i had no idea what that was

zaps weren’t working, so i liked it

the way he explained everything was really intuitive to me.

i never would have thought in mid life i would have gotten the goal to get the splits, but im like 2 inches away now.

i dont know when i get it, but it will happen

we need our generations Louisiana purchase!

objective reality, aligning one’s actions with existence is not “force.”

that’s what Gnostics think: reality itself is an imposition, an oppressive structure imprisoning the individual.

it’s speculative theology and absurd.

they come about through the objective structure of reality. as a rational creature, that means that order is intelligible to us.

like your eyes don’t create the light u see, nor do we create the organizing principles of reality

morality comes from the social structure of human existence. the concept of an individual only makes sense within an umbrella of necessary social relations.

i’m just saying the cost of abdicating moral judgment is diving into an incoherent world - it’s not real

probably not, but yeah, he would crush

without “should and shouldn’t” hierarchies, categorization, order can’t exist.

“most important” is a hierarchy.

we actually have an objective aim or purpose as human beings.

if we want to cast aside morality, can we at least be coherent with it? and just say it’s all meaningless

i worked on my bitcoin book. much more productive

i love kneesovertoesguy

working on mobility is weird, for the longest time the growth is so incremental u don’t notice, and then one day ur like wait, i can do this thing i couldn’t come close to doing before

midwits

added a chapter where i steelman the monetary system

it really works to help the normie take my complete condemnation of the monetary system seriously

“no, they can only use freedom money the way I want them to use freedom money”

🤦‍♂️

19 years sober, been working out for me lol

Out of body flow states: euphoric

nostr:nprofile1qqsxc56ajk5xtxerf4dqspgrfa0s5elrcr80lnz9nasldq87j3zzf0cpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuq4wamnwvaz7tmxd9k8getj9ehx7um5wgh8w6twv5hkuur4vgckgvmxx3knjer8we4kg6ncdcervur30fehsm3kd3cxvm3h8pehsamvd3u8japcd4crwdn3xpsnj7ne094xcumhdperg7rkfrf8au I’m right behind you. this thing is getting sharp 🗡️

here is a stab at it:

if a person prefers to adapt towards a “might makes right” strategy, they might have what appears to be a short term gain but in the long run will cost them everything.

not because they are unlucky, or didn’t execute the strategy properly, but because they are adapting in a manner contrary to the objective organization/structure of inter-related subjects

getting smaller fins and attempting to go against the current, a bad combo.

a live by the sword die by the sword type of thing

we finally bridged talking past each other.

if that’s how you need to think about objective morality, you’re already there.

if i understand you correctly, this should be in your language:

human beings are complex adaptive systems adapting according to their environment.

being social creautures, always in relation to others, be it parents friends, know and unknown neighbors, “others” are part of our environment. friend or foe

just like fish adapt fins to better swim through water

humans adapt morals to better navigate social relations.

objective morality is simply one adaptive system adapting to the presence of another adaptive system.

this adaptive process is not driven internally/subjectively within one person, but driven exterallly/objectively by an objective environmental condition: the presence of another complex adaptive system.

it’s not simply having preferences, it aligning your preferences to the environmental conditions, which for humans includes social relation

the philosophical word for this is:

intersubjective

one subjective being interacting with the object of another subjective being

if ur long on might makes right, its counter to that objective order and will lose hard in the end

if ur long truth, ur just aligning your preferences to rhe objective order

and that provides metaphysically grounded ethical defense to why murder,

theft, slavery, etc etc are objectively bad/evil/contrary to nature

and not just accidental preferences

how did i do?

adapting to what is the question?

whatever it’s adapting to is the tether to objective reality.

it’s not adapting to speculative imagination, or subjective preferences, correct?

can we agree there, or you still have issue?

materialism either means something or it doesn’t.

that’s the disagreement

if a materialist uses logic, makes appeals to logic, then they are materialists in name only.

they actively behave in a manner contrary to their purported belief

there is an intelligible moral order which comes from the object that is a human being.

slavery isn’t wrong because some don’t prefer it, it’s objectively wrong because it is contrary to the nature of the human object.