?

Log in

No account? Create an account

May 9th, 2007

1984/Apple-IBM parody of Clinton

1984/Apple-IBM parody of Clinton ... by an Obama group!  Make me *lol*.  I still like Clinton.  She's determined.  But we've already been through the Bush aristocracy and I'd rather not go through a Clinton version of one.

Context:

"Those grand lines of perrenial wisdom that you gave, these bullshit 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' lines are nothing but ego-driven nonsense. ... As you can see, those tidbits of "grand advice" simply don't work. Do another 3000 years of stupidity and violence need to pass before you will admit they don't work?" owl_clan   on buddhists   here.

"Don't you mean altruistic nonsense?!" by me, ibid.

"No, ... The deluded ultimate division between "self" and "other" is one of the reasons why we have so many of the problems we have right now, and have had for ages. The idea that you should only treat others the way YOU would want to be treated is a self-defeating idea; it reinforces bad egoism and egocentric tendencies to only judge others by our own standards, and treat them in selfish ways." by Owl, ibid.

Argument Against Egoism:

Ah, I see what you mean.1  But consider that the "wisdom" of the ancients is still limited by language. By abstracting the Golden Rule from linguistic limitations, I think it is more apparent that our new and "deeper" wisdom -- the kind that discards egoism as you say, or what I call Oneness -- is similar to the concepts conveyed by those ancient words.

For example, if something called A acts on something else called B as if A were acting on A, and if all actions of A follow this rule, then A acts on everything as if each thing is A. In mathematics we would call this condition a substitution of A for B and would result in A substituted for all things x. It sounds like your interpretation of this example would be a myriad of individual, egoistic A's (A1, A2, .. An). In the case of a mathematical example, however, this conclusion is premature. If all things x are A, then we have equality of all things (A1 = A2 = .. = An), and this kind of equality reduces to unity, or just one A. This is what I call Oneness; it includes an ethics that treats everyone equally.

The only problem with abstracting people using this example is when someone is a solipsist. A solipsistic person would not believe other A's exist, regardless of they're supposed equality, and could circumvent the Golden Rule. Regardless I think the ancient's words meant this kind equality of individuals and not egoism.

Notes & References:

1. Indeed, I knew what Owl was referring to because I wrote on concept of reducing one's selfish interest in the context of Buddhism and psychology some months earlier.  See also (aka. the Another Argument Against series),

Absolute Equality: Racism, Sexism, and Heterosexism
On Calling People Stupid: Bitch-slap
In Defense of ... Not Again
The Psychology and Sociology of Objectivists
Machina: the Ego-bots and their Individualistic Revolt