Intergalactic Summit

No, I suggest that they are errant in their initial observation. We are indeed imbued with the will and ability to make our lives meaningful. To begin on an assumption otherwise leads to the very real probability that such effort will be wasted in a vain attempt to make that meaning simply an extension of our own ideology, with no regards to logic or greater purpose beyond our own hedonistic imperatives. Your own boss comes to mind. He ignores the desires of others in his own desire to create a utopian society that is dystopian in it's very basic premise. What is meaningful to the whole? Is meaning universal? Is there a universal truth? You seem to argue for and against it?

Every attempt at Utopia leads to these paradoxical "truths".

The world can be validly construed as forum for action, or as place of things.

The world as forum for action
Primordial, and less clearly understood - finds its expression in the arts or humanities, in ritual, drama, literature, and mythology. Is a place of value, a place where all things have meaning. This meaning, which is shaped as a consequence of social interaction, is implication for action.

The world as place of things
Finds its formal expression in the methods and theories of science. Science allows for increasingly precise determination of the consensually-validatable properties of things, and for efficient utilization of precisely-determined things as tools.

No complete world-picture can be generated, without use of both modes of construal. The fact that one mode is generally set at odds with the other means only that the nature of their respective domains remains insufficiently discriminated. Adherents of the mythological world-view tend to regard the statements of their creeds as indistinguishable from empirical fact. Those who, by contrast, accept the scientific perspective - who assume that it is, or might become, complete - forget that an impassable gulf currently divides what is from what should be.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Hello sir; I apologize for the confusion and any implication I may have made. I'll admit that I'm having an increasingly hard time following your argument, but I will do my best. I think the issue we're having can be found here:



I don't think being a copy is a bad thing. The longing of a copy is not false, the existence of a copy is not vicarious. Almost by definition, the value of a copy is equal to the value of the original. I'm actually a little offended by your follow-up, in fact:



Semantics are lovely things, but hardly worth getting upset over. Save your emotions for abused people, not abused words.

I hope that you don't truly mean that those who don't adhere to your semantics are fallible and worthy of extirpation. You, also, are fallible, sir. Let us commiserate as a species over our shared weaknesses instead of shedding blood over them.

((Scherezad's condition is in-character, sorry for any confusion!))

No, I apologize, not understanding your condition, I was being fecetious.. Your belief that you can make a subjectively meaningful contribution in and of your own volition, to me, shows the maker guides your steps, whether you believe in him or her, then becomes irrelevant. When and if you decide that your subjective opinion become an objective imperative that you must follow, I will subjectively decide to oppose you. As and where I can.

The worth of any being is entirely dependant upon their understanding of the subjective greater good, not an objective greater good that can never be realized. You seem to have a fair grasp. I save my derision for those who think of themselves to be above subjectivity, therein lies the true demensia of humanity. For anyone who claims to be truly objective, I subjectively assert them to be a fool, truly.

The solid ground of empiricism has fallen from under foot many times in the past. Whether spiritual claptrap or simply semantic meandering, I am who I am and who I will be. I am unique. I refuse to yield this simple subjective truth to objective rationalizing. If I "lose" some of this essence to circumstance it does not diminish me. Or you.. Solipsism does not enter into it. If I denied your existence, I would be debating with myself. I do not pretend to be alone, if I did, I would have to admit some very unnerving subjective truths about myself.

If I were a perfectly objective being, I would indeed take the callous approach I sarcastically forwarded, as many failed tyrants of the past have falsely believed themselves to be representative of. For it is the purely logical approach. On the contrary, I myself foolishly "hope" we can become something more than the base animals we currently show ourselves to be. Empiricism is a fool's quest, in my own humble opinion. Thankfully, we were designed as irrational beings.

I place far more stock in emotion and my own inner subjectivity than the empirical assertions of a thousand sages. It has served me well in far more instances than it has led me astray. Even when it flies in the face of what the majority accept as truth. The majority's idea of harm can be the individual's expression of merciful acceptance. Once again, a subjective truth. If someone decides to commit suicide, who am I, or you, to tell them they are wrong? Your statement seeks to place an objective stamp on a subjective reality.

