Re: Lovercraft and materialism (new branch from the Hieroglyphs thread)
Posted by:
Sawfish (IP Logged)
Date: 13 October, 2019 10:45AM
Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus Wrote:
> > > Morality, as I understand it, involves the
> belief
> > > in something external to the human psyche.
> >
> > But requiring a human psyche to envision it,
> > right?
> >
> > Or are you supporting the idea that morality
> > exists independent of rational consciousness?
>
> I'm saying that what the human mind perceives (or
> imagines it perceives, or hallucinates, if you
> prefer) is something independent of itself, and I
> think, probably, superior to itself.
If we took out this part of your statement:
"...what the human mind perceives (or imagines it perceives, or hallucinates, if you prefer)"
leaving the idea that phenomena ("what the human mind perceives") are independent of themselves, and perhaps superior to themselves, would it work? If we are, are we leaning toward archetypes?
Now, that addressed the phenomena as sensory and independent, but maybe you're referring to completely imaginary phenomena, existing only within the mind of an individual, and unperceivable by another individual.
Platypus, it may seem like I'm either beating this to death or that I'm like some of those posters out there who have nothing better to do than lay rhetorical traps. I want to reassure you that a) I am very literal and try hard to be precise--even though my own vocabulary of precision may leave a lot to be desired; and b) I enjoy coming to this forum because for the most part it is well-mannered and well-intentioned--not to say highly erudite and intelligent.
It is like a guest stay in a 19th C private club in Great Britain... :^)
So I *really* would like to fully understand your position, and I'll tell you up-front: I don't know that my position is actually valid--it just seems to me the most likely to be valid, after 72 years of life.
But for sure, I could be wrong.
>
> Freud hints at this, I think, when he separates
> the "superego" from the "ego". The mind perceives
> what Freud calls the "superego" as something
> independent of, and higher than, what the mind
> perceives as the self (the "ego" or the "I"). But
> Freud was, I think, a materialist, so naturally he
> considers this perception largely delusion. What
> the "ego" thinks it perceives is an illusion
> created by another aspect of the human mind. Or
> so Freud would say, I think.
>
> Materialism, as I think you would agree,
> ultimately leads to a form of moral nihilism,
Unreservedly agreed.
But is nihilism in and of itself "bad"--or rather, can the individual derive no positive aspects from it?
> where moral propositions have no real truth
> value.
But what I've found is that against all odds and conventional teachings, realizing this and getting comfortable with it is tremendously liberating to the self.
In a sense, I would suppose that it frees the ego of the unwanted kibitzing of the super ego.
It also makes the id at least respectable, in the eye of the ego...
Of course, this is just my opinion and by my own understanding of the cosmos, meaningless...
>
> But all I am suggesting is that one can avoid
> moral nihilism by choosing to believe that one's
> moral senses reflect (however imperfectly) an
> external reality. Similarly, one can avoid other
> forms of nihilism by choosing to believe that
> one's physical senses reflect external reality.
Yes. I can see this.
Even if an individual has come to the conclusion that I have--that nothing ultimately matters--one can construct what one *knows* (or believes) to be a temporary sense of order and meaning, and call that "life"--which has no lasting meaning outside of the self.
This is possible and it's what I do. Maybe this is very common, I really don't know. What I *do* feel that I know is that given that I need conform to no external set of moral tenets, I can make my own that fit like the proverbial glove, and to the degree that they are in harmony with a legal or traditional system, I can live peacefully.
And because this personal moral system is my own, and exists only at my own sufferance, I can change it at will, if I'm prepared to bear the consequences.
I don't know; perhaps this is the definition of amorality.
>
> The nature of this external reality is another
> question. A Christian, and I suppose a polytheist
> as well, would say that it is both conscious and
> rational. I'm not too familiar with the eastern
> concept of "Karma" so I'm not sure if it is
> perceived as conscious or rational, but I do sort
> of have the impression that it is perceived as a
> force in the universe that is external to the
> self.
It seems to me like any individual self exists as a transient bubble in the matrix of this external reality. Affected by the matrix, but within its bounds self-defining.
Great discussion and I hope I have not strayed too far!
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13 Oct 19 | 11:26AM by Sawfish.