I thought for a while about how to lay this out, and it simply will never be perfect. Everything is too interconnected and I like to jump from idea to idea. I’m just going to try and discuss topics as they come to mind, which will hopefully correlate to importance! This is both meant simply to be illuminating, but debate is always more than welcome.
I guess one of the biggest things, and most unique to Setianism itself, is the argument for what Set represents in the first place. I have discussed this before, but it is certainly central to the ideology. It starts by recognizing that the Objective Universe we all share is machine-like in nature. It is essentially deterministic, it is predictable, it works kind of like a computer program. If I drop a ball right now, I know that it is going to fall to the ground. If I plug my laptop into the charger, I know that (assuming everything is working properly) it is going to charge my laptop. If I get ill and do not get it treated, it is going to run its course whether it lasts a day or kills me. If a mentally ill individuals does not or cannot properly manage their illness, or if they are not treated in any way, they are very likely to succumb to such an illness. Hopefully you get the idea. Second, the argument recognizes that a mind like that of a human’s, with things like high cognitive functioning and abstract reasoning abilities, can question, understand, manipulate, and even overcome this Objective Universe. As above medication is an example, which could not come about without an understanding of physics and chemistry, followed by the willful manipulation of that nature, and can negate something that would naturally occur like a depressed individual committing suicide or a sick individual dying from advanced cancer. Even things like self-talk, mindful meditation, willful placebos, visualization, and so on require this higher consciousness and its ability to inforce the individual will on the objective universe. These two things logically contradict. If X acts in one way, and Y is capable of acting against it, then X and Y must be separate things (law of identity), and it would be irrational to believe that X gave rise to Y, like an orange tree growing from an apple seed. Since we know, for a fact, that humans and other animals have this ability, we know that there is at least the natural order that controls the objective universe, and that which can go against it. Set is the most ancient (positive) symbol of the latter, the “non-natural” aspect of the cosmos.
Tied into this is the need to differentiate between the OU and the SU – the subjective universe. The mind shares very few of the limitations that the physical body does. You can close your eyes and float off into space, or walk amongst Lovecraftian temples from ancient civilizations. You can see with clarity the individual you wish to be. Dreams best exemplify this, with their nonsensical content grown from all sort of mostly unconscious information. Each individual has a SU, though many combine to become nearly identical. This ties back into the original argument, as there is something that can completely disregard the laws of the OU at will, at least within the SU. The individual can also force their SU onto the OU with varying degrees of success. You can not only visualize having a PhD before you get it, but you can then go on and get it in the OU. Similarly, cognitive coping skills like discussed above show the internal desire, such as to calm down one’s emotional response, can override the physical body’s reaction to whatever is freaking them out in the first place. This again shows a separation between the “natural” and “non-natural”.
I want to pause her to discuss the term “natural”. I am not a supernaturalist. Set is as “natural” as the chair you are sitting on now. What is meant by nature in Setian thought is the mechanical, material, deterministic, objective universe. It is natural to die. It is natural to have diarrhea after Taco Bell. It is natural to make rash decisions when in love or in pain. It is “unnatural” to extend the average human lifespan through the manipulation of nature as just defined. It is unnatural to step aside and question your decisions when in love, and takes a lot more training than most people realize. It’s much easier and more common for people to simply give into their desires, fears, sadness, love, etc. That is what naturally occurs in humans and other animals alike.
The issue of “other gods” does not exist for me, and I accept that other gods besides “my god” exist. This is very common in pretty much any position that is not monotheistic in nature. I simply see no reason to believe a god at face value, I do not believe in blind following or rash decisions after all. Just because a deity says it is the only one or is all loving and all powerful does not mean anything. I might as well say I am your king, with you immediately accepting this and bending to my will. It is important to look at followers of gods as well as the logic of supposed gods. I don’t doubt that the Christian god exists, but it certainly seems to be rather impotent and sadistic when you get down to the logic of it. On the topic, I do not believe in omni-gods. Obviously the mind can be overridden by the body, and as discussed above it also works the other way with the mind overriding the body. If so neither can be omnipotent. I guess you could argue for “all loving” gods, but there is something naïve and one sided about the idea of all-lovingness. It certainly doesn’t fit with the majority of gods (including Set) throughout history, and could one really respect something that loves no matter what? I’m sorry, but there are things that a healthy person should be disgusted by, such as the molestation of a child. There is not room in such a universe for omni-benevolence.
As a Setian I perhaps reject materialist/physicalism/etc more than most other positions, because it attempts to eliminate the mind from the equation. The mind is the one thing that we can directly know and be sure of. Everything else, including the material world, is understood through the mind. The rejection of this mind is absurd, whether it be materialism or eastern traditions that deny an individual self. Anyone who tells you the problem of solipsism can be solved is lying, and in the end we accept the OU in its entirety on faith. Materialism does not even attempt to answer some of the most basic philosophical questions. A brain may secrete chemicals, but the individual “feels” and “thinks”. A mind that goes against nature cannot have arisen from nature. The self cannot even be rejected, because who would be doing the rejecting? The existence of an individual Self is as axiomatic as the law of identity, perhaps more-so because it is the individual who is aware of, contemplates, and understands the law of identity. Relying entirely on physical empiricism is also an issue, because it itself is founded upon abstract logic and reasoning. Besides the mind, things like the laws of logic themselves are abstract, non physical, not testable, not falsifiable, etc. Any position that tries to reject these things is engaging in special pleading and completely ignoring philosophy.
For me, morality starts with the individual, the most foundational axiom in existence. We have to protect individual rights, while allowing for and even encouraging individual growth. This means I believe in the existence of a State to protect its citizens and enforce basic morals. All this stuff about personal drug use, gay marriage, what you can do with your own body, preferred types of sexual play, and so on are ridiculous wastes of time and resources. The State is not there to tell individuals how to live, but to make sure they do not tell each other how to live either. Murder is immoral to me because it takes away control of an individual’s own life. The killer is making the choice without the consent of the individual, thus enforcing his will over the victims. This violates the individual, similarly to rape ignoring a person’s right to choose who they sleep with, or theft ignore one’s right to do with their property as they wish. I am a strong supporter of community policing, and believe that it is the only way we are going to save the United States from its impending policing disasters. I like the morals of Rawls, in which there can still be varying degrees of wealth, but nobody is punished for their circumstances. The rich should be taxed more than the poor, because one less vehicle for a few dozen doctor visits is more than a fair trade off. No individual should ever have to live, say, on the streets in poverty simply because of things beyond their control, such as illness or corruption. Things like medical care are a right, not a privilege or something to be bargained and profited from. If it were not for the preceding paragraphs which thoroughly convinced me of the importance of the individual, I would still believe that morality started from the State or perhaps nature itself. Obviously people will disagree with these views until the end of time, but to me they seem to be the most rational, fair, and logic/evidence based.
Well, I’ve taken enough of your time, perhaps there shall one day be a part two. Xeper!
I guess one of the biggest things, and most unique to Setianism itself, is the argument for what Set represents in the first place. I have discussed this before, but it is certainly central to the ideology. It starts by recognizing that the Objective Universe we all share is machine-like in nature. It is essentially deterministic, it is predictable, it works kind of like a computer program. If I drop a ball right now, I know that it is going to fall to the ground. If I plug my laptop into the charger, I know that (assuming everything is working properly) it is going to charge my laptop. If I get ill and do not get it treated, it is going to run its course whether it lasts a day or kills me. If a mentally ill individuals does not or cannot properly manage their illness, or if they are not treated in any way, they are very likely to succumb to such an illness. Hopefully you get the idea. Second, the argument recognizes that a mind like that of a human’s, with things like high cognitive functioning and abstract reasoning abilities, can question, understand, manipulate, and even overcome this Objective Universe. As above medication is an example, which could not come about without an understanding of physics and chemistry, followed by the willful manipulation of that nature, and can negate something that would naturally occur like a depressed individual committing suicide or a sick individual dying from advanced cancer. Even things like self-talk, mindful meditation, willful placebos, visualization, and so on require this higher consciousness and its ability to inforce the individual will on the objective universe. These two things logically contradict. If X acts in one way, and Y is capable of acting against it, then X and Y must be separate things (law of identity), and it would be irrational to believe that X gave rise to Y, like an orange tree growing from an apple seed. Since we know, for a fact, that humans and other animals have this ability, we know that there is at least the natural order that controls the objective universe, and that which can go against it. Set is the most ancient (positive) symbol of the latter, the “non-natural” aspect of the cosmos.
Tied into this is the need to differentiate between the OU and the SU – the subjective universe. The mind shares very few of the limitations that the physical body does. You can close your eyes and float off into space, or walk amongst Lovecraftian temples from ancient civilizations. You can see with clarity the individual you wish to be. Dreams best exemplify this, with their nonsensical content grown from all sort of mostly unconscious information. Each individual has a SU, though many combine to become nearly identical. This ties back into the original argument, as there is something that can completely disregard the laws of the OU at will, at least within the SU. The individual can also force their SU onto the OU with varying degrees of success. You can not only visualize having a PhD before you get it, but you can then go on and get it in the OU. Similarly, cognitive coping skills like discussed above show the internal desire, such as to calm down one’s emotional response, can override the physical body’s reaction to whatever is freaking them out in the first place. This again shows a separation between the “natural” and “non-natural”.
I want to pause her to discuss the term “natural”. I am not a supernaturalist. Set is as “natural” as the chair you are sitting on now. What is meant by nature in Setian thought is the mechanical, material, deterministic, objective universe. It is natural to die. It is natural to have diarrhea after Taco Bell. It is natural to make rash decisions when in love or in pain. It is “unnatural” to extend the average human lifespan through the manipulation of nature as just defined. It is unnatural to step aside and question your decisions when in love, and takes a lot more training than most people realize. It’s much easier and more common for people to simply give into their desires, fears, sadness, love, etc. That is what naturally occurs in humans and other animals alike.
The issue of “other gods” does not exist for me, and I accept that other gods besides “my god” exist. This is very common in pretty much any position that is not monotheistic in nature. I simply see no reason to believe a god at face value, I do not believe in blind following or rash decisions after all. Just because a deity says it is the only one or is all loving and all powerful does not mean anything. I might as well say I am your king, with you immediately accepting this and bending to my will. It is important to look at followers of gods as well as the logic of supposed gods. I don’t doubt that the Christian god exists, but it certainly seems to be rather impotent and sadistic when you get down to the logic of it. On the topic, I do not believe in omni-gods. Obviously the mind can be overridden by the body, and as discussed above it also works the other way with the mind overriding the body. If so neither can be omnipotent. I guess you could argue for “all loving” gods, but there is something naïve and one sided about the idea of all-lovingness. It certainly doesn’t fit with the majority of gods (including Set) throughout history, and could one really respect something that loves no matter what? I’m sorry, but there are things that a healthy person should be disgusted by, such as the molestation of a child. There is not room in such a universe for omni-benevolence.
As a Setian I perhaps reject materialist/physicalism/etc more than most other positions, because it attempts to eliminate the mind from the equation. The mind is the one thing that we can directly know and be sure of. Everything else, including the material world, is understood through the mind. The rejection of this mind is absurd, whether it be materialism or eastern traditions that deny an individual self. Anyone who tells you the problem of solipsism can be solved is lying, and in the end we accept the OU in its entirety on faith. Materialism does not even attempt to answer some of the most basic philosophical questions. A brain may secrete chemicals, but the individual “feels” and “thinks”. A mind that goes against nature cannot have arisen from nature. The self cannot even be rejected, because who would be doing the rejecting? The existence of an individual Self is as axiomatic as the law of identity, perhaps more-so because it is the individual who is aware of, contemplates, and understands the law of identity. Relying entirely on physical empiricism is also an issue, because it itself is founded upon abstract logic and reasoning. Besides the mind, things like the laws of logic themselves are abstract, non physical, not testable, not falsifiable, etc. Any position that tries to reject these things is engaging in special pleading and completely ignoring philosophy.
For me, morality starts with the individual, the most foundational axiom in existence. We have to protect individual rights, while allowing for and even encouraging individual growth. This means I believe in the existence of a State to protect its citizens and enforce basic morals. All this stuff about personal drug use, gay marriage, what you can do with your own body, preferred types of sexual play, and so on are ridiculous wastes of time and resources. The State is not there to tell individuals how to live, but to make sure they do not tell each other how to live either. Murder is immoral to me because it takes away control of an individual’s own life. The killer is making the choice without the consent of the individual, thus enforcing his will over the victims. This violates the individual, similarly to rape ignoring a person’s right to choose who they sleep with, or theft ignore one’s right to do with their property as they wish. I am a strong supporter of community policing, and believe that it is the only way we are going to save the United States from its impending policing disasters. I like the morals of Rawls, in which there can still be varying degrees of wealth, but nobody is punished for their circumstances. The rich should be taxed more than the poor, because one less vehicle for a few dozen doctor visits is more than a fair trade off. No individual should ever have to live, say, on the streets in poverty simply because of things beyond their control, such as illness or corruption. Things like medical care are a right, not a privilege or something to be bargained and profited from. If it were not for the preceding paragraphs which thoroughly convinced me of the importance of the individual, I would still believe that morality started from the State or perhaps nature itself. Obviously people will disagree with these views until the end of time, but to me they seem to be the most rational, fair, and logic/evidence based.
Well, I’ve taken enough of your time, perhaps there shall one day be a part two. Xeper!
Last edited:
