Karl

Most of us are owners of our own businesses if we are net producers. Therefore morality is not a function of the ownership of some specific business structure, but of the man who runs his own business-be that an individual, or larger structure. You are asking about morality and that must begin with a mans own moralality, his values and the way in which he conscientously applies himself to having and holding them. These are his principles. Whatever he does, he will apply those principles. A man with low morals will be a poor businessman, a thief, cheat, conman. He might use the Government to provide protection for his business, to artificially increase his profits by limiting his competitors and so partake in corrupt practices and effectively violence. The business is only as moral as the man who runs it, just as anything in life. If you are searching for morality in the products of man, then you won't find any, only in the man that produced them.

Are your moral values a product of some external code, or are they determined by rational thought ? If the first, then consult the codes. If they are by the second then the answer is apparent by rigorous, logical thinking. If you can do neither, then you are lost and no one can tell you. Toss a coin.

To try a conflate the scientific method with consciousness is to throw the scientific method under a bus and replace it with Kantian scepticism. Wether you believe scepticism is valid or not, it should be understood, that by It's acceptance, you have effectively said that we cannot know anything for certain. It begs the question of the purpose of discussing the subject of science, if you regard the scientific method itself is simply the product of consciousness ? it seems to me that you wish to use a method which establishes the primacy of existence to prove the opposite-the primacy of consciousness. Why would that be necessary except to attempt to bolster a philosophy which, by its nature, does not and cannot use it.

I have deliberately not added the the rest of objectivist philosophy in order that it does not confuse the discussion. It can perhaps be summed up succincly by the phrase "never seek to gain a value by falsifying reality'. The premier values would be rationality, integrity and honesty. From these are derived moral action, by striving virtuously to gain and hold those values. Virtue then is, as you say, not a value, but the striving to maintain those values. This doesn't mean that one is infallible, only that at all times one remains true to, and therefore virtuous in that pursuit. This is equally true of the intrincisist who keeps faith with his religion. However, it precludes rationality because it surrenders the mind. It says that one must stop all thought and turn to X (X being whatever the path is) that this is the virtuous path. I don't see that anyone truly surrenders their mind completely, but that command is implicit in whatever philosophy is followed. So an objectivist would say a lack of virtue will to lead to a lack of morality. There is good and bad and it can be clearly defined. This would also apply to those following the intrincisist path-good and bad are often explicitly defined in a set of God given codes. No such thing applies to the pragmatist. There is no good or bad. Everything is in flux and whim takes the place of virtue. As such we can probably dispense with the word 'virtue' for the subjectivist completely. No words have absolute meaning as there is no absolute reality according to their view point. In conclusion there is an enormous gulf between objectivism-where the values that are virtuously adhered to are rationality, integrity and honesty-and intrincism, which replaces rationality (the logical, reasoning mind) with a dedicated acceptance to a path and trusting that this path is rational and is therefore virtuous. The subjectivist is the next step on the ladder, in that there is neither a path, rationality or virtue. Its difficult not to form a judgement from an objectivist view point, that if a person has surrendered their minds, then the level of virtue is also surrendered to something external. This is absolutely true for religions with a deity and of course Gurus of Eastern philosophy. For some it is the peer group, or their social circle that they will look towards for that judgement.

The objectivist view is virtue is the process of a volitional conscious grasping. By a specific method of applying reason and logic. It's this active process which is considered virtuous. An intrincisist disregards active grasping. It would be called mind noise and so this conscious grasping would be the opposite of virtue. The intrincisist might say "be quiet and just hear God". Being quiet and quelling the conscious mind is the route to intrincisist virtue. Just turn the mind to reality with humility, honestness and openness. Avoid distraction. It is this ascetic method which is virtuous. The subjectivist is the skeptic. Nothing can be known because there are no absolutes. There is neither a requirement for quelling the mind, nor for active thinking, they are equal. Everything is, and is not, equally virtuous. It follows that choosing one of these philosophies and adhering to it as tightly as possible is more virtuous-the subjectivist is the odd one out because of the inverse view. All doing is not doing and so virtue is a relatively inconsequential concept. The two latter philosophies are developed around the primacy of consciousness, the former around the primacy of existence.

If you believe that there is an intrinsic nature which is best exemplified by adherence to a certain philosophy, then being more closely aligned to that philosophy will garner the greatest virtue. That's circular reasoning. It's self reinforcing.

That is a circular argument. If you have already determined that some action is virtuous then it follows that doing more of it will be more virtuous. This again is the intrinsicist view, in which the intrinsicist is more virtuous the more closely the philosophy is followed. In other words faith.

There is no implied separation, only that virtue is intrinsically revealed. The intrincisists view is that of 'eye of the mind', ESP or "I just know' there is no requirement for a remote deity.

Broadly: We Ming Jen is the intrincisist position that virtue is by God or some other divine revelation which requires the mind to be quiet. Shanlung is in the subjectivist position, which is the pragmatist stance, that virtue is subject to a collectivist societal influence where there is no black and whites (good and bad) only shades of grey. 'Whatever works for whoever it works for' is the pragmatic approach. The subjectivist movement is more dominant in Western society through the works of Dewey, Kant and Hegel. The intrincisists are more eastern influenced-the western equivalent being Plato or Augustine. Fascinating to watch this played out and see the common ground as being the underlying view of the primacy of consciousness. In other words you both agree, but not exactly from the same direction.

Depends on your philosophy. An intrincisist will say virtue is only a matter of opening your mind to divine revelation " to those that don't understand no explanation is possible and to those that understand then no explanation is necessary" A subjectivist will say that virtue is unknowable, that it is the product of an imprint on a collective consciousness. This is the pragmatic view, that society creates whatever it wishes. Then there is the objectivist view which is that virtue is the action of upholding ones values in a deliberate fashion. That effort is required to attain ones values and virtue is the action of that attainment.

Price of fame.

I wonder who that was?

'Intellectually' is all we have Nikolai. I know you will dispute that idea. This is why I say that we must be certain that what we know is sound and accurate. It is easily possible to produce an intellectual trap if reasoning ability isn't propagated. The proof of the pudding is really in the way we think and act. We can know when we are sufficiently settled ( some would say bliss) by a feeling of elemental grounding, a lack of any concern with anyone else's views of us, power, money or control. It is a steadfast knowing of who we are with total integrity. I can say that this is entirely different to any other false dawn I have experienced up to this point, and I expect that this will continue to refine as I age further. There is perhaps a good reason why the wise men of the village were also elders. Younger people make good leaders, but older people shrug off leadership and that need for others to follow. They become independent.

To derive the concept of a dream you had first to know reality. In a dream, when you fall down a flight of stairs you don't suffer even a single bruise. Try that when you are not dreaming and you will like as not break a limb.

A mystic believes that true knowledge is only available through some special knowing. An example would be God, or 'oneness'.They don't believe knowing can be achieved through human reason, but that knowledge must be found through trance/meditation/prayer etc. A sceptic is different to a realist, or an atheist. A sceptic says 'well it's possible isn't it?', or 'maybe you are wrong?' They don't believe in certainty-that anything can be known.

Sceptics believe that knowledge is impossible to obtain(subjectivism), as opposed to Mystics who believe it is available without effort (intrinsically revealed). Both essentially believe in the same thing from different standpoints-the primacy of consciousness.

I have been an AYP practitioner since 2008. In the last few months I have subscribed to a course on Aristotelian logic and have been studying both the trivium and quadrivium. If anything focuses the mind it is the study and practice of logic. However it has lead me to question many of the assertions used in AYP practice. I have discovered that there is very little latitude to question the logic of these assertions. I was one of the moderators of the forum, but found that I could not continue doing so as it seemed I would be effectively censoring my own posts. It was impossible to have an open discussion without heated defence of the terms being used. I remembered a few past members who had moved across here for similar reasons and noticed that the thread on AYP remained stubbornly active and that participants seemed far more questioning and pragmatic. Whilst I will continue to remain a member of AYP and believe it does have an 'early worth' ( certainly for me it is unlikely I would have begun any form of serious practice without it ) it seems I've reached the limits of its usefulness and am unable to subscribe to the acolytes fashion with which it seems to be defended. Perhaps here I will find a more conducive home for airing questions and advance my practices beyond their present condition.

Following my recent-and somewhat confusing-suspension I have decided that the best option is to discontinue posting and become a lurker :-) ( I can get some more effort put into my book instead of hanging around here-but I contend it's been useful research which justified the effort ;-) ). I will remain available on PM as I promised to provide some support. All the best to all the seekers. May you find your home.

Well we don't agree on much these days, but absolutely on that score. It seemed destined to stir up mud and that's exactly what it did.

Fair call, There has been far too much state intervention in the animal farming industry which can skew things. Subsidising beef production in areas where it isn't sustainable is ruinous and ultimately poor economics. Then there are the subsidies for maize farmers for cattle feed and methanol production. However, it's not always necessary to farm meat intensely to the degree that crops need to be grown specifically feed them. Sheep, cows and pigs do pretty well on grass, hay and swill. The grass and scrub plants will grow in areas which don't easily sustain agriculture and thus provide a very sustainable source of high calorie, healthy meat which is often local. In our part of the world we eat quite a bit of game such as venison. This is wild meat which is also very sustainable. Their habitats are often high, cold and rugged. The economic facts are clear, but only if the state stops its wholesale subsidies being thrown at farmers. If it's true that it is more costly to produce meat, then meat will have a clear cost disadvantage over vegetables. People will buy less as result and likely of higher quality. The market should be left to determine this and it will allocate resources to the best possible option.

I really was asking you to clarify. I've read that sentence several times and it suggested that men were not allowed to comment ? Have I misunderstood and you meant on the female forum ?

That stuff doesn't go away by creating a seperate forum. Women can stand their own ground. This isn't any place where a physical confrontation can occur. It's a level playing field in here. I always think it's a pity when segregation, or positive discrimination occurs it really disempowers women. I had a female CEO in a previous role and I had it in my head that we should run a 'women only' business start up club. My boss gave me the kind of look She reserved for a cat that brought her a dead rat. Sweet, but useless. Then she put me right.

Aw no. Why would anyone need such a thing ? Telling men or women to keep there noses out its just an ad hominem. "What do you know you are just a bloke, woman, young, old, white, middle aged etc". Still, it's the rules but it seems somewhat negative. Who needs confirmation of there own beliefs.

You are stating the bleeding obvious and pretending to be a shadow. It's just another belief. I had a brother who was like you. Life eventually overtook his Nihlist protestations and he found himself in trouble. You can act that way if you are psychopathic, but if you aren't then it's a poor shield and one which invariably holds back a tiny trickle whilst making the shield holder unable to cope with any floods. You are isolating yourself. It's the mental equivalent of heroine use.

@seth Is there a men only sanctuary ? Or a blacks only sanctuary ? And why are you acting like a peeping Tom and then castigating others for participating ? seems a weird dual standard you are operating.