As I said, if I were to admit to myself objective empirical thoughts, I would seek to eradicate humanity for it's irrational and illogical tendencies against a purely logical greater good. One, thankfully, I reject as flawwed in it's basest premise.

My suggestion that you do the cluster a favor and eliminate yourself was the inevitable culmination of your objective logic, not my subjective logic. Therein lies the crux of my argument.

Purely empirical logic is cruel and heartless. It is a polar extreme. It removes the metaphysical possibilities and replaces them with inerrant observation and static mathmatics on a pedestal of omnipotence. Follow this logic to it's inevitable conclusion and you will see the black stare of hatred and intolerance for the unique staring back at you. If it doesn't fit the mold, it is an abberation that holds no sustainable reasoning to exist.

Once again, you would rationalize and replace your subjective view of what is right with the hypothetical "case's", that believes you to be wrong. So your subjective view is forced on another, to supplant their subjective view. A decision arrived at by placing your chemical adjustment as somehow superior to natural function in the individual in question, as it veers from what you consider a normal worldview. As he kicks and screams his opposition to your decision.


And then you subjectively ignore your first stream of logic for this..



Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Your ethics are as subjective as your logic. By extension, using this kind of logic, Sansha Kuvakei is a wonderful humanitarian...

This makes as much sense as justifying the Reclaiming in the name of the Amarrian god.. You just don't understand because your society has ansthetized your ears to his words.. Empirical logic at it's finest... I fail to see the finer attributes of humanity anywhere in your arguement.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting it is desirable to take their lives because you possess fuller faculties than they do? Oh yes, you are..

Or that they need some adjustment before they can properly reason through the full ramifications of life under Nation? Oh, yes you are..

And it is why I will oppose Nation at every opportunity.. It is where my subjective reasoning leads me.. Fallible though it may be..

Tell a little truth with many lies, it's the only way they found...

You are making the argument, sir, that nothing is 'right'. There is only 'right for me', which has no bearing on the 'right' of anyone else. You are arguing that there is no connection between our subjective realities or ethics. Is that right?

In which case, you don't believe in ethics. Ethics are shared, debated, discussed. They are living things. You're just describing behaviour motivations. Do you believe in ethics, sir? Or am I just confused?



I have said - time and again - that rationality must be accompanied by compassion. Yet you continue to suggest that I would drag a person, kicking and screaming, to bend them to my will. I fear I must have voiced my position very poorly for you to come to these conclusions, and I apologize. Let me try again.

Rationality is the aim of coming to the best conclusion in any given set of circumstances. This is what I mean when I say "behave rationally" (if I were capable of speaking so clearly). It does not imply cruelty (though it can result in cruelty), nor does it imply coldness (though many people think it does). Logic, empiricism and the scientific method are very useful tools on the path to a rational life, but they are not the only ones.

Rationality without compassion is blind. Compassion without rationality is lame.

Please let me know where I must clarify further. I apologize again for my obtuseness; I'm not very good at this.

To note: "Emotions over mind" is not a fresh approach, and is probably the oldest and most dangerous philosophical jumping off point that has ever existed. Yes, even more than a total "Mind over emotions" approach.

At least rationality keeps us out of the stone age, eh?

Rationalizing has led to more horrors in human history than any outpouring of emotion ever has. To act upon an emotional imperative, the mind will always rationalize and justify it. A single mind has never bent the emotions of a mob to it's will without rationalization and justification. Applied and targeted toward a subjective reality inherent in the mob.

Emotion guides none but the individual, they are not shared, only reflected.



An opinion, which represents a position...

They are poles of philisophical thought.. The balance does indeed lie in the middle. Nation is aligned toward the one extreme, a part of your subjective reality. Your compatriot appears to suggest that she is an advocate of balance, but, goes on to suggest rationality superior in this instance. Hardly a balanced opinion. Therefore one to be discarded as biased.