PsyQ - Temur

He'll probably fix it :)
After all he threw down 10 decks in a row, and being temur he's probably a party person that's here for the rush rather than the details.

To me, the interesting thing about the colorwheel is what you leave behind when you chose three colors.
Temur sort of casts away the orzhov way of things and focus on just being.

I've always seen myself as simic, or a close izzet, but considering that I'm more like data and spock I have come to the conclusion that I'm actually bant...
That means I'm casting away rakdos, and that is really spot on, because I try to avoid being selfish and emotional.

I think that the real truth about the colorwheel is that we should strive towards color completion.
If we lack an aspect, then we are not really fully human.

I sometimes feel esper or even azorius, but I really lack the roots of rakdos, just being me, and have fun while being me.

It's probably because of my bantness, being tied up with rules, rituals, community and grand evolutionary projects.

Maybe that could be my next project ?

Project rickety wrecked wickeddarkman?

It was kinda lazy indeed not fixing the mana and I had actually forgot to do it at my last card order, so that bit me in the ass :p

Indeed I like the colorwheel too and I agree a well rounded person has all five colors balanced (off course we all have a bit of all colors, just some are very far behind). I didn't like the old way of making black seem superficially 'bad'. Black is more about empowerment and being selfish, which is off course in itself a good thing. The trick, as always, is to look for the balance. Being Temur I should probably be more selfish and protect my own boundaries better (black). On the other hand it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for me to be a little more respectful of rules (white) ;)

And for you, its probably not a bad idea to try and give some space to your inner Rakdos, it's there... somewhere, just looking for a little bit of nurturing :)

I'm very grixis

So you lack the selesnya aspect :)
I guess that fits :)

And yeah, selfishness is what keeps most things alive.

I have a tiny bit of green, but absolutely no white, peace and order are not something I care about

@ wickeddarkman
It's not just about staying alive, but also abut defending your boundaries and values I think and accepting that this means that sometimes someone else will need to get hurt through this.

@Alfred
I checked your page, fun to see your own colorwheel deck! :)

Boundaries and values are human systems, although most animals have evolved to mark their territories.
Even the "self" is a human structure, as well as good and evil.

At the deepest core, if you starve, your instincts will tell you to fight for food.
You morals will then determine if you give up the fight if you are facing someone you respect, women or children or an insanely large bear.

Morals don't tell you not to fight a bear, fear does. The other examples I agree with

Well what if you were raised to believe a bear is an inferior being that you have every right to kill because it's a nuisance nearby garbage cans. ?

And someone having a different set of morals who respect all living things.

The one with the right moral will have an easier time at killing the bear

Morals are confusing

Yeah, the are mental cages.
Those who preach morals rarely follow them to an extend.

Nah morals aren't mental cages, they constitute your identity. Check out Charles Taylor and his concept of horizon of significance. I actually really like this idea. In any case morals are more than rational convictions we can use (or discard) as we see fit.

In my lifelong experience morals are used mostly by exploiters, especially under the guise that we need morals or everything will go to hell.

I grew up among hustlers, and boy do they know their morals...

Give me an example of a rational conviction and I'll show you how it fails.

I will check out Charles Taylor, but the concept "horizon of significance" does sound like a value system already, and I consider status to be a mental prison as well :)

Back from googling.
My best point of "attack" is his own words, that "language actually creates our world", except that I'd say it isn't language, it's structures. Humans are mental structure builders, and languages are such structures. We've had billions of years to develop languages and it turned out that it made us able to build up ever bigger mental structures, but being humans we spent most of our time to use it to hurt, kill and enslave, and modern humans aren't a hat better than our ancestors.

Morals, like religions and status are measure structures ment to throw on others as a web and drag them down in the dirt. Humans are always willing to name drop the superior to become superior, and liken you with the inferior to rise above you.

Philosophers are among the worst, they are the major cagebuilders of the world and causes havoc and destruction wherever they write.

I'd like to give plenty of examples, but odds are that you know the words of taylor because you've been searching for the tools to manipulate others. In the odd case that you aren't I'll educate you on how we become caged from the childhood an on into adulthood. Our first cage is always our parents teaching us to be a good kid so they can control us better. For our own good is the second cage ;)

LoL ok well...

"being humans we spent most of our time to use it to hurt, kill and enslave"
"ment to throw on others as a web and drag them down in the dirt"

None of this is untrue. It is all just very onesided. I'm not sure why people choose to only see (or present) the dark, but this is not an honost picture of the world. Human beings are also capable of the most beautiful, selfless and inspired deeds. This doesn't make us blessed beings, because that is also only one side. And the cages you talk of are also the only way we can experience the world and thus live life. Without structures, only chaos and life is impossible in chaos. Without morals there could be no life, at least no social life.

"odds are that you know the words of taylor because you've been searching for the tools to manipulate others"

That is presumptuous and derogative. You don't know me, so this speaks only of your cynicism.

"I'll educate you"

This is belittling.

I'm not sure what life has thrown your way bro, but you are boxing more with your own shadows then you are having a dialogue with me. ;)

The world is a prison of our own device, and there is no escape from it but death, so I'm cynical yes.

The beauty of selfless acts is ugly as it is a belief system impossed on us. "If you are selfless you go to heaven"
Selfish humans teach us to save others so we might save them, selfish people tell us we go to hell otherwise.

The world is a freaking dark place but most of it is glamoured over, like a corpse recieving an endless supply of cosmetics, layer after layer.

The more you will counter argue that the world is great, humanity is great or that god is great, the more I will deglamer it. You have absolutely no way to convince me otherwise, so continuing this argument serves no other purpose than convincing your potential victims of whatever great philosophy you've pieced together yourself to entrap others.

I'm quite openly a defrauder, working to make the real reality painfully obvious.
So if you are a scammer, your best option is to go no further, because I've made it a fulltime purpose to expose the rottenness of humanity, not to scare, but to enlighten.

Selfless people are creating more and more lies and mental structures to enslave people, take for example the "cynical approach" you simply imply that being cynical is wrong and not how a human being should be. I should strive for happiness, if only I'll accept your arguments I'll learn to live a happy fulfilling life. It's all a damn cage...
We've painted yourself into a corner and there's no way out but across the wet paint. We can wait and hope it dries or we can walk all over it.

I am a thought Walker...

Allright bro thats fine, I'm just saying you're doing a monologue, not a having a dialogue with me.

And cynism isn't the only answer. It's not "wrong", it's just an easy way out.

Cynicism is easy, but it's certainly not a way out.
It's more of a spasm after getting a knee in the groin.

When you said morals wasn't mental cages I got a gut reaction.
Because in "my world" moralists are exploiters with a gameplan of taking advantage of anyone gullible enough to believe in them.

You seemed to interpret my answer as a monologue, but every sentence is technically a monologue until answered.
I'm in the process of painting an overall picture of my opinions, and being used to long philosophical disputes I simply decided to go for the short version so that you would know my stand and beliefs outright.

Most people are stumped by honesty, because humans tend to live in so many layers of lies that it's pretty much an alien concept to them/us. (Yeah, I'm human as far as I know, odds of me being an alien mutant in disguise is low)

Since you don't think morals are a prison, I automatically assumed that you like them because they are advantageous to you. Morals are only a prison if you choose to live by them, and on the average humans tend to preach a lot about morals and in general don't follow them themselves.

Those without morals are free of them, and act unchained, without restrictions.
They may be facing repercussions, but they are technically more free than someone obeying the morals.

I generalize morals as part of the "rules" structure, like laws and ethics. They have different names, but all of them are designed to guide the behaviour of anyone who comes to accept them.

They are enforced by fear, fear of repercussion, fear of social ostracism and fear of the supernatural (god, ghosts, the devil, vampires and werewolves, voodoo and so on)

Most people are driven enough by fear imprinted in them throughout their childhood that they obey the most aggressively enforced rules.

But people without fear are not subject to any of it, and reckless fearless people seem to be strangely successfull.
Most people admire the traits and live a life where they wish they could break free themselves, but most humans have a lot of things to fear, and that fear makes us exploitable.

This is why the rules and laws continues to expand and grow in complexity. The more you fear the easier you will be to control. A majority of humans naturally jump to the conclusion that they'd be better of as a controller, so they study the rules hard, trying to get an idea of what they fear themselves and what others fear, and then they start to Express the laws and morals and ethics and isms and religions that they think will bring them the most advantages.

Most people have worked out for themselves that this is how they gain power over others, but all we really manage to do is digging ourself a deeper grave.

I hate this fact, and it's why I get that gut reaction when someone says morals aren't a prison, because then they are either a liar or gullible.

I work a lot with evolution as a tool, and have had lifetime experience in creating mental structures.
If I ever wanted to, I could become a cult leader, inventing my own religion at a whim, I can sell dreams to people that they never thought could be bought for cheap, but I fear becoming an exploiter, I rage against the restraints selfish people try to knit with the web of lies about how great humanity is and how you must be a good citizen.

I'm pretty alien to most people because of it, and that makes me strange, a thing to be feared. Someone who will tear away the power from the manipulators.

That fear wants them to take me out, to quell my words, but they forget that we are standing in that painted corner.
Any big movements and we will slip in the paint, spoiling it all.

You have an interest in memes, right ?

I agree cynicism isn't a way out. In fact I don't think there is any way out, period.

So I'm not entirely sure what you mean with "morals". It seems to me you are mostly referring to structures build by humans, and it seems in your cynical view to be mostly made purposefully to control others. I agree that this is true to an extend, probably even a large extent. I am a little doubtful about how much of this is made intentfully, I actually think most of it just kinda 'happened' and the people in power, for whom it worked, kept it like that. So I guess they were dealt a good hand and they decided to use it.

But that is not all that morals are. I think, for instance, that a big part of our morality has biological foundationss. I'm not really sure what you think happens when you would get rid of all morals. What will be left behind?

I don't think it is possible to let your morals go. As if on the one hand there is you and on the other hand your morals (or maybe you would say 'their' morals). And that you might let go of your morals, as if it were a jacket or something. You are your morals. And you can contemplate your current morals, and their origin, and how it effects your life. And you might change some of them. But in the end who you are IS in great part your morals. You can't let it go, anymore then you can let go of your skin (except in the off chance that you actually are a space-snake-alien...)

What do you call morals?

"Mental structures and how they came to be"
First of all, almost all animals possesses the mental equipment to mimic complex behavioral patterns, so the use of mental structures are not really a unique human thing, but we do tend to engage much more in mental structures than other animals do.

Compared to human structures animals focus on the more basic structures that are widely used in nature.
The extend at which animals seems to use these between species and the fact that humans despite our advances in science still deploy them speaks out that any animal able to mimic them has the brain capacity to understand the advantage the structures bring. Also because these structures spread between species it's possible that they are spread by understanding them and mimicking them. It also means that the ability to mimic structures is pretty old in nature's repertoire.

Trading:
All species capeable of understanding this structure, trade sex, food, grooming, company and status. To show your willingness to trade, you often find a way to display what you have, at the risk of aggression.

Display: (showing yourself)
Species usually show themselves in a manner of ways depending on how they view you. Most species will show acceptance by advancing towards with the back revealed to show openness, many species stop where they are and tilt their heads sideways, and will often approach if you imitate the behavior. (In general imitating display is a sign of willingness to engage peacefully)

Display: (begging)
Species able to trade often resort to begging, first of all by approaching the entity tha possesses what you want.
Begging is usually displayed by trying to seem smaller, or going closer to the ground, showing a willingness to be at a disadvantage if the other shows aggression. If ignored the species will usually start making small sounds at a certain whiny tune.

Display: (agression)
Species displaying aggression usually puff themselves up to appear larger and will find a place to stand solidly on the ground and uses a continuous deep growl.

Display: (grooming)
Species often start to groom themselves close to you to show that they feel safe around you, and the closer they groom to you, the more trust they show, until a complete trust leads to a full grooming. Many species are capeable of delivering grooming to other species infants, often leading to a future bonding.

Display: (items)
When a species approach with an item it is often to get a read on your reaction towards the item. Do you want to play with it, do you want to manipulate it in any way, do you desire the object. The species either hold the item in a

"Mental structures and how they came to be"
First of all, almost all animals possesses the mental equipment to mimic complex behavioral patterns, so the use of mental structures are not really a unique human thing, but we do tend to engage much more in mental structures than other animals do.

Compared to human structures animals focus on the more basic structures that are widely used in nature.
The extend at which animals seems to use these between species and the fact that humans despite our advances in science still deploy them speaks out that any animal able to mimic them has the brain capacity to understand the advantage the structures bring. Also because these structures spread between species it's possible that they are spread by understanding them and mimicking them. It also means that the ability to mimic structures is pretty old in nature's repertoire.

Trading:
All species capeable of understanding this structure, trade sex, food, grooming, company and status. To show your willingness to trade, you often find a way to display what you have, at the risk of aggression.

Display: (showing yourself)
Species usually show themselves in a manner of ways depending on how they view you. Most species will show acceptance by advancing towards with the back revealed to show openness, many species stop where they are and tilt their heads sideways, and will often approach if you imitate the behavior. (In general imitating display is a sign of willingness to engage peacefully)

Display: (begging)
Species able to trade often resort to begging, first of all by approaching the entity tha possesses what you want.
Begging is usually displayed by trying to seem smaller, or going closer to the ground, showing a willingness to be at a disadvantage if the other shows aggression. If ignored the species will usually start making small sounds at a certain whiny tune.

Display: (agression)
Species displaying aggression usually puff themselves up to appear larger and will find a place to stand solidly on the ground and uses a continuous deep growl.

Display: (grooming)
Species often start to groom themselves close to you to show that they feel safe around you, and the closer they groom to you, the more trust they show, until a complete trust leads to a full grooming. Many species are capeable of delivering grooming to other species infants, often leading to a future bonding.

Display: (items)
When a species approach with an item it is often to get a read on your reaction towards the item. Do you want to play with it, do you want to manipulate it in any way, do you desire the object. The species either hold the item in a

That's not what a moral is, a moral is what is right or wrong. Which can be used to create a mental structure but isn't the same thing.

The key to understanding the mental structures I talk about, is that almost all creatures have the mental machinery to copy behavior and modify upon it, so let's start at the simple end.

Display is the most used tool among creatures to communicate with each other, but humans spend so much energy on learning human structures that most of us never learn how to communicate with other species, but wild animals do it all the time.

There are several types of display among animals and I'll list the basics.

Aggression: the animal will puff up to seem larger and will stand in a position from which it is easy to attack at ease, it will usually make a deep continuous sound.

Submission: the animal tries to appear smaller, and will assume a position from which attacking will be difficult. It will make small light sounds with far between them.

Studying: the animal will visibly watch you, trying to get you to enter a display.
Usually mimicking the usual displays of that animal will be considered a friendly action as they then know you can mimic behaviour and is smart enough to negotiate with.

Desire: if you have something the animal desires it will usually go much further in making displays towards you.
Depending on your reaction to the displays they will approach.

Grooming: is a display that the animal feels safe enough around you that it can pay less attention to you. The closer to you it grooms, the more it shows that it is trusting you not to attack. If you get to groom the animal physically it is attempting to bond, considering you a possible ally.

Object display: the animal will show you an object to see if it can get you to manipulate it or to see if it's an object you desire. Object display is often a sign that the animal wants to play with you or wants to somehow engage in a trade for the object. It might also want to see how you use the object so that it can learn how to use it itself.

