CMPML, Department of System Failure!

In this text egalitarianism is questioned using an example that can be considered a limit of inequality. It is disturbing and graphic.

Take this into consideration before you read any further.


================================================================================================================================


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

"The brazen bull, bronze bull, or Sicilian bull, was allegedly a torture and execution device designed in ancient Greece. According to Diodorus Siculus, recounting the story in Bibliotheca historica, Perillos of Athens invented and proposed it to Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas, Sicily, as a new means of executing criminals. The bull was said to be made entirely out of bronze, hollow, with a door in one side. According to legends the brazen bull was designed in the form and size of an actual bull and had an acoustic apparatus that converted screams into the sound of a bull. The condemned were locked inside the device, and a fire was set under it, heating the metal until the person inside was roasted to death. Some modern scholars question if the brazen bull ever really existed, attributing reports of the invention to early propaganda."

Fictional or not, let's examine the concepts of good and evil when considering this device.

Most people will judge the situation as follows :

The person outside of the bull is considered 'evil'. He is obviously sadistic.
The person inside of the bull is considered the victim, hence 'good'.

But there is another perspective on this, lurking in the background, which the egalitarian judgement must also acknowledge :

The person outside of the bull is fine. He might actually be enjoying himself.
The person inside of the bull is in complete agony. Very bad indeed.

It's not a complete reversal of good into bad, and bad into good, but it's getting there, it seems.

And therein lies the point of all Nietzschean doctrine, in which I can include Crowley :

What if all moral judgements arising from all of those seemingly high ideals like compassion and equality simply never do anything else than reverse the basic concepts of good and evil expressed in the second example where to suffer is bad and to enjoy oneself is good?

You end up merely cultivating suffering. Your high ideals are merely illusions to the contrary.

But this is not an attack on compassion or equality because I want to consider the broader issue :

There seems to be a process in history or in the evolution of man where the concepts of good and evil are slowly reversed, but not completely so. Egalitarians do not completely consider the person inside of the brazen bull the fortunate one, but it does seem to be going in that direction, nonetheless.

Can we consider this process scientifically? Is it an evolutionary process or something else? Or does it interfere with evolution in just the right way to make the process occur?

Was it not the case that Christianity appeared when Rome was facing Judea?

Did not Hitler, the Worst King of All, appear at the right time to interfere with a scientific understanding of this? And was it not then that egalitarianism really took off?

And was it not then that the scientific method had produced enough fruits to make egalitarian theories of love a reality? Happiness by way of the scientific method?

And if the mathematical nature of the process of the reversal of morality is not seen the evidence for anything not material is clouded, to the point where free will is denied, which is the final nail in the coffin of absurdity, with logical trivialism surrounding the material scientists on all sides.

And if nothing in this process ever does anything else than cultivate suffering, that is very disturbing indeed.

Especially when anti-evolutionary or anti-biological states appear like a species almost without 'survival of the fittest'-component or worse ...

Yet at the beginning of the 20th century, a document was allegedly communicated to Crowley that seems to go in the complete opposite direction :

AL I 44 :

"For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."

AL II 21 :

"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."

AL III 61 :

"There is an end of the word of the God enthroned in Ra’s seat, lightening the girders of the soul."

An allegedly revealed document on will, connecting it with anti-egalitarian, or master, morality. A promise of a way out of the miserable morality-reversal process Nietzsche called slave morality and a promise of a way out of the miserable, free will denying, materialistic, dark and ultimately absurd, logically trivialistic, philosophies of the atheists by way of a Solar God that governs Divine Willpower.

Modern, technocratic, society is just a limit of slave morality. Expect a master moralistic uprising!

One way to look at the CMPML is to observe that rather than being just another religion, the CMPML considers the meta-issue : Control over this morality dynamic to improve the previous situation. A generator of religions, if you will, be they slave or master moralistic, to aid the cause of will that is love.

Remember the Holy Oath of the CMPML :

I swear to eternally Work to banish the Evil Snake so help me God.

Amen and Amen and ...

End of Document.

Dunno, but I’m glad he told me that the end of his post was the end of his post, otherwise I never would have worked that out for myself. It is also good to know that Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia.

This is the end of this post.

Most people will judge the situation as follows :

The person outside of the bull is considered 'evil'. He is obviously sadistic.
The person inside of the bull is considered the victim, hence 'good'.

