mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
First off, the short possible version of what this post is about.
Someone: For the everyday life we are all a part of I hold truth in practice for all important aspects of the human experience and existence.
Me: No!
Someone: That is a false belief.
Me: I don't care, because in practice I can get away with it.
That claim comes with many variations and can be done in an overall weak or strong version. The weak version is to the effect of: Don't you think, that we ought to agree on...
Me: No! Not as long you use it to in effect to judge the worth of other humans regardless of how indirect, polite and civil you do it, because you in effect claim an objective standard for morality, that is not there.
Now something else and I will say it in straight terms: Since there is no way in practice as long as humans remains humans to do objective morality, I will be "beeping" with your mind and cause cognitive dissonance in you if you in effect do objective morality how ever indirect. How I do that is my responsibility, but how you deal with it, is your problem. Now here it is what happens people are present with something:
They are unable to understand, what it is about.
They don't care, they are indifferent because they know they can do it differently.
They hate it.
They like it.
This will also happen here and play out with variation.
So what is it that always happen if a sufficient number of people start debating humans and their part in the world.
Well, we all do it with words to the effect of: "Everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the same, similar and/or different aspects of everything, something, something else and/or nothing."
That is one of the most general ways of stating it.
So I need words and so do you. So here it is: Words are not all of the world, but you need words to express that. So we need away to describe and explain words for which we use words.
Words or rather signs are used by some animals and computers. They stand for something, their meaning and that, their meaning is always in an animal or computer. They are placeholders for a process in brain or computer.
Words are themselves only signs, they link to the meaning and thus are always in at least one aspect subjective.
They are about something, they refer to something.
Now are all words all the same as for what they refer to? No, but then what are the most basics categories you can explain them with? Objective relationship, inter-subjective relationship and subjective relationship and their combinations in a given context.
So here is an example of you, a dog and a ball. There are some things I take for granted about you, the dog and the ball. You now throw the ball, call out "fetch" and the dog tries to catch the ball.
Now explain it for the 3 categories and account for the causality involved in overall terms. Physics, chemistry and some aspects of biochemistry are objective. Other aspects of biochemistry and further cognition and feelings are intersubjective and others are subjective.
What does that have to do with causality? Well, some of those would be there without you and the dog; e.g gravity. Others are the result of the causality of the replication of the fittest gene, that is the subjective part and some of that is shared: E.g. you and the dog understand the sign for "fetch".
So what is the myth in western culture, well it is the uneasy marriage of 2 cultures, which share the idea of an objective source of knowledge: The Jewish and the Greek one. They are 2 sides of the same coin, in that they both claim access to objective knowledge. One through God and the other trough reason, logic and objectivity.
Both fail, because neither can in effect remove and reduce away the subjective aspects of the human existence and experience. Both have tried and they fail.
So for wrong beliefs the joke is this as back to words and how they work in practice in regards to the objective relationship versus the subjective relationship.
If a human claims an objective relationship for a word, which is not there, then the relationship is subjective and as long as that word enable this human to act, it doesn't matter that there is no objective relationship because it works in the subjective sense.
That is not unique to either X or Y for this sub-forum. It also pertains to such words as reason, logic, "I am objective, rational and what not", evidence, truth, proof and so on.
Just as the word god as some non-believers like to point out is human and wouldn't be there if there was no humans, the same applies to a lot of words these non-believers use, including the most common variants as useful, utility, worth and so on.
And finally morality. Morality is in part inter-subjective and subjective as it relationship to evaluation of right, wrong, good and bad. But there is not objective standard because the causality is always subjective back to the replication of the fittest gene and the culture (inter-subjectivity) it takes places in.
If you want to, we can nitpick all the words you like and I will then point out the relationship to objective, inter-subjective and subjective and you might not like it. That is not my problem, that is yours.
If you want to cooperate, I don't have to, unless we can agree on how to separate the world into objective, inter-subjective and subjective and their combinations. And if how ever polite, civil and indirect you then turn me into the Other, I don't mind. I am a card-caring member of the Other. I have 3 psychiatric disorders, I am a special needs person and I am on a disability pension. So that won't work. I am the Other in regards to reason and logic and I am proud of it, because I have learned to make the best out of being the Other. I am very good at that.
So for morality we start with all humans are equal as humans and different as individuals or we "fight" with words.
With the best regards and the sincere hope that your worldview works for you and that you will have a long and good enough life for what is left of your life. And please don't project to much of your individual subjectivity onto me. I "fight" back.
Someone: For the everyday life we are all a part of I hold truth in practice for all important aspects of the human experience and existence.
Me: No!
Someone: That is a false belief.
Me: I don't care, because in practice I can get away with it.
That claim comes with many variations and can be done in an overall weak or strong version. The weak version is to the effect of: Don't you think, that we ought to agree on...
Me: No! Not as long you use it to in effect to judge the worth of other humans regardless of how indirect, polite and civil you do it, because you in effect claim an objective standard for morality, that is not there.
Now something else and I will say it in straight terms: Since there is no way in practice as long as humans remains humans to do objective morality, I will be "beeping" with your mind and cause cognitive dissonance in you if you in effect do objective morality how ever indirect. How I do that is my responsibility, but how you deal with it, is your problem. Now here it is what happens people are present with something:
They are unable to understand, what it is about.
They don't care, they are indifferent because they know they can do it differently.
They hate it.
They like it.
This will also happen here and play out with variation.
So what is it that always happen if a sufficient number of people start debating humans and their part in the world.
Well, we all do it with words to the effect of: "Everything, something, something else and/or nothing for the same, similar and/or different aspects of everything, something, something else and/or nothing."
That is one of the most general ways of stating it.
So I need words and so do you. So here it is: Words are not all of the world, but you need words to express that. So we need away to describe and explain words for which we use words.
Words or rather signs are used by some animals and computers. They stand for something, their meaning and that, their meaning is always in an animal or computer. They are placeholders for a process in brain or computer.
Words are themselves only signs, they link to the meaning and thus are always in at least one aspect subjective.
They are about something, they refer to something.
Now are all words all the same as for what they refer to? No, but then what are the most basics categories you can explain them with? Objective relationship, inter-subjective relationship and subjective relationship and their combinations in a given context.
So here is an example of you, a dog and a ball. There are some things I take for granted about you, the dog and the ball. You now throw the ball, call out "fetch" and the dog tries to catch the ball.
Now explain it for the 3 categories and account for the causality involved in overall terms. Physics, chemistry and some aspects of biochemistry are objective. Other aspects of biochemistry and further cognition and feelings are intersubjective and others are subjective.
What does that have to do with causality? Well, some of those would be there without you and the dog; e.g gravity. Others are the result of the causality of the replication of the fittest gene, that is the subjective part and some of that is shared: E.g. you and the dog understand the sign for "fetch".
So what is the myth in western culture, well it is the uneasy marriage of 2 cultures, which share the idea of an objective source of knowledge: The Jewish and the Greek one. They are 2 sides of the same coin, in that they both claim access to objective knowledge. One through God and the other trough reason, logic and objectivity.
Both fail, because neither can in effect remove and reduce away the subjective aspects of the human existence and experience. Both have tried and they fail.
So for wrong beliefs the joke is this as back to words and how they work in practice in regards to the objective relationship versus the subjective relationship.
If a human claims an objective relationship for a word, which is not there, then the relationship is subjective and as long as that word enable this human to act, it doesn't matter that there is no objective relationship because it works in the subjective sense.
That is not unique to either X or Y for this sub-forum. It also pertains to such words as reason, logic, "I am objective, rational and what not", evidence, truth, proof and so on.
Just as the word god as some non-believers like to point out is human and wouldn't be there if there was no humans, the same applies to a lot of words these non-believers use, including the most common variants as useful, utility, worth and so on.
And finally morality. Morality is in part inter-subjective and subjective as it relationship to evaluation of right, wrong, good and bad. But there is not objective standard because the causality is always subjective back to the replication of the fittest gene and the culture (inter-subjectivity) it takes places in.
If you want to, we can nitpick all the words you like and I will then point out the relationship to objective, inter-subjective and subjective and you might not like it. That is not my problem, that is yours.
If you want to cooperate, I don't have to, unless we can agree on how to separate the world into objective, inter-subjective and subjective and their combinations. And if how ever polite, civil and indirect you then turn me into the Other, I don't mind. I am a card-caring member of the Other. I have 3 psychiatric disorders, I am a special needs person and I am on a disability pension. So that won't work. I am the Other in regards to reason and logic and I am proud of it, because I have learned to make the best out of being the Other. I am very good at that.
So for morality we start with all humans are equal as humans and different as individuals or we "fight" with words.
With the best regards and the sincere hope that your worldview works for you and that you will have a long and good enough life for what is left of your life. And please don't project to much of your individual subjectivity onto me. I "fight" back.