You can actively engage in most of these displays with almost any animal and work up a relationship with it.
Most animals spend a lot of time with their own species primarily which is why only the most basal kind of display are used to communicate with other species.

The overall conclusion is that behavioral structures can be transmitted across species because all species have evolved the trait of learning to mimic and sometimes change them.

It's also the starting point for why we have such a thing as rules and laws, because all animals capeable of using mental structures are willing to negotiate and see you as a potential ally.

There are several types of behavioral structures that young animals learn very fast. One is bluffing, faking a certain display trying to gain an advantage, the second is teaming up with someone against another.

This is pretty much the starting point for understanding what I'm trying to display.

The knowledge that all species can team up and bluff sort of sets the baseline of the direction that mental structures have evolved in.

Language is a much more complex display, but a lot of species use it in forms that are usually only perceived by the same species, but animals raised by other animals seem to adopt their language to as far an extent as they can and adopt much of their behavior as well.

Even in the wilds, animals have been observed to raise other animals, and usually predators raise predators while prey species relate better to other prey.

Sorry for the similar repost, but I thought it got lost when I ran out of battery.

You seem to think that animal behavior has nothing to do with morals, but considering that animals can adopt other animals and raise them and imbue behavior and values upon them indicates that animals have morals as well.

Humans use an advanced value system to display status, and animals are able to understand if they have a low status in the group. We train our dogs according to superiority beliefs that we are the more valuable in the group, and the dog frequently disputes that training, trying to earn more status.

Isn't it immoral to disregard animal morals ?

Couldn't answer the last question. But morals is right or wrong, displays could be because of morals as in you think it's right to act a certain way, or it could be because of something else.

Oh, and hi alfred.
If morals define what's right and wrong, what defines wether morals themselves are right or wrong ?
Submorals? Super morals? And taking it from there, what defines if the morals of morals is right or wrong?
Since you can layer upon it and expand upon it, it is by all means a structure :)

Others might use the word concept, but considering the composition of that word itself I find structure to be better at defining what we are dealing with.

Angatjuh, this is user: alfred whom I often talk with about my concept of mental structures.
He is likely to side with you, because that's how we tend to spare.

The standard method in philosophy will be to start out defining things, or we will be talking past each other (or monologuing if you will)

So how do you define morals ?

My own definition is that it is a subset of mental structures designed to create abusable borders on behaviour.

Everyone thinks their morals are right, so I think that there are no wrong morals, only ones you disagree with.

What do you do when you find yourself disagreeing with a moral you previously held in high regard?

I can’t answer this as I don‘t have morals

You may not have/follow morals, but you are likely to stay "within the lines" and NOT strangle your teachers at leisure. (At least not in public space)

Based on that, you will at least have learned about the morals, and even though they might not make much sense to you, some morals must be weirder than others.

Have you ever had a favorite among morals?
Either because it's silly or because you see it as an advantage (there must be a favorite)

I remember reading about one religion that had evolved a turbo christening, because in cases of emergency those within the religion would try to save the souls of others in case anything went wrong. Basically it was performed in haste, so their ritual of christening became pretty simple, you basically splashed water on someone and said you christened them, and that would make them part of your religion by default. It lead to a series of complications. Usually the turbo christening was performed to save the Souls of children so they wouldn't end up in hell, but because this religion did not tolerate that someone of another religion would raise a child from their religion, they would start separating children from their parents if a child was lucky enough to survive the event that caused the turbo christening.

I got a Muslim friend, and some radical muslims have a habit of killing muslims converting to christianity, so he was shocked to learn that I had the power to turbo christen him with a splash of water and a simple phrase.

It's one of my favourites :)

I would define morals as both our values and the rules (formal and informal) we conjure up to promote that which we value.

Given this definition I don't think either of you can have 'no morals'. It is not possible, practically or theoretically, to live a human life without values and so without morals.

Of course there will always be people (the technical term is d*ckfaces) who will do anything to make you adhere to norms that only benefit them, or who would use your own norms just to get the edge on you. But this doesn't make morals in themselves something 'bad' or something to get rid of.

So we have three different definitions of morals present, but there might be some overlaps.

1: personal morals, seen as a selfmade value system, that a person can use to estimate what they find more valuable.

2: overlapping morals, seen as a value system that is superimposed on you by what group pressure finds more valuable.

3: natural morals, a value system that by some scientists is based in genetics and is inherited. Some mutants are born with deviant natural morals (deviant compared to what is common)

Is this a working model for both of you ?

Well it feels very rationally approached like this, as if the rational mind is able to grasp all that morals are. I don't think it will work all the way, because I don't think morals are so easily defined by rational analysis.

But it seems like a good model you might use to try and clarify more clearly what you perceive as your god given goal in life concerning the total destruction of all morals. :p

I am interested to learn what the endgame is here for you. How would your 'post-moral' world look like, could you give me a glimpse?

p.s. Did you check out Charles Taylor and the horizon of significance?

I've got two endgame scenarios, both unlikely to happen :)

I was once prophecised to become a tyrant war leader, not that I believe in such things, but I would go for a worldwide cruelty before benevolence option, utterly recreating our world to fix it, but with extreme collateral damage.

My second aim is a strategy of worldsimplification. If enough people agree that we are having to many loose human structures on the loose, it will not help to develope more. There would also be the need to take out binding structures that enslave us in general, and we got an extreme amount of them. The creed will be enlightenment through less complications. I'm actually working on decoding the viking view of the world through the past language.
Vikings met from far and a way to rob and plunder and besieged enemies. Their downfall became greed.
But they were capeable at taking out what could be seen as controlling megacorps back then, and many of their mental traits and techniques should be doable for small groups wanting less complications in their lives.

I googled Taylor to begin with, and learned that he was within the philosophical range. Though I do see similarities in my thoughts and his, in the "language animal" I view him as a constructor. He has a tendency to build more structures.
I did focus on the "language animal" to start with, so I forgot about the horizon. I tried to see a Ted talk with him, but he was too dry for me at that day, but he is definitely someone I might end up reading, just to be better prepared against what he's building.

Ironically I've been a builder myself for my whole life, through roleplaying. I've built systems that control my roleplaying world down to a degree that my world maps behave like playing a game of sim city. Natural disasters, dimensional terrain swaps keeping track of how the cities responds to new spells and an evolving world. I've gone insanely largescale at that, just to see the players reactions to a changing game world. I've always kept my constructions in my game world, not wanting to change the world at that time. But ever since my awareness that the true wrongs in the world are mental constructors trying to gain an edge, I've been plotting how to bring it all crashing down. Awareness is the first part of it, and here we are :)

I can see why you would want to go against what you call 'mental constructors trying to gain an edge', but your strategy of worldsimplification seems somewhat simplistic in itself. The world is in no way going to become less structured, unless your thinking of literally destroying civilization, which to me seems a vain (in both meanings) goal.

I just don't see why you would mark all human structures as your enemy and plan for their destruction. How is every structure bad? It doesn't even seem a logically valid position. Either it is all bad, but then from which structure do you make this claim? Or it is not all bad, which seems like an open door.

p.s. What do you think of Thanos from Guardians of the Galaxy?

I think the timing is right for simplification, and it's been done before and some tribal communities still does.
It's a matter of presenting it the right way.
We've only become a complex species to beat nature and ourself, and that's not really necessary anymore.

I'm not going to wage war on all mental structures, as some are truly useful, like language, even though language all to quickly became a weapon. But it's clear to everyone that a lot of structures only serve a variety of elite groups.
Most only enforce these structures in the hope of ending up on the top.

Our current future is getting pretty dark, as capitalism has won the overall war as an ism.

We are going to face some insane types of economies, one I've chosen to call "the negative attention economy"
Theres the attention economy where money is earned by getting our attention.

