A Strategy For Sages to Survive as Travelling Vagrants

[Cory Duchesne]

Ryan: btw, Sam, do you think it is a bad thing when a serial rapist is judged as immoral and unfit for society, and locked up? Doesn’t such a moral judgment have a utilitarian value for the larger collective?

Sam: That isn't a moral judgment, it is a utilitarian one. It is utilitarian to lock up someone who harms others, isn't it?

Moral Judgment always involves an ought. (We ought to put the rapist behind bars)

A utilitarian judgment only involves what is. (fertilizer X works better than fertilizer Y)

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: That isn't a moral judgment, it is a utilitarian one. It is utilitarian to lock up someone who harms others, isn't it?

Cory: Moral Judgment always involves an ought. (We ought to put the rapist behind bars)

A utilitarian judgment only involves what is. (fertilizer X works better than fertilizer Y)

There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat. Whether someone who harms others deserves to be labeled as "bad" is a moral judgment.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: That isn't a moral judgment, it is a utilitarian one. It is utilitarian to lock up someone who harms others, isn't it?

Cory: Moral Judgment always involves an ought. (We ought to put the rapist behind bars)

A utilitarian judgment only involves what is. (fertilizer X works better than fertilizer Y)

There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat.

Recognizing the fact that there are consequences is a utilitarian judgment. Deciding how one ought to deal with the potential consequences is a moral judgment.

[Carl G]

Iolous: What answers have you come up with?

Carl: A rather flip way to put it. In any case this is a vast subject and I'm not at all sure a public Internet forum is the best place to discuss.

Yeah, a forum dedicated to discussing truth, genius and spiritual matters is no place for talking about such a vast subject.

Yes, probably not, and thanks for helping to drive the point home.

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat.

Cory: Recognizing the fact that there are consequences is a utilitarian judgment. Deciding how one ought to deal with the potential consequences is a moral judgment.

However you want to slice and dice it, you don't need to judge someone morally to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory,

sam: There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat.

Cory: Recognizing the fact that there are consequences is a utilitarian judgment. Deciding how one ought to deal with the potential consequences is a moral judgment.

However you want to slice and dice it, you don't need to judge someone morally to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Why should a person deal with consequences? Why not just sit back and let them happen?

[samadhi]

Why should a person deal with consequences? Why not just sit back and let them happen?

That's up to you.

[Cory Duchesne]

Why should a person deal with consequences? Why not just sit back and let them happen?

That's up to you.

I know, that's why I want to hear what you have to say. I want to know myself better. So go ahead, answer the question please.

[brokenhead]

Moral Judgments are utilitarian judgments.

But this is not true, Ryan. Consider: Gays just got the go-ahead to marry in California. There are strong feelings for and against this development. There are, in other words, moral judgements. Many of the judgements are by people who are not and will never be directly affected by the politics and reality of gay marriage. In what manner are judgements from such peolpe utilitarian? Rather, they are emotional, knee-jerk reactions, devoid of rational causes, and equally devoid of practical consequences. For example, some blue-hair old biddies in Ohio cluck about the decay of moral fiber in this country. So what? Their disapproval means nothing. It is not utilitarian.

[samadhi]

Cory,

Cory: Why should a person deal with consequences? Why not just sit back and let them happen?

sam: That's up to you.

Cory: I know, that's why I want to hear what you have to say. I want to know myself better. So go ahead, answer the question please.

You know, I find it highly ironic that you and Ryan, both hard-core causation advocates are here espousing the necessity of making moral judgments. If someone is caused to perform a certain action, by what reasoning do you subject that person to moral judgment when there is no personal will behind the action? You both espouse the necessity to drop emotions yet here you are promoting the moral judgment of others that can only be based on emotion and free will. Can you bring Sue, Kevin and David on board as well? Let's get the whole gang of causationists behind emotion and free will! Causationists for Free Will and Emotion! lol ... you got to love it!

And the answer to your question if you haven't figured it out already is, because you want to.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The ego however requires constant feeding to keep up appearances. It likes to know where it stands in relation to others. Thus it wields its judgments and measures accordingly.

It's not about liking, it is what it does and it needs to happen like that by its very definition (of self). The moment one can see and understand that, the need to criticize an ego for "loving moral judgments" disappears. Because that would come quite naturally and should not be judged in itself.

The ego exists as a matter of experience, denying it doesn't make it disappear, it only makes it clandestine.

It appears to exist only when intensely staring at it, cross-eyed, for a very long time. :)

There are many standards by which a hierarchy can be constructed. Moral judgments are the most subjective and the ego likes it that way because, guess what? It gets to set the standards.

Standards have to be set, definitely. That's what morality is about. How to discover if those standards are corrupt or healthy, that's another question. Anything depending on continuing a delusion would "like" to keep it that way and avoid thorough investigation.

Ah, so now you want to talk about "healthy" judgments as opposed to moral judgments. Let me guess, utilitarian?

It seems you're talking about deontological judgements. The problem is that establishing the utility or value of a consequence is derived from ultimately a moral judgment made. Because one could value the survival of the human race or the planet or one could not care about it. The morality starts there as there's no absolute way of knowing if it's the 'right' thing or not.

Moral judgments help no one and hurt everyone.

Moral judgments are not only made about others or their morality, it are judgments stemming from ones own morality, which is caused by many factors. For many it's just a feeling or principle they adhere to.

Like yourself just posted: "moral judgment of others that can only be based on emotion and free will". This is a warped and quite unusual way of looking at moral judgments. I'd say it's utterly false and self-serving, as definition. There's way more that can form a moral judgment.

For the hundredth time, I am not talking about utilitarian judgments. Who has a problem with judging when they want to go to bed? But it is ridiculous to say a moral judgment like it is bad to go to bed after 10 pm is the same as a utilitarian judgment that says I don't get sleepy until 11pm and thus like to go to bed then.

You brought up utilitarian judgments. But you don't seem to realize what they are. Utilitarian judgments are more of the type of sacrificing an individual life for a 'greater good' and so on. It's based on numbers or some scale of success or benefit [which in itself is rooted in a system of right and wrong, so ultimately not amoral].

Make all the utilitarian judgments you want, just don't moralize about them to others.

It seems your problem is more about making a judgment personal, like "you or things you do or say, are deluded, unwise, blinded, selfish", etc.

I just don't see how it can be avoided all the time. One can let the words 'imply' it and refrain from stating it openly. And often that's the gentler and wiser way as one could have misunderstood. In my view, when somebody gets really obnoxiously unwise and he should know better - stronger terms are justified. And that should be a utilitarian decision only.

[Alex Jacob]

The more that you guys go on with this, the farther we all get away from those vids of the Incredible String Band singing the way to enlightenment...

A 'moral judgment' should be attached to that...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory,

Moral Judgment always involves an ought. (We ought to put the rapist behind bars)

A utilitarian judgment only involves what is. (fertilizer X works better than fertilizer Y)

But it seems to me that understanding ‘what is’ requires also understanding ‘what ought to be’. So we cannot make an adequate utilitarian observation without have solid strong moral values as well.

For instance: Fertilizer X works better than Fertilizer Y at what though?

At Maximizing yields, but degrading soil quality, which results in larger short-term profits. Or providing an adequate yield for your needs, while improving soil quality, and providing small profits, but more steady profits over the long-term. Depending on your moral values, you can come up with two totally different utilitarian analyses of 'what is' so I don’t separate the two.

Recognizing the fact that there are consequences is a utilitarian judgment. Deciding how one ought to deal with the potential consequences is a moral judgment.

I don’t know, there is more to utilitarian judgments than just recognizing all the possible consequences; action or conclusions are also required, which are moral in nature. Why separate the two? Utilitarian thinkers are interested in taking action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number, what could be more ethical and moral than that? Where did you come up with the notion that utilitarian philosophers are not men of action? They seem to do more than just blindly study consequences without discrimination.

Sam,

There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat. Whether someone who harms others deserves to be labeled as "bad" is a moral judgment.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Utilitarians don’t just analyze all the consequences without taking action, action is the whole purpose of the analysis in the first place, and one’s moral framework is the only thing that can be used to determine whether one action is more preferable than another.

However you want to slice and dice it, you don't need to judge someone morally to deal with the consequences of their actions.

That doesn’t make any sense, if your not judging the action as unacceptable, then why take action? Judgment is necessary for action. Dealing with the consequences of actions requires judgment. You cannot be indifferent to a behavior to deal with the consequences. You must prefer one outcome over another.

Brokenhead,

But this is not true, Ryan. Consider: Gays just got the go-ahead to marry in California. There are strong feelings for and against this development. There are, in other words, moral judgements. Many of the judgements are by people who are not and will never be directly affected by the politics and reality of gay marriage. In what manner are judgements from such peolpe utilitarian? Rather, they are emotional, knee-jerk reactions, devoid of rational causes, and equally devoid of practical consequences. For example, some blue-hair old biddies in Ohio cluck about the decay of moral fiber in this country. So what? Their disapproval means nothing. It is not utilitarian.

But you can form a moral judgment without a strong emotional reaction. For instance: I don’t support gay marriage, but I also don’t support romantic marriage either. Why? Because the results of both are attachment, delusion, and a loss of integrity/authenticity over the long-term. Romantic pair ups degrade the soul over time, and so I don’t support the heterosexual or homosexual variety.

So should we take the utilitarian stance and ban all marriage then? No, it’s pointless because it won’t have any long term affect. People have to change psychologically for themselves by realizing the spiritual danger to romantic pair-ups. From what I read, utilitarian philosophers are always concerned with taking the action that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, but defining what "great" means implies moral judgments.

The only way to take adequate ‘action’ against marriage is to make a strong irrefutable argument against marriage based on its irrational consequences, rather than changing the law or institutions.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: The ego however requires constant feeding to keep up appearances. It likes to know where it stands in relation to others. Thus it wields its judgments and measures accordingly.

Diebert: It's not about liking, it is what it does and it needs to happen like that by its very definition (of self).

Whether it needs to happen is debatable but it does happen and the ego likes it that way.

The moment one can see and understand that, the need to criticize an ego for "loving moral judgments" disappears. Because that would come quite naturally and should not be judged in itself.

This kind of argument is missing the point. Are moral judgments helpful? No, they aren't and I've told you why. Of course you can go on making them if that's what you want. It doesn't mean there aren't consequences to them. If you consider pointing to the consequences criticism that offends your ego's need to judge others, fine. Get over it.

sam: The ego exists as a matter of experience, denying it doesn't make it disappear, it only makes it clandestine.

Diebert: It appears to exist only when intensely staring at it, cross-eyed, for a very long time. :)

Whatever.

sam: There are many standards by which a hierarchy can be constructed. Moral judgments are the most subjective and the ego likes it that way because, guess what? It gets to set the standards.

Diebert: Standards have to be set, definitely. That's what morality is about.

I am not arguing against values in general but the need to judge others on a moral level.

How to discover if those standards are corrupt or healthy, that's another question. Anything depending on continuing a delusion would "like" to keep it that way and avoid thorough investigation.

You miss the point. You can have any values you want without judging others because they don't believe in your values.

sam: Ah, so now you want to talk about "healthy" judgments as opposed to moral judgments. Let me guess, utilitarian?

Diebert: It seems you're talking about deontological judgements. The problem is that establishing the utility or value of a consequence is derived from ultimately a moral judgment made. Because one could value the survival of the human race or the planet or one could not care about it. The morality starts there as there's no absolute way of knowing if it's the 'right' thing or not.

Again, it's not about having values. I am not saying, "don't have values." I am saying that judging others as morally inferior because they don't hold your values is problematic.

sam: Moral judgments help no one and hurt everyone.

Diebert: Moral judgments are not only made about others or their morality, it are judgments stemming from ones own morality, which is caused by many factors. For many it's just a feeling or principle they adhere to.

If you are saying that it requires a moral judgment to say, "I don't want to harm others," fine. That isn't the kind of judgment being discussed and I think you know that. You get to choose your values. You don't get to impose them.

Like yourself just posted: "moral judgment of others that can only be based on emotion and free will". This is a warped and quite unusual way of looking at moral judgments. I'd say it's utterly false and self-serving, as definition. There's way more that can form a moral judgment.

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing any more. Do you know what I am talking about? It isn't having values!

sam: For the hundredth time, I am not talking about utilitarian judgments. Who has a problem with judging when they want to go to bed? But it is ridiculous to say a moral judgment like it is bad to go to bed after 10 pm is the same as a utilitarian judgment that says I don't get sleepy until 11pm and thus like to go to bed then.

Diebert: You brought up utilitarian judgments. But you don't seem to realize what they are. Utilitarian judgments are more of the type of sacrificing an individual life for a 'greater good' and so on. It's based on numbers or some scale of success or benefit [which in itself is rooted in a system of right and wrong, so ultimately not amoral].

I gave you an example of what I consider to be a utilitarian judgment. It is deciding what works for you. As for the greater good, yeah, you get to have values, but that isn't what the discussion is about.

sam: Make all the utilitarian judgments you want, just don't moralize about them to others.

Diebert: It seems your problem is more about making a judgment personal, like "you or things you do or say, are deluded, unwise, blinded, selfish", etc.

Gee, you finally got it.

I just don't see how it can be avoided all the time. One can let the words 'imply' it and refrain from stating it openly. And often that's the gentler and wiser way as one could have misunderstood. In my view, when somebody gets really obnoxiously unwise and he should know better - stronger terms are justified. And that should be a utilitarian decision only.

Whether one tries to avoid it all the time or not is another matter. In this discussion, the point is how moral judgments reflect on those who use them casually and constantly. It isn't pretty.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: There are utilitarian consequences of locking up a public threat. Whether someone who harms others deserves to be labeled as "bad" is a moral judgment.

Ryan: This doesn’t make any sense to me. Utilitarians don’t just analyze all the consequences without taking action, action is the whole purpose of the analysis in the first place, and one’s moral framework is the only thing that can be used to determine whether one action is more preferable than another.

Action isn't judgment, is it? It's action. You can put someone in jail without a moral judgment. A moral judgment isn't a legal judgment, do you understand that?

sam: However you want to slice and dice it, you don't need to judge someone morally to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Ryan: That doesn’t make any sense, if your not judging the action as unacceptable, then why take action?

If someone you know had schizophrenia, would you condemn them for their actions? Couldn't you deal with the consequences of their actions without morally condemning them?

Judgment is necessary for action. Dealing with the consequences of actions requires judgment. You cannot be indifferent to a behavior to deal with the consequences. You must prefer one outcome over another.

You continue to conflate utilitarian judgment with moral judgment even after I keep pointing out the difference. Talk to Diebert, maybe he can explain it you.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sam,

Cory,

Cory: Why should a person deal with consequences? Why not just sit back and let them happen?

Sam: That's up to you.

Cory: I know, that's why I want to hear what you have to say. I want to know myself better. So go ahead, answer the question please.

You know, I find it highly ironic that you and Ryan, both hard-core causation advocates are here espousing the necessity of making moral judgments.

If someone is caused to perform a certain action, by what reasoning do you subject that person to moral judgment when there is no personal will behind the action?

In the same way a farmer decides he ought to chop down a diseased tree, a teacher decides he ought to teach an ignorant student.

You both espouse the necessity to drop emotions yet here you are promoting the moral judgment of others that can only be based on emotion and free will.

Please demonstrate how you have arrived at the conclusion that promoting the moral judgment of others must be based on emotion and free will.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert: Moral judgments are not only made about others or their morality, it are judgments stemming from ones own morality, which is caused by many factors. For many it's just a feeling or principle they adhere to.

If you are saying that it requires a moral judgment to say, "I don't want to harm others," fine. That isn't the kind of judgment being discussed and I think you know that. You get to choose your values. You don't get to impose them.

Your idea of a moral judgment seems totally arbitrary to me. I don't recognize it and certainly I wasn't talking about imposing values or deciding what values 'should' work for others. That's a given. Anyone who believes he could live without imposing in some ways his view on the world (or its counter-part: submitting himself to values of other people or a group), is in my eyes terribly misguided about how the world works and continuously has to be in denial about it.

the point is how moral judgments reflect on those who use them casually and constantly. It isn't pretty.

But it's also quite normal to see the truth as ugly from a position of habitual lying. So if someone would be judgmental because of the truth he keeps on perceiving, the effect would be the same. He won't win a beauty contest and there's no way you can differentiate between an ugly character or a truth teller this way - without first making some moral judgments yourself.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: If you are saying that it requires a moral judgment to say, "I don't want to harm others," fine. That isn't the kind of judgment being discussed and I think you know that. You get to choose your values. You don't get to impose them.

Diebert: Your idea of a moral judgment seems totally arbitrary to me. I don't recognize it and certainly I wasn't talking about imposing values or deciding what values 'should' work for others. That's a given. Anyone who believes he could live without imposing in some ways his view on the world (or its counter-part: submitting himself to values of other people or a group), is in my eyes terribly misguided about how the world works and continuously has to be in denial about it.

You don't recognize it??? Here, I'll judge you and you tell me how you like it.

Are you really this dumb? How stupid do you have to be to not understand what it means to condemn someone else because you don't like what they are saying? What is arbitrary about pointing out how condemnation is simply a way to feel superior to idiots like you?

Now do you get it?

sam: the point is how moral judgments reflect on those who use them casually and constantly. It isn't pretty.

Diebert: But it's also quite normal to see the truth as ugly from a position of habitual lying. So if someone would be judgmental because of the truth he keeps on perceiving, the effect would be the same. He won't win a beauty contest and there's no way you can differentiate between an ugly character or a truth teller this way - without first making some moral judgments yourself.

The truth teller has no need to condemn anyone. Did I have to call you stupid for not understanding me? No, I didn't. But people do it because they like to feel superior. Ryan blithely throws out moral judgments on every post. Do you really think his judging everyone as inferior to him is about truth telling?

[samadhi]

Cory,

sam: If someone is caused to perform a certain action, by what reasoning do you subject that person to moral judgment when there is no personal will behind the action?

Cory: In the same way a farmer decides he ought to chop down a diseased tree, a teacher decides he ought to teach an ignorant student.

The farmer does not morally condemn the tree nor does the teacher condemn the student. Try again.

sam: You both espouse the necessity to drop emotions yet here you are promoting the moral judgment of others that can only be based on emotion and free will.

Cory: Please demonstrate how you have arrived at the conclusion that promoting the moral judgment of others must be based on emotion and free will.

Moral judgment is about feeling superior (an emotion) and disapproval (an emotion). Condemning someone presupposes they could have done things differently, i.e. it presupposes free will.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Here, I'll judge you and you tell me how you like it.

Are you really this dumb? How stupid do you have to be to not understand what it means to condemn someone else because you don't like what they are saying? What is arbitrary about pointing out how condemnation is simply a way to feel superior to idiots like you?

Now do you get it?

That's not just a judgment but a false one since you're here conflating moral judgment and condemnation. I tried to explain how they substantially differ in every normal use of the word. You only have a problem with it apparently because to you all moral judgment becomes damnation of some kind. This doesn't need to be with everyone.

Let me finish with another judgment: you're not even in the discussion - and frankly: almost every discussion I've seen you engaged in at this forum you seem to be quite lost. You seem to lack reading skills, depth, seriousness and self-examination. Every single discussion the same pattern comes drifting at the surface.

What does this judgment accomplish? Not much, it doesn't make me feel anything, it only reflects truthfully what I think so that it doesn't have to hide behind carefully chosen words. It also will explain why I'll give up dragging on the discussions with you in any way.

If you are really enjoying participating at this forum, it must be for very wrong reasons and a sign the forum is becoming too much of a resting place for tired souls to wax their henids around and even reinforcing each others delusions without any sign of getting even one bit closer to a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

That's not just a judgment but a false one since you're here conflating moral judgment and condemnation.

Oh please. Did you read the thread? This all began with Ryan. Are you saying his moral judgments of others have nothing to do with condemnation?

I tried to explain how they substantially differ in every normal use of the word. You only have a problem with it apparently because to you all moral judgment becomes damnation of some kind. This doesn't need to be with everyone.

I told you what I was talking about. Your need to redefine it is the problem.

Let me finish with another judgment: you're not even in the discussion - and frankly: almost every discussion I've seen you engaged in at this forum you seem to be quite lost. You seem to lack reading skills, depth, seriousness and self-examination. Every single discussion the same pattern comes drifting at the surface.

Lol. You jump in in the middle of a discussion, sidetrack it, and then decide it's my problem. Give me a break.

What does this judgment accomplish? Not much, it doesn't make me feel anything, it only reflects truthfully what I think so that it doesn't have to hide behind carefully chosen words. It also will explain why I'll give up dragging on the discussions with you in any way.

All you have been bringing to our discussions are your distortions anyway. No big loss.

If you are really enjoying participating at this forum, it must be for very wrong reasons and a sign the forum is becoming too much of a resting place for tired souls to wax their henids around and even reinforcing each others delusions without any sign of getting even one bit closer to a deeper appreciation of the issues at stake.

Thanks for the judgment, you have proved my point!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam.

Moral judgment is about feeling superior (an emotion) and disapproval (an emotion). Condemning someone presupposes they could have done things differently, i.e. it presupposes free will.

You’re a little thick when it comes to this, but I’ve concluded that you maybe incapable of realizing that moral judgment does not always require egotistical emotional rewards. As a said, as one judges similar behavior universally in all people, then it just becomes a reflex. There is no reward left in it.

Moreover, if I describe a healthy tree compared to an unhealthy tree, there is no reward in it for me, the same applies to psychological behavior when judging healthy humans compared to unhealthy humans. And the reason why moral judgment is important is because a minority of confused spiritual seekers can be directed in the right direction through moral judgment because the criticism affects their psychology deeply at the neurological level.

And so an enlightened individual values moral judgment because it is the only thing that can ‘cause’ a minority of intellectuals to change significantly.

The truth teller has no need to condemn anyone. Did I have to call you stupid for not understanding me? No, I didn't. But people do it because they like to feel superior. Ryan blithely throws out moral judgments on every post. Do you really think his judging everyone as inferior to him is about truth telling?

But you have to point in the right direction, which requires judgment. It requires saying, this behavior is unintelligent because it causes this and this over the long-term, and therefore if you value intelligence, and are striving to grow spiritually, you must change your behavior, and change your cognitive patterns.

Disapproval is one way to convey that a person’s behavior is anti-social, irrational, and a preventative factor to achieving a more rational mind.

Condemning someone presupposes they could have done things differently, i.e. it presupposes free will.

No, because you realize that moral judgment can cause people to drastically change against their will. Realizing ones stupidity and the fact that one was wrong in their thinking causes change in SOME intellectuals. This is an irrefutable fact that you involuntarily choose to ignore.

Diebert,

Let me finish with another judgment: you're not even in the discussion - and frankly: almost every discussion I've seen you engaged in at this forum you seem to be quite lost. You seem to lack reading skills, depth, seriousness and self-examination. Every single discussion the same pattern comes drifting at the surface.

I agree, if Sam cannot realize that he is totally divided from the vast majority of veteran thinkers on GF, and that he must make serious changes to his own thinking, then there isn’t much point in him sticking around. He is just flapping the same contradictions without recognizing that some of the most advanced thinkers on here disagree with his overall conglomeration of contradictory philosophy. …

Moreover, from previous discussions, I have observed that Diebert, Cory, Kevin, David, and myself all fundamentally disagree with Sam's present philosophical outlook, and I would say that the five of us probably represent the highest quality thoughts on the forum, so Sam must either admit the generality of the criticism across the board, and begin reflecting on the quality of his own thoughts, or move on.

As Diebert implied, this is more than just a causal entertainment, it is a serious place of intellectual development, this is probably one of the only intellectual meeting places for the most developed minds in the world, and we should only be investing our intellectual resources into those that deserve it. And at some point, forum members must be abandoned if they are deemed as un-teachable or uninterested.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: Moral judgment is about feeling superior (an emotion) and disapproval (an emotion). Condemning someone presupposes they could have done things differently, i.e. it presupposes free will.

Ryan: You’re a little thick when it comes to this, but I’ve concluded that you maybe incapable of realizing that moral judgment does not always require egotistical emotional rewards. As a said, as one judges similar behavior universally in all people, then it just becomes a reflex. There is no reward left in it.

I'm sure you are very unconscious to it. You seem pretty unconscious in general.

Moreover, if I describe a healthy tree compared to an unhealthy tree, there is no reward in it for me, the same applies to psychological behavior when judging healthy humans compared to unhealthy humans.

You still don't understand what I am talking about when I say moral judgment. Your analogies make that clear.

And the reason why moral judgment is important is because a minority of confused spiritual seekers can be directed in the right direction through moral judgment because the criticism affects their psychology deeply at the neurological level.

You want to justify your behavior, that's understandable. It doesn't make your behavior helpful however.

And so an enlightened individual values moral judgment because it is the only thing that can ‘cause’ a minority of intellectuals to change significantly.

This is nonsense. Why would someone who is enlightened judge anyone when they see no separation from anyone? There is no need to change anyone from that standpoint. You seem to think enlightenment is about being a critical parent. It isn't that.

sam: The truth teller has no need to condemn anyone. Did I have to call you stupid for not understanding me? No, I didn't. But people do it because they like to feel superior. Ryan blithely throws out moral judgments on every post. Do you really think his judging everyone as inferior to him is about truth telling?

Ryan: But you have to point in the right direction, which requires judgment. It requires saying, this behavior is unintelligent because it causes this and this over the long-term, and therefore if you value intelligence, and are striving to grow spiritually, you must change your behavior, and change your cognitive patterns.

But you don't do that, do you? Here is what you do: "my problem is with an emotional society that values romantic relationships, large houses, luxurious toys, and so on. The insatiable nature of most humans is what turns the present workforce into more of an hell that it has to be."

Disapproval is one way to convey that a person’s behavior is anti-social, irrational, and a preventative factor to achieving a more rational mind.

It is also an emotion you feel you need to express in order to highlight your superiority.

sam: Condemning someone presupposes they could have done things differently, i.e. it presupposes free will.

Ryan: No, because you realize that moral judgment can cause people to drastically change against their will. Realizing ones stupidity and the fact that one was wrong in their thinking causes change in SOME intellectuals. This is an irrefutable fact that you involuntarily choose to ignore.

You are laughably ignorant. Your moral condemnation of others entrenches behaviors, it doesn't change them. If I berate you as an idiot, does that help you to change?

Diebert: Let me finish with another judgment: you're not even in the discussion - and frankly: almost every discussion I've seen you engaged in at this forum you seem to be quite lost. You seem to lack reading skills, depth, seriousness and self-examination. Every single discussion the same pattern comes drifting at the surface.

Ryan: I agree, if Sam cannot realize that he is totally divided from the vast majority of veteran thinkers on GF, and that he must make serious changes to his own thinking, then there isn’t much point in him sticking around. He is just flapping the same contradictions without recognizing that some of the most advanced thinkers on here disagree with his overall conglomeration of contradictory philosophy. …

See what I mean about your superiority complex? Of course you don't. Nevertheless, there it is.

