Value of Concept.
This may be long but it is a detailed explaination of conclusions I have drawn. It is not a demand, if you like you can see it just as me wanting to record my thoughts on a forum, an off P.C memory storage facility.
We have imagination, it is a virtual world we can run all manner of simulations in. If you think about a sleeping dog, you may have seen it behaving like it is responding to stimuli, perhaps some kind of dream chasing a rabbit. This suggests that the animal has some kind of rudimentary imagination, and I would presume other animals display this to certain degrees also.
This would mean that the imagination is a natural value, as animals do not display conceptual understanding but they exhibit a range of behaviours that correspond to known motivators of compulsions.
There are two primary factors that influence the entire universe, constructive relationships and destructive forces. Everything is subject to these fundamental cause and effect phenomena and everything can ultimately be described as manifestations of these phenomena.
Humans display both, the ideal is that constructive relationships are considered benign and deserve freedom to prosper, but as we see in nature that destructive forces serve a purpose but they can also collaterally damage or destroy constructive elements, and so they require a certain focusing or control in order to acheive their purpose but not inadvertantly affect what they are not intended to.
The same is true of the destructive elements of human behaviour, as Edmund Burke has said “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites” that laws are not made for those who naturally obey them but for those who naturally would disobey them.
“The “good” and “bad” is relative to each our interpretation, just as people find pain unappealing, yet you have those who engage in sado-masichistic sexual practices. Another example of flip in the value of those two fundamental properties is cancer, which is basically a negative constructive relationship, but ultimately may result in destruction of the host. Treatments for cancer are possitive and controlled destructive forces that may result in the survival of the host.
So these two universal factors are not fairly described as good or bad, but better designated as Yin and Yang, as such does not connotate. However, as far as the basing of ones identity, to lay it on a foundation that is of a conceptual nature is “bad” but to lay it on natural values is “good”. This is because concepts are a tool we use to enhance our natural values and to liberate them, we use concept to describe, understand and alter things for our advantage, this is called the skill of invention.
Concepts are related to the natural value of imagination, but they are not the natural value themselves but a bi-product, a tool. I am working on a list of natural values, they are all with the goal of liberation for constructive relationships and the controlled focus of destructive forces.
1) Empathic Consideration: We naturally consider the overall effects of our behaviour automatically, as do animals, but the tool of concept and our imaginations allow us to broaden vision, anticipate factors that are not immediately evident. We have a common sense that tells us if it will harm others or ourselves, but the “conceptual identity” which is built on artificial values such as God, greed, rights, wrongs, malice, judgementality, freedom, all conceptual tools that are often used to replace our natural empathic quality. This evolves into ego and we either become weak and not confident in our own sense of correctness, or we become strong and over-ride those natural sensibilities for the sake of ambitions such as greed and/or power, some form of authoritarian dominance.
2)We have the natural value of Pleasure/Enjoyment. Purely this is what makes life amazing, ranging from simple sex, to entertainment, laughter, general happiness. But it even includes passions, be that for art or expression or be it for the relationships you have. It is a value that is misinterpreted as a baser quality, but with the correct application of concepts, it evolves into an ideal, but the wrong application of concept, again becomes ego and either weakness or ambition.
3) This value is the simple gravitation toward what is easier, it can be seen as walking the long way around a thorny bush to get your stray ball, or it can be evolved by the correct application of concept to pre-emptively arrange much more complicated issues. This is not so much a risk on ego becoming weak or ambitious, but it is used by the ambitious for their ambition.
4) My newest natural value I have identified is the Imagination. This is the ultimate awesomeness about us but it can also be our Satan. With it we have conceptualization, which gives us creativity, invention and this ability of vision for effects of our influence that gives us the option of anticipating and applying empathic consideration, but it is also where the confusion is. When we change out our natural values in favour of concepts that we have developed or understood, our natural value is dissolved. This is because concepts have no inherent value beyond their use as a tool to enhance our natural values.
A good explaination I have to communicate this ideal is a quote of myself “I believe in God but I do not define myself by any conceptualization of that phenomena” We do conceptualize our natural values in order to communicate them, to describe them and to understand them in order to use them advantagiously, but they already existed before, as I said animals display them. What did not exist before is the “conceptual identity” and this is the destroyer of our worth and the maker of chaos in humanity.
Animals do not display malice, judgementality or ambition, the three big bosses of war, murder, greed, authoritarianism and general harm to others and the environment. These artificial values, concepts, cease to be a tool for enhancing our natural qualities and identity and they over-ride them and are installed as our new and worthless identity.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I think YOU waste time listening to them waste time. You cannot please everyone. People gravitate toward their own comfort zones, they find their niche as a defence mechanism, theirs is criticizing you, yours is reacting to their criticism. What you do is define your strengths and weakness, then you know your appropriate field of focus, in your strengths.
It is here that you find things like your passions, it is here you focus all your effort on because your weakness is a weakness for a reason, it is not productive. However to be fully rounded you need to address your weakness, this is not done by you, as you have no power there, this is done by those who have strength where you are weak.
This comes down to a barter/trade system, as you capitalize on your strengths you build a surplus of them and this surplus is used to buy help for your weakness. Ideally, the person who has strength where you are weak would have a weakness where you are strong, but this is not always the case. That is why we have a social network of family and friends, you all aid each other where each of you need it.
If people do not understand this principle then they will always be incomplete as a being, because no one is perfect. That is why they slide into a niche, a comfort zone, because they cannot handle how the system works, they do not know how it works.
This all seems complicated but really all you have to do is the best you can at the things you are good at, you can work out the details as you go. It starts with defining your strengths and weakness, then focusing on those strengths while placing the weakness at the back of your mind, to deal with when you can afford to purchase the appropriate resources to suit them.
Obviously one of your weakness’ is the opinions others have of you, that should not now, or ever be, at the foremost on your mind, it is not productive and cannot be made so by you alone but by the joint collaborations of your network.
I agree with a lot of what you say but this is a very confusing thought process to have on your mind, good to get it out.
You talk about fish being selfish or selfless, but you said it yourself, fish are incapable of conceptual thought and so a fish is incapable of being selfish or selfless. There is a thing called ego, it is basically life. This is self preservation: food, fight/flight and then there is reproduction: perpetuation of the species. This is factors, in fish, of both selfish and selfless, as we would define them, but this is an inappropriate way to connotate, at that level there is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no morality or sin, it is simply the Yin/Yang universe at work, the purpose that drives.
Nothing exists without a purpose and everything fulfills the purpose it exists for. In that system you have constructive relationships and destructive forces, neither deserve the connotation of good or bad etc, it is not like we only need one and should get rid of the other, both are vital functions of existence.
The thing is that as constructive beings, we are the result of billions of years of constructive relationships between people, animals, life in general, atoms, energy and beyond to the quantum. As an atom is a constructive relationship of energy, life of atom, etc. So as constructive beings our interest is in the protection and liberation of constructive relationships, logically.
The threat to these relationships is destructive forces, but as I said, the destructive forces are equally as vital to existence as the constructive, so we just can’t be rid of them. Instead we focus the destructive toward the appropriate purpose, we benefit from this effect and we minimize collateral damage with the control. Just like an explosion in demolision, the process was chaotic but over time we controlled it and the process is much more safe, localized and effective.
That is the fundamentals of cause and effect and our role in it, our duty. We do all this by the appropriate focus of another destructive force, concept. This is unique to humans and is the most powerful tool at our disposal, it is also the most dangerous. We are not concept, as I have said about all the constructive relationships that have existed for billions of years, all this was before the first concept ever was concieved, we are those billions of years of purpose, of always fulfilling exactly what we existed for.
Concept is just a tool that we can use to understand everything and to use for enhancing all that natural purpose and quality that we really are, concept is for protecting and liberating the constructive and focusing the destructive.
I agree that selfishness is primary, to become a better rounded individual we do the best we can at what we are good at and with the surplus we buy help for that which we are not good at, but require. This whole selfish principle of becoming a well rounded individual is what society works on, each of us produce where we can and we buy help for where we can’t do ourselves. This, in theory, is how everyone is supposed to have the opportunity to become a well rounded individual.
Helping people also has a selfish benefit, so you cannot dismiss it as negation. By helping others they are more willing to allow your life to be smoother, they could even help you back. But also you get the benefit of a good conscience, that you have done nice things you will like yourself as a person more, adding to you becoming a well rounded individual.
Just remember, nothing exists without purpose. Just because you may see something as being counterproductive, does not mean it is wrong, out of place and needs to go, it just means that it is being used incorrectly.
There is the “Fate” world of nature, everything that exists despite man. Then there is human cause and effect, concepts are created by us and the conclusions motivate actions in the spirit of those conclusions, with the intention of the action fulfilling a purpose in line with those conclusions.
The Purpose of the “Fate” world is a goal toward the most productive ends of the universe, what is the most productive end of the universe is well beyond my knowledge or authority to judge. But the thing is that this process has resulted in us. Are we a huge factor in that end or are we a side-effect? That again is not my field.
What I do know is we have the power to use many of those aspects of the “Fate” world to our advantage, and the power to stop those aspects from effecting us in a counter-productive way. The thing is that with this power we may not know if it is relevant to the best ends of the universe but we can use the power (of concept) to our best ends.
Such best humans ends are things like living peacefully with each other and the planet and providing what we all need for the most deserved quality of life for each of us while existing in a sustainable manner with the planet. This is stuff like renewable energy, products that are relatively inexhaustable but have uses in making lives easier and/or pleasurable.
The contributions of people are needed and people want stuff so it is a fair trade to have people contribute and in exchange they get those things they want. Society can automate a hell of a lot of things and this can leave people free to engage their passions in life. The problem with a maximum automation society is that the middle class, infact the whole financial system will crumble.
The best idea is for people to be able to indulge a number of sustainable passions and recreations and in return they can do a type of labour service for a brief time in their life, kind of like National service for the army. This is because no matter how much we automate the world, there will remain jobs people need to do for it all to continue functioning. Doing such service should then open up a range of options that are not available to you if you refuse to do this service.
We only really need to figure out what we can automate and what we can sustain. As for all the other problems with society, such as behaviour, all problems are due to misappropriation of concept but it is each of our choice to introspect, to get the most insight and wisdom we can and apply ourselves to constructive action, but it is not a crime to not do that, crime is just being harmful to others or harmful to yourself in such a way that makes you a burden on others.
Ultimately we are all in a situation where we all support people who are irresponsible or have no duty to anything but their profit margin. We do this because they provide something we do not want to, or cannot, get by without. The only real option is for each of us to decide to find an alternative or go without until those who are irresponsible either change or can no longer continue what they are doing.
All the philosophy in the world is ultimately irrelevant to all these on-the-ground facts of life.
We as humans have conceptualized everything, but the main point is to identify what existed before concepts, that we have just applied description to, and what aspects of humanity are born and bred purely of concept. As I said, malice never existed in the world until it was conceptually concieved. Empathy did exist long before the first concept was ever born.
So we find how to seperate the two, and where we have been failing is by trying to eliminate the “bad” conceptual identity while preserving the “good” conceptual identity. This is the big mistake, but rather that there should not be any conceptual identity at all because all concepts, good or bad, are artificial and have no inherent value. The only place concepts have usefulness is in maximizing the natural values I have described, not in replacing them as that can only make our identity have no inherent value also.
A man trying to understand God is like the number 1 trying to reach infinity by adding 1 to itself until it gets there. A fool throws around concepts that only have authority as far as he says “It’s a matter of faith”, authority coming from a concept that cannot be rationalized or even verified. You want authority? Look to empathy and other such natural qualities, don’t take egocentric stands based on judgementalities sourced of concept, because they have no inherent value and that leaves your credibility with none also.
This part I just wrote, and it repeats a bit of what I have already said but whatever.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against faith, I believe in God myself. I am not against concepts either, I am against the misappropriation of concepts. All information taken in by us is processed and we try to understand it by conceptualization. The fact is that true values we are supposed to have are exactly the same as the values animals display, it is just that with the help of conceptualization we can idealize them and apply them on a much larger scope than animals can.
But concepts only have value as far as they are used to maximize our natural qualities, anything beyond this is worthless, and if our concepts become more important to us than our natural values, they become our identity and we become as worthless as the concept, it takes us down with it.
Constructive relationships is the goal of natural values and they all combine for that purpose. Empathy and common sensibilities are display are displayed by animals. A gravitation toward what
is easier and to what is enjoyable are both displayed by animals. A rudimentary form of imagination is also displayed by animals, as a dog dreams for example, so this is a natural value also. These are baser in animals, but only because they do not have the ability of concept that maximizes them.
This idea is basically in the Bible. If you think about the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, it had its place in the garden but Adam and Eve decided to give it more value than it deserved. They ate the fruit, made concepts their identity, and as a result were cast out, they became worthless and chaos ensued. With a conceptual identity, knowledge of good and bad becomes judgementality, malice and ambition, the three core sins that pretty much all problems humans make result from. And these three things are all born and bred of concept.
Animals do not war, murder, cheat or maliciously harm others or the planet. They do kill and defend themselves but these are instinctive for survival, not because they hate. Animals do not do those things because those things are products of concept and animals do not have that ability.
Had to copy and paste this
Empathy is a natural value, as animals display it, but because humans are capable of conceptualizing, that natural quality is constantly under threat of being over-riden by ego. Ego is the result of the value we place on concepts and if that value becomes greater than our value for natural qualities like empathy then this results in all manner of misbehaviour in humans.
This is true of all ages but to begin life with a regular re-affirmation of the superiority of empathy, and other natural values, is a good way to develop the habit and making this wisdom stick. If everyone knew that then we wouldn’t have many issues to speak of but whenever someone tries to make that point, it is rejected by ego and the artificial values of concept that already occupy.
(put this in the vault)
The way I see it, love and fear are the two primary emotions. Fear is subjectively bad, but objectively it is a natural value, and instinctive quality for survival. Love also exists on the instinctive level, both are present in animals, albeit in a more rudimentary form as humans conceptualize.
Hate is different from these, as animals do not experience it. You may have heard of “racist dogs” but this is just conditioning, not an understanding of the concept of racism. Humans are the only ones who experience hate, funnily enough we are the only ones who experience conceptualization, co-incidence? No. Hate is a concept that has been place in a superior position above our natural qualities, even replacing them, and when we replace our natural qualities with ANY conceptual value, we lose all inherent worth, things go to shit.
As I said, natural qualities exist in us as basic instinct, but concept is a tool in which to enhance them beyond the immediate use of them, not to replace them.
Natural qualities start as love and fear but become things like empathy, pleasure/pain, fight or flight and a gravitation toward doing things the easier way. Animals have these traits also, but in humans we can enhance them or replace them, both of these options are done with imagination and concept.
A thing is to identify natural qualities, as I have done, but it helps to know conceptual values that are often misappropriated and substitute those qualities, here is a general list: Malicious intent, prideful ambition, over indulgence, deflection of responsibility, denial of a duty of care and judgemental superiority.
There may be, well probably is, more of both natural qualities and conceptual values involved in this mess, but those are key ones that I have developed thus far.
Of course you could argue, besides the obvious unattractiveness of those conceptual values, what makes them “bad”? Surely that is subjective. Well nothing is truely objective, in the Nihilistic sense, just as no concept has inherent value. But I would argue logic in this case.
Humans are a product of constructive relationships, animal community constructive relationships, genetic, molecular, atomic, energy, string theory constructive relationships right down the line to the quantum. As a product of constructive relationships, we naturally are constructive beings.
But we are also sentient and this means we have certain chores before us: 1) To protect and liberate constructive relationships, for their prosperity. 2) Control and focus of destructive forces, to minimize collateral damage toward that which does not require that effect.
When we look at the natural qualities, this principle conforms to every natural quality we have, but when you look at it in pure logic it also makes complete sense, it improves life and makes things easier.
So my Nihilistic modification is: “Concepts have no inherent value beyond enhancing our natural qualities” and even Nihilism cannot claim objectivity, so forget about objective/subjective and just do what is beneficial, natural, empathic, less painful, easier, logical and constructive.
With these two conceptual identities/sociopathic tendancies “deflection of responsibility, denial of a duty of care” I will clarify the difference.
Deflection of responsibility should be more like deflection of Liability. This is where people blame anyone or anything but themselves for misdeeds. Denial of duty of care is to refuse to help when it is in your power or obligation to do so.