The Unsung God of Supervisory Assumptions

What could possibly obligate me when the discussion of obligation itself is ruled by already-assumed statements which have no obligation issue because they are necessarily used to talk about the idea of obligation?

Is there anything that really obligates belief in something? Is it merely a prior committment to act according to a set of rules? Do we have a built-in prior commitment or bias to think and act in a certain way while rejecting all other ways, however provisional that bias might be in principle? Belief in obligating factors of mind, for example.

Why is any question an appropriate object of thought? And what are the irreducible statements assumed in order to know what a question is?

Is there a set of statements that rule all thought without exception? How do we live in relation to them? And would that imply anything about their role in how we are defined as an object that questions? What exactly am I, in asking or thinking about a question, other than being merely a question-asking object?

And are all my actions carried out based on an already believed-in hierarchy of universalized values?

Wild West Collectivism

A group is incapable of either reason or trust.

--Paladin

Quantum Mind Factor

Let x be whatever you want.

I want to know whether or not x is the solution.

If x has been discovered to rectify the past, reverse entropy, and eliminate death, then my knowledge of x and how to act in relation to knowing that x is the solution, may imply that x could extend my existence indefinitely in a universe where only the good would thereafter be renderable in a progressive, even exponential, synthesis of the feeling of well-being.

To claim that there is no solution assumes a single solution---mere denial, because it resolutely pertains to the problem, a substitute solution, however heuristically it functions.

Usually with the insinuation that it should not be discussed any more. But that's another story.

The discussion of this possibility is based on a set of assumptions that are necessary to think thoughts and make statements---even statements about those statements themselves.

To talk about whether universally and exceptionlessly true statements are possible already assumes a set of ultimate thoughts to be universally and exceptionlessly true rules about how we must or ought to think about universals, obligations that the mind 'must' or 'ought' or 'should' refer to and depend on as one shows or even states the denial of universals.

Sorry, no free ride for the casually dismissive. The tell-tale heart arbitrarily balks here, and will not go another logical step beyond this point.

Unfortunately, it has all those mere claims just bandied about as somehow saving one from something. They either stand by themselves in some kind of anti-intellectual posturing, or else retreat into the same kinds of justifications it rejected in all arguments to the contrary.

Now that you're rid of God, welcome to the mind god that just won't go away.

No Rest for the Idle

Only an idle person does not know what it means to enjoy rest.

--Paladin
"Have Gun Will Travel"

Jilted Explanatory Lover

But he still thinks people ultimately make their own choices. In terms of neurological changes, Dalrymple defended his argument by citing the example of millions of Chinese addicts who almost immediately stopped taking drugs after Mao Tse Tung issued an order to shoot all addicts unless they quit.

Danya Chaikel
Review, Crossroads magazine
November 21, 2006

Permanent Reference Object

It's difficult to see the picture when you're inside the frame..

In perceiving the world, I discovered that I exist. And to discover anything assumes some permanent guiding factors, in the framework of which things can be discovered and have meaning and value.

Defaulting Heads

Certain motivating beliefs can actually lead to mental breakdown because of their own implications as habits of mind.

Based on irrational beliefs and emotional feelings, one can undermine the principles which must be observed to some extent for anyone to be able to be happy.

The spoiled, angry child rebels against the most basic life responsibilities and yet demands that a government meet their needs for life.

Human life requires free choice, voluntary cooperation, adjustment to individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal, preferences, and work ethic. No one wants the rewards of life to be leveled. No human being wants a life of rules that contradict personal incentive and cause resentment, or reduces one to a dependent of the government or some organization or group.

This kind of view preys on weak individuals who dislike themselves, by:

• creating and reinforcing self-perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying any claim to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
  
• encouraging and promoting feelings of envy;
  
• Getting individuals to subordinating themselves to the will of the government or some organization or group to satisfy those feelings of victimization, entitlement, and envy.
  

Distorted intellectual development produces irrational beliefs. When you can get someone to whine about victims, rage against perceived villains, and try to run the lives of other people who are already competent to run their own lives, the breakdown is progressing.