Moreover, from previous discussions, I have observed that Diebert, Cory, Kevin, David, and myself all fundamentally disagree with Sam's present philosophical outlook, and I would say that the five of us probably represent the highest quality thoughts on the forum, so Sam must either admit the generality of the criticism across the board, and begin reflecting on the quality of his own thoughts, or move on.

Lol. Highest quality thoughts? You're a priceles example of delusion.

And of course now you want to kick me out for pointing to your "no clothes" fashion statement.

As Diebert implied, this is more than just a causal entertainment, it is a serious place of intellectual development, this is probably one of the only intellectual meeting places for the most developed minds in the world, and we should only be investing our intellectual resources into those that deserve it. And at some point, forum members must be abandoned if they are deemed as un-teachable or uninterested.

Get over yourself, Ryan. You couldn't be any more of a buffoon it you put on a monkey suit and started swinging from trees.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

This is nonsense. Why would someone who is enlightened judge anyone when they see no separation from anyone? There is no need to change anyone from that standpoint. You seem to think enlightenment is about being a critical parent. It isn't that.

A wise teacher is both the critical parent, and the inquisitive child. What do you believe the role of the teacher is? Simply pretend we are all equal when we are clearly not, and preach about non-judgment, tolerance, and holding hands while singing along to our favorite peace ballad? I think you’ve smoked one too many dubes at rock concerts. Enlightened Philosophy is confrontational; it is an attack on values and emotions. It is a battle of the wits. It isn't this wishy washy, passive, non-confrontational new agey stuff that you preach.

It is also an emotion you feel you need to express in order to highlight your superiority.

There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about recognizing the fact of inferiority and superiority in the world. You’re stance seems to be we should simply pretend it doesn’t exist because we are all one, and there is no separation. However, there are clearly people that I am superior to in the world, and there are clearly those who are superior to me, recognizing that fact brings with it a certain degree of humility and confidence, which you mistake for arrogance.

Btw, That is horrible reasoning in the first passage– Let me get this straight, we are all one, therefore no change is needed, and no judgment is needed. That doesn’t make any sense. The fact is that imperfection is a reality, and imperfection can be changed. How? Through judgment and criticism. Btw, you are attempting to change what you believe is imperfection in me through judgment and criticism thus contradicting your original position: That moral Judgment is bad. You’re saying moral judgments are bad because I act so superior, but you believe your view of the world is superior also, or else you wouldn’t be judging me, and trying to influence me accordingly. You are in contradiction and a hypocrite as well.

Allow me to recap because you are not getting this - You’re inc contradiction because you are trying to change the way I think by saying that judgment is not necessary – but if judgment is not necessary, why are you trying to change me with judgment? If there is no separation between us, and no change is necessary as you say, then that fact alone should make you content with the way I am, but you’re not. You are discontent with me, and so you attack my values in the same manner I attack yours. You preach a feminine passivity by attacking my values aggressively, thus disproving your entire argument.

IF you cannot see this plain contradiction, you are incorrigibly insane, and I’m going to stop responding to your posts.

Actually, Before you respond, read it over four or five times, and think back to what you wrote. Read it again, think back to your behavior, and then sit on it for a night thinking about how you're in contradiction, and how your philosophy has holes in it.

[Alex Jacob]

Ryan declares:

"And---aside of course from Alex who is obviously in another, superior category---I would say that the five of us probably represent the highest quality thoughts on the forum".

With tremendous humility, Ryan, I flutter down here among my 'peers' to spread the dharma of the Road Home to Zion, and it is not an easy task the Fates have set before me dealing with so many bone-heads, yet I do not complain, and when it happens that one of my patients looks up through the disease and mire and actually says 'Thank you, chief!' as you have, I admit a tear wells up in the corner of my eye! (*Snif snif*) True, I still keep the battered 2x4 next to my laptop, and other heads will feel its merciful, stimulating, liberating blows, yet I did just want to thank you, little chela!

"...IF you cannot see this plain contradiction, you are incorrigibly insane..."

Nice! I am going to use that one!