Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2011, 10:18 AM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
Okay, there is a lot to digest since my last post...head still spinning a little thanks to HOC.

@Peterkin
I'm smelling what you're stepping in. I'm picking up what you're putting down. Or, in a more direct way, I get what you are saying now. Right and wrong change based on the set of values present at a given time by a particular individual and/or society. So, bronze age right and wrong are not the same as modern right and wrong because of the difference in values between then and now. The same logic applies not only temporally but spatially and culturally.

@Zatamon
Very interesting passage that demonstrates the premise of this thread very well. Right and wrong can change by simply defining a baseline as well as civil discussion/debate and compromise.

@HOC
Still wrapping my head around this quaternion. I can visualize in 3D pretty easy but 4D without the 4th dimension being time is difficult for me to visualize.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2011, 10:29 AM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(01-12-2011 10:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  @HOC
Still wrapping my head around this quaternion. I can visualize in 3D pretty easy but 4D without the 4th dimension being time is difficult for me to visualize.

Cause somebody taught you wrong. Tongue

It's not "hypercube," it's a pair of deuces. Right vs wrong is a sinister/dexter concern; but is reducible to the identity of circumstance... like yesterday I stated "I do not support genetic screening;" there is "righteousness" applied to that contention because the scales were weighed and the measurement recorded. Genetic screening was wrong yesterday.

For the other deuce, "my way vs my way" reduces to - which "righteous contentions" adhere more closely to my integrity as a function of identity over time - from "being" to "becoming;" but also becoming a more complete being.

Zero-state some superfly shit. I tell you whut! Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2011, 10:57 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2011 11:01 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(01-12-2011 10:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  @Peterkin
...?... Right and wrong change based on the set of values present at a given time by a particular individual and/or society.

Well, of course. How else can it be defined, without reference to an absolute source? As far as i know, all such sources are themselves the product of a finite, limited, context-determined, interest-driven human mind. And even those are applied according to grey scales of merit --- blame, status --- expendability, emergency --- ease.

Quote: So, bronze age right and wrong are not the same as modern right and wrong because of the difference in values between then and now. The same logic applies not only temporally but spatially and culturally.

Ages don't really come into it. First century Romans used several different methods of executing undesirables, as does the modern USA; several different means of collecting and allocating public revenue; several styles of violent combat for mass entertainment - with very similar theoretical ends and rhetoric. It's not the passage of time that makes change - if there is actual change - it's the prevailing beliefs and aims.

And, if i may reiterate, i wasn't necessarily talking about moral rightness, but the accuracy, or objective correctness, of an answer. In math, that can be an absolute, predetermined number; in everything else, there is a scale.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2011, 09:42 PM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
But mathematics and practical reality go together like QM and Relativity. It is axiomatic that 1+1 = 2 and thus always true within the same language. But this 1 + that 1 of my Gwynnies = Nations of diversity Wink

What occurs in objective reality is moral judgement - always - as the only certainty is moral certainty. And the more individuals available to weigh in with their moral certainty, the more the moral judgement resembles a fair, universal ethical standard.

What do you think "peer review" actually means? Scientific truth? Not. An atheistic equivocation often used to justify the theory of evolution is the law of gravity. What is the law of gravity? Things fall down. This is "gravatationalism" in its entirety.

How often is "gravatationalism" an equivocation rather than a truth? For as long as this laptop has sat on this table. Every morning when I fall up out of bed. In free-fall where all points of reference are equally "not falling down" in reference to each other.

Zero-state keeps morality at the absolute of the individual - where it belongs - and building from zero-state is to build from the ground, up. Actual objective reality would allow for a Planck's constant to be h, but the practical form is h/2; because the moral decision of the peer review group decided first offerings go to the identity - yeah, a theocratic assessment - before verifying the science.

Dual state identity keeps all moral zeroes from attaining probability one. A fact illustrated by the historical lack of universal moral paradigm; a fact codified into a scientific method whose greatest output is theory rather than truth.

And me and Peterkin can bark at each other like Big Dogs from now until Ragnarok; but I will never be right, he will never be wrong (from the perspective of this zero), and that is the way it should be. All inclusion, zero exclusion; where law is not written by lawgivers, but rather emergent from the will of civilization.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2011, 10:07 PM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
Quote:What occurs in objective reality is moral judgement - always - as the only certainty is moral certainty. And the more individuals available to weigh in with their moral certainty, the more the moral judgement resembles a fair, universal ethical standard.

This is the part i understood. And i agree with everything except 'objective'.
woof!

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2011, 10:46 PM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(02-12-2011 10:07 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  
Quote:What occurs in objective reality is moral judgement - always - as the only certainty is moral certainty. And the more individuals available to weigh in with their moral certainty, the more the moral judgement resembles a fair, universal ethical standard.

This is the part i understood. And i agree with everything except 'objective'.
woof!

Probably because you are sane, normal, rational. Educated in both experience and academia; perhaps ethical from longstanding, clear moral paradigm, yes?

And I am insane. A street person. A felon, with no history of family or reputation to verify credibility; rather a criminal record... Yet I literally began with 1 (I love my Gwynnies) and spent eleven years proceeding back 1 to 0. That every instant of eleven year's labor and dedication and drive has invested the entirety of my identity - in being zero.

Because I love Gwyneth Paltrow; knowing I can do nothing for her, knowing I can be nothing to her, what must I do? Love everybody who stands between us, condemn nobody who stands between us, that from my whisper of "I love you;" seven billion voices carry the waveform to her before she hears my name...

And when she turns to look who sent her a valentine; what she sees, is paradise.

Started as a love song; now starting to seem entirely doable. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 08:24 AM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(02-12-2011 09:42 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Actual objective reality would allow for a Planck's constant to be h, but the practical form is h/2; because the moral decision of the peer review group decided first offerings go to the identity - yeah, a theocratic assessment - before verifying the science.

The Planch constant is denoted, and has always been, by h.
The reduced Planck constant is h/2π, and denoted ħ.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-12-2011, 09:25 AM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
Thanks, Chas, that clears things right up.

I like the metaphor, HouseofCantor (sucker for poetry, me), and it may even have some resemblance to (- resonance? - kinship? - uneasy truce? - one of them owes the other money?) social reality. Not at all sure it explains anything about the bipolar thinking style of a whole nation, except maybe that more street craziness presents in a bipolar country than in one with a healthy political and acknowledged social grey-scale. (Both under siege, alas!)
And, too, you remind us that education may very well be a factor in constructing a grey-scale.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
03-12-2011, 09:42 AM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(03-12-2011 09:25 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  Thanks, Chas, that clears things right up.

Hey, I can only do so much.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2011, 12:01 PM
RE: Right vs. Wrong and Black vs. White
(30-11-2011 04:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Essentially what I am saying is that trying to divide things into a category of 100% right or 100% wrong is almost always incorrect (notice how I did not say it is 100% incorrect).

Agreed, even when talking about Christian morals. The bible gives the example of eating meat offered to idols - it's a sin if you feel it is, and it's not if you don't. This means that a lot of "sins" fall into gray areas that aren't always sinful.

The bible also, interestingly, tells Christians not to impose their beliefs on others ("judge not lest ye be judged", "before removing the splinter from your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own", "judgement is mine"). If Christians actually followed these scriptures - the ones that tell them not to play 'morality police' - I couldn't care less what they find moral or not.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: