Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Help me Lorites

It doesn't matter if a man means to help but by his clumsiness hurts or means to harm and by his skill hinders, the intervention of either is evil.
Utilitarians argue the usefulness of a deed for good or evil decides its' morality; Kant isn't concerned with consequences but intentions; Aristotle had an idea (I just found out today) disregarding intentions+consequences 4d "character" of d person which I suppose is evaluated by virtues and a bullshit means of pretending royalty is innately just, regardless of anything done, in a circular-reasoning bit to make out rulers as good. Egoism I disregard b/c morality is mostly the impartial arbitrary standard appealed to for dispute settlement. "You wronged me b/c [moral law*]". It may be thought "I didn't do right by myself", "a man shouldn't kill himself", or "you wrong your body with drugs" but these return to utilitarian standards, the lattermost really meaning "you'll get more pleasure from your body in your lifetime without drugs because the damage of drugs will cause a net loss of pleasure", appeals to a personified moral standard "your body is God's temple so keep it clean", collectivism "I don't like you when you're drunk", or weirdest-of-all the idea you're beholden to your body, that t'isn't a vassal commanded but somehow personified, for control of it you owe due maintenence.
Confusing me firstly, God is written in the Bible to've brought evil on people. This term is in the meaning of evil as a damaging state . Compare a tornado to adultery or flat tires to insults. The question "if a thing (God) is Good, the ideal/exemplar of the moral standard we want to obtain then how may it produce evil? If an action is good doesn't it bring about good? If it does not how is the act good?"
So, returning to the cause for which I originally started this [you decide], I presumed that my philosophical conclusion was foregone. I figured someone had thought the same thing before, written it down, it has a name, and there's a bunch of attached ideas revolving around it like an electron cloud. This impression was on me (I suppose) because some time ago I read in a book the names for every variable combination of God, Satan, and Man's existence, power, morality and relationship. I think the one where God and Satan were equal in power and Man is the neutral battle-decider was called Dualism. Maybe another capital name before or after. Anyway with a worldview for each combination: existence with man as good made by an all-powerful evil Satan in a Godless universe, man as evil with God and Satan as good one wanting to redeem man and the other condemn him (now I'm making stuff up), I figured someone must have run through the combinations of intent+action+result=moral. Good intention+evil action=evil result=good?
I checked out wikipedia and searched Google but haven't found the morality I'm currently ascribing to. I realized it when shifting back and forth about the Fed. Is there really a conspiracy to screw people over or are they inept idiots? I decided the answer's moot. Either way they're damaging us and so are undesirable. If they will not relinquish their power they should die because they do evil by ineptitude or intention. And that has been accepted in me as a generally applicable morality. A home owner has just as much right to kick out the mentally retarded relative who breaks his plates as he does the spiteful schemer who convinced the retard to do it. He is not obligated to care for either, to allow them in his home, to suffer his plates breaking. Funny I write this while housesitting.
I suppose, from the flipside, this situation's an appeal to individual rights. I Deserve, There is a Universal Standard and You Should are thirds of moral conceptions. You're just flipping the starting point and ending point back-and-forth. This house is mine (I bought it, built it, found it without owner, or it was given to me) and I won't have you in it breaking dishes OR you shouldn't break people's dishes and so I ask you to leave. That's the trick of collectivism: cowardly shysters who have the boldness to claim something but won't admit to others they're claiming start at the general end "you should treat someone who's sick, even if he gives you nothing in return" with the goal "I am sick, treat me for free" left unspoken to sink in as an impression of behavior people take for granted. I've never heard someone who has accepted such sublanguage be so clear as to include the fact "the doctor gets nothing in return for his work". That's one of the problems I have with Ayn Rand's writing: the villains speak their villainy explicitly as I've never known that sort to do in real life.

{Sublanguage: I just coined it and its' the optimum description. The entire point of such speech patterns is what I find a form of mislanguage but similar in goal and function so I can't call it anti-language. The righteous purpose of language is to observably define things so these definitions are known. Proper discourse appeals to a man's rationality so he may analyze what's put before him and by digestion let it sink into the lightless depths: wordless sections of his brain. Let it become conditioning, impressions, emotions, reactions, without the inner speech usually referenced by "thought".}

By contrast, sublanguage attempts, leaving absent the definitions of things, to make the definitions something only attainable as an impression. Do you understand the difference I'm trying to describe here? Proper language speaks to the speaking part of the brain so it may be relayed to the other parts. You're told, "look at that hotty" and the eye-controlling segment swivels the eyes to see what the sexual nethers are told to prepare for enjoying. You're told, "women have a right to choose" and approval for abortion is meant to sink into other parts of your brain, so the happy-juice releasing part of the mind puts out some cheer-me-up chems when that fat dyke Rosie O'Donnel gets cheered for holding a hanger. By its' nature sublanguage confuses people and to accept its' practice is to enter a permanent state of easier-to-delude confusion. No one's confusion is complete and there're degrees. I figure every person I've met would use and approvingly hear a "look at _____" phrase. It's a simple command implying the listener's eyes are missing a worthier sight. I can't imagine a sublanguage means of saying "look there" but herein are differences between these languages' natures. Regular language must be used for the simplest and most immediate exchanges of information because it is the basis of all language. If "here is an apple" is not understood to be an apple or "duck they're shooting at us!" the language is useless. Mislanguage is used for longer-term communications. It is used to trick minds into accepting what they would reject if plainly displayed. Mislanguage is really conditioning. "a woman's right to choose" has nothing to do with abortion. Calm down. I mean the phrase. Nowhere in "a woman's right to choose" is there a concept relating to abortion. Recombine the words how you want, study their descriptions, and you'll find an approving reference to abortion can't be taken as their meaning. The meaning is transferred entirely from context: at rallies, in the press, classrooms, corporate bulletins, political speeches, etc. It's mislearning the language.
You hear the word pollo and ask "what is pollo?" or "what does pollo mean?". Imagine asking that question, "what do they mean, a woman's right to choose?". Someone already indoctrinated would probably be pissed, taking it as a challenge. Someone comfortable with an innocently inquiring tone might say, "they're talking about a woman's right to choose abortion". I doubt the speaker'd be so to-the-point. But the phrase is completed. Consider mislanguage: the definitive noun the entire sentence is about is silenced to leave a sentence fragment. It's to be completed in the subconscious. It's to keep the speaker and listener from knowing what they're talking about. It's a call-and-response of approval. It's engraved in listeners by repetition. Even people who disagree that a woman has the right to abort her baby know that "a woman's right to choose" is intended to be misunderstood as talking about abortion because they've heard it juxtaposed so many times with abortion.
When a connection's accepted between "a woman's right to choose" and abortion 3 arguments are already yielded to.
1)If abortion is a right than any imposition to punish aborters or stop the practice is unjustifiable oppression; oppossition to abortion is wicked.
2)If abortion is a woman's than opposition to abortion is opposition to women; oppossition to abortion's sexist. Yet a woman should not be conceived of as a place. Really your dealing w/a third entity, "our baby". It's not feminine but evil to completely reject a father's claim to his child (the sort of message Joss Whedon approves in, "Heart of Gold").
So the accepters of this phrase have their minds already prepared for what arguments to connect to: oppression and sexism. What about choice? Everything's a choice. The phrase doesn't lead to a discussion of free will. It primarily serves as a red herring. At the end of a sentence, if someone's mind has skipped the appeal to righteousness and the appeal to feminism here's a way to kill time. It's filibuster material.
"But it's her choice!"
"Every choice she makes is her's to make -"
"It's her choice."
"whatever we decide to do's our choice"
"what she does with her body's for her to choose"
The idiot who more fully accepts the phrase has become convinced his opponent is disagreeing with a basic fact and so becomes involved in a dialog of talking past each other. Reminders of basics vs. pointing out irrelevance.
Finally, and worse is another meaning taken from the phrase. It's the most insidious part and my tracking skills aren't up to snuff to figure how it has been ingrained in people who accept this thought-fragment (like a virus is a fragment you must reproduce). Come to think of it...I guess it's the contrapositive. "A woman's forced to lose" or something. B/c it's an incomplete thought it's hard to get an exact reversal. But someone who identifies abortion as murder becomes (in the mind of whoever lets "a woman's right to choose" take root and grow in his mind) someone who'd force away chicks' rights. The dire evil of this idea is the implication rights can be taken away by the government, that the state determines our actions, etc. It's causality/reality in reverse: instead of us acting based upon our rights and giving power to the government, the government acts upon us and gives us our rights. It's also another interest of a man describing others as he least would want himself described and by his absence of fearfully identifying himself by the projected description fulfilling its' role comfortably. He is for gunman extorting wealth from parents to pay for their grandchildren's execution so daughters may go to the final state indoctrination center.
"think of your education. How can you have a baby now? There's government assistance for these procedures..."
These unprovoked, causeless acts of violence are justified in his mind b/c they're practiced. Again, as Rand noted, thoughts in illogical reverse: it's 1done so it's 2appropriate instead of it's 1appropriate so it's 2done. A causal punishment: murderers will be hurt because they murdered is thought to undo murders. Again thinking in reverse: if you punish murderers they won't be able to decide to murder.
That's the most concentrated example of sublanguage I know. I suppose such a convoluted association of lies is needed to displace the simple evil of abortion in folks minds. Other simple lies requiring convoluted wrongs are,
"# deposited today will become <# in [time]"
"you owe me what you work for"=taxes.
Even if you refuse to look at abortion as evil in a moral sense look at it as an effect, like God causing a storm, plague of locusts, etc. Is it destructive? Is something lost or gained by abortion? If you still imagine motherhood's somehow a perversion of womanhood than atleast you should reduce your lie to, "good is wrought by the evil of abortion" as I may jest "good is wrought by the evil of a crop's destruction. Land is freed up for development." A scraped womb becomes fallow.

*unrelated to a ruler's written orders

No comments: