into a god.

3. Sometimes, they do both.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

normal animal behavior. A stage we are going through.

(a) Humans have some amount of tension between intellect and the wetware on which it runs. But I first and foremost support liberty and free moral agency. Thus, I take a leery view of statements like "It's all corrupt, due to our nature." Tillich's formulation: "Mankind is existentially estranged from the essential goodness of creation in God's image" strikes the optimal balance, in my view.
(b) We aren't going through any 'stage'. You're enmeshed in you

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I think your existential model is oversimplified.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

So far the wetware always wins. It drives the 'intellect', yours and mine alike. You cannot separate us. Like it or not, we are together on this. Your cultural conditioning is a perfect illustration of wetware at work. It is instinctive of all social groups, man and animal alike. It is not intellectual by any means, aside from the rationalization/justification of animal behavior. Your intellect remains subservient to biology. It is a facade. A moral person will detach (heh, secede) himself from the group wh

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The problem I have with your entire line of argument is that you arrive at "might makes right". You unwind the Enlightenment. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains (Rousseau)" in particular, where your ilk has been heeded. Thanks for nihilism.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The problem I have with your entire line of argument is that you arrive at "might makes right".

I've made no bones about that. It is still SOP amongst all things. And man's authority over man is proof of that. The biggest gun wins.

Thanks for nihilism.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why all the negativism? If I can be respectful for the rights of other people for no reason, so can you.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

If I can be respectful for the rights of other people for no reason, so can you.

If I can be respectful of gun laws, so can all of the gangsters. No, wait: that's empirically stupid.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You're right. it makes no sense. Trying rephrasing.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I laugh at the notion that we pass a law, e.g. the Violins Against Women Act, with any empirical improvement from it.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

?? Sorry man, you're losing me here. Let me try to understand here...

I laugh at the notion that we pass a law, e.g. prohibition, or DOMA, or "authorization for use of military force", with any empirical improvement from it.

Is that correct?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're getting there. The child-like faith in legislation as a source of order is the butt of the joke here.