• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.
Reaction score

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • So I just now saw this response (you totally typed in on your page lol).

    I think it's less about ethics and more about humans being bound to seek pleasure; something that allows prediction of behavior. Hedonism knows no bounds between human and object, but I assume bonds between people have more potential. Potential to do what, I'm not sure because there's too many directions that action can take.

    Built in pleasure seeking (genetic/epigenetic) would make sense re: childhood as well as other species. Just look at the development of the HPA axis in PTSD. Fear literally changes the brain's structure. Might pleasure do the same?

    I wouldn't consider pleasure seeking to be extension of higher thought, but a base instinct. Love of material items is higher thinking in that it often serves as barter for sex, but if the "greater potential" assumption is correct, then human-human love might be a more advanced manifestation of that instinct.
    Sorry for all the questions that's the only way I can get my point across for something I know nothing about
    Lunacy doesn't sound so bad to me dude. You think love is a manifestation of the equilibrium between right and wrong? Do you think that one may only love another human, do you believe one can love material items? Then the question arises as to why people "love" different things, which clearly leads back to childhood. You make up a conclusion for that. If animals can love, can they love material items? Is the love of material items an extension of higher thought?
    And yeah, it's a bit of an aside, but what is love? Some manifestation of organization in the "right" direction? Or in other words, does hedonism as a driving factor of the human level of organization work in terms of physics?
    I'm all in agreement with the unifying field being the largest macro-system level of organization.

    The problem comes in defining that level. If it's a certain point, a single entity, then what exists beyond it? Where are the boundaries between something and nothing? The only idea that I'm aware of that rectifies this is that of infinite regress.

    And if you're up for preaching lunacy I can totally indoctrinate you into nothingland. The current method involves hot sauce, LSD, and a large wooden stick along a path of hookers, 80 grade coke, and rainbows.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom