[ExI] Nolopsism

[Aware]

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Spencer Campbell <lacertilian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Aware <aware at awareresearch.com>:
>> Spencer, a more coherent system of justice is possible, and "we"
>> continue to move, in fits and starts, in this direction already for
>> many millennia.
>>
>> But it's not based on abolishment of the self.  As Pollock's paper
>> shows, a sense of self is NECESSARY for situated effectiveness.
>>
>> Rather, it's a matter of identification of self over a GREATER sphere of agency.
>
> Right: corporations. Total abolishment of the self would ultimately
> require doing away with recognition of discrete objects entirely,
> which doesn't make a lot of sense. I would want a system that treats
> "selves" as legal fabrications, not one which denies their conceptual
> validity.
>
> Phew, almost said "existence" there. Shaky ground.
>
> Aware <aware at awareresearch.com>:
>> Increasing agreement on the rightness or "morality" of actions
>> corresponds to the extent such actions are assessed as promoting
>> an increasing context of increasingly coherent, hierarchical,
>> fine-grained, present but evolving (subjective) values, via
>> methods increasingly effective, in principle, over increasing
>> (objective) scope of interaction. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>>
>> Yes, it's a mouthful, and I estimate it takes several hundred pages to
>> unpack in order to accommodate the priors of most here.
>
> You're correct: for me, it's more than a mouthful. You seem to be
> giving a definition for "increasing agreement on the rightness or
> 'morality' of actions", but I can't figure out exactly how that bears
> on the discussion. It wasn't a point of contention.

I saw you wrote "I feel confident that a coherent system of law could
be made without the assumption that any selves exist for it to protect."

I responded to that without recognizing the sarcasm that became
obvious further down.  Sorry.


> We seem to be making incremental progress toward Kantland. It's only a
> matter of time before we come across a roaming herd of categorical
> imperatives.

I'm talking about an upgrade to Kant's Categorical Imperative.  Its
most significant weakness is its lack of evolutionary perspective.

- Jef