I haven't read the rest of your post, but as this is written as if it's meant to be an acceptable predicate, it's not. Appealing to 'most people' doesn't help because I don't know what this is what most people would consider. For me, I find it difficult to believe that the person inside the bull, for example, is 'good' just because they're the victim of the current scenario. That doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny.

laklak wrote:This is the end of this post.

Thank you for telling me.

But there is another perspective on this, lurking in the background, which the egalitarian judgement must also acknowledge :

The person outside of the bull is fine. He might actually be enjoying himself.
The person inside of the bull is in complete agony. Very bad indeed.

It's not a complete reversal of good into bad, and bad into good, but it's getting there, it seems.

This is lazy equivocation.

You've hopped from using 'good' in a sense to mean a victim, or possibly 'morally good' in the first setup, then in the second you've completely changed the meaning of the word to align to a definition of good and bad as descriptions of how someone feels about the situation.

This is specious reasoning - it means you're running ahead of yourself and not noticing that your arguments are pointed somewhere you want to get to, but you still have to show the logical pathway otherwise you might as well not have these predicates set out.

Master Lawbringer wrote:CMPML, Department of System Failure!

...

STFUASD, Department of "Would you like a biscuit with your tea?"

EOF

This is the beginning of this post.

Fallible wrote:

laklak wrote:This is the end of this post.

Thank you for telling me.

Don't mention it.


This is the end of this post.

And therein lies the point of all Nietzschean doctrine, in which I can include Crowley :

What if all moral judgements arising from all of those seemingly high ideals like compassion and equality simply never do anything else than reverse the basic concepts of good and evil expressed in the second example where to suffer is bad and to enjoy oneself is good?

You end up merely cultivating suffering. Your high ideals are merely illusions to the contrary.

It is again missing key logical bridges between 'conclusions'.

Your argument hasn't shown that feeling good, for example, requires cultivating suffering. You've offered one possible scenario in which the binaries are (supposedly) linked, and even reading past the equivocation, that doesn't mean that they are always linked - one person's pleasure doesn't ubiquitously require another person's suffering.

So I am not really seeing how your argument can go anywhere as it's flawed and has managed to irremediably confuse itself twice in just 6 sentences.

I swear to eternally Work to banish the Evil Snake so help me God.

Wut?

I don't swear to eternally work. I think a work-life balance is a moral good.

And what have you got against snakes, you snakist?

As for that God chap... surely Mickey Mouse would be a better guy to help out - in his respective fantastical fiction, he at least fights crime and social problems where that God dude just sits there with all the power in the universe doing nothing whatsoever.

But there is another perspective on this, lurking in the background, which the egalitarian judgement must also acknowledge :

...
The person inside of the bull is in complete agony. Very bad indeed.

That is an interesting point of view indeed.

..had an acoustic apparatus that converted screams into the sound of a bull

I'd like to see this.

What if all moral judgements arising from all of those seemingly high ideals like compassion and equality simply never do anything else than reverse the basic concepts of good and evil expressed in the second example where to suffer is bad and to enjoy oneself is good?

Regardless of the source, moral judgments cant reverse anything as they are opinions. And that's the end of the musing.

laklak wrote:This is the beginning of this post.

Fallible wrote:

laklak wrote:This is the end of this post.

Thank you for telling me.

Don't mention it.


This is the end of this post.

This is my reply to you.

It is very reasonable to consider being placed inside a brazen bull and cooked alive as bad. That's not opinion based, that's non-negotiable. If you doubt that ... are you zombies?

Zombies have doubts?

Master Lawbringer wrote:It is very reasonable to consider being placed inside a brazen bull and cooked alive as bad. That's not opinion based, that's non-negotiable. If you doubt that ... are you zombies?

Compared to what? There are worse ways to go. Pancreatic cancer comes to mind. An hour of excruciating pain compared to 3 months seems a less terrible “bad” thing. So, I suppose I’m a zombie.

RS

Yes, I am a zombie, what of it? Quite frankly, sir, I object to your clear dislike for zombies. Good day.

Is this a kindergarten for zombies?

SafeAsMilk wrote:Is this a kindergarten for zombies?

Nope. Post Doc studies. Exactly in what subject remains to be seen. Maybe zombie taxonomy? Like the glaring differences between WWZ and Walking Dead zombies, which goes well beyond the mobility factor. A Walking Dead zombie could not care less if you were ill.

Pro tip: Don’t use your first thread to make everyone in a forum you just joined suspect you are either a troll, or sock. Draw that shit out as long as you can.

RS

I'm not sure members of the copypasta club really think these things out that far.