The negative attention economy thrives on your lack of attention. Since we are human beings we can only focus at a limited number of things, so this economy is branching out around us in as wide a web as possible. If you don't pay attention, you will be milked for your money. Choose the wrong offer in 1 out of a thousand and you are legally robbed. Go to the supermarket, on odd weeks your favorite energy drink cost 10. On even weeks it costs 15. If you are not aware of this and buy 1 each day, you pay the average price. If you only shop once a week there is 50% chance that you always pay 15.

The negative attention economy is spreading, because it's a success. Money roll in because we can't keep track of it all. This means that it's unlikely to stop, and any company can choose to join in.
It's the basis of coupons. You get them, but if you forget to cash in, too bad.

The tax systems of many governments are doing the same. Forget to fill out more and more forms and you got to pay more tax.

None of these organisations are going to pull the brakes, because if they don't become exploiters, then someone else will.

Without anyone crying for a halt in the complexity of systems, what do you think will happen?
That they get ashamed of themselves and stop it ?

Nah, it's the future, and even the rich are being robbed now.
In the past having money in the bank made you more rich because the bank used your money to invest.
Now with ai ruling the stockmarket banks have changed the setup and are now demanding money for their services, and the lower classes pay the most as usual.

We are facing raw capitalism these days. Soon megacorps will start fighting for real and the consequences will be the worst crisis ever. It's why big corps are investing in autonomous weaponry, just google what Amazon and Google itself is developing.

Ai is also being built to gain the upper hand.
Once ai gets involved in the negative attention economy, then things will really spin out of control.

If you want examples, just start paying attention to arena in magic. It's basically a money sink that makes you feel clever. At the moment people are playing against each other, but think what happens at the ai level. We are training ai to be better at the most complex game in the world. The algorithm will be able to be turned on other types of problem solving, and at the moment megacorps are having an ai race against each other.

Trust me, we need to slow down...

You say we need to slow down, but I‘m primed to take advantage of a system like this, you may have a point on the AI bit though

Are you sure you can pay that much attention alfred ?

Angatjuh:
Also forgot to answer the thanos question above.
Thanos is an inspiration, but the bond villain from moonraker is pretty evil in comparison.
I've told alfred how I plan to create two separated groups, one group containing the selfish and one group containing the nice people. I would do this because I foresee that we might encounter hostile life in space, so keeping the traits of selfishness around could become a necessity.

In function it would pretty much be heaven and hell.

I don't doubt my ability to pay attention to it all, but my ability to remember all that goes on is a different story

I'm starting to see where you are going for and I really agree with a lot of the problems you are diagnosing. I really do doubt the feasibility of this plan though. You can't stop progress. And by progress I don't mean moral progress, or getting 'better', just more complex. Honoustly I do like what you are trying to do and I would wish for you to continue and open as much eyes as you can. For me personally though I have just kinda given up on this. For instance abou the supermarket, I just figure: fine let me pay too much for too little, just give me a little peace, thats worth more then the price reduction I may get.

I do wonder though, why do you want this. What is it you value, for you to pursuit these goals and why do you value those things. You don't strike me as a hero-type good guy who is gonna save the world. For one thing you said you'd prefer cruelty before benevolence. I'm not sure what you mean by this, at face value it seems utterly degenerate, so I assume I'm missing something. On the other hand you seem to want to save someone(s) from something. So why would you want to fight this fight? What are the values behind this? What is it you want to secure? And why is this so important in your perception?

I am very much the heroic type :)
Being the hero and doing the good deed is some of the deepest core values of my psyche.
But I grew up being a knowledge sponge and saw so much cruelty in the world and I sort of adapted the "dark hero" mentality. I became wickeddarkman quite early in life, based on the character darkman.

When magic start spreading as a game, I immediately took it upon myself to create tools that new players could use to beat the high ranking players, and I had a ton of projects to make all of this possible.

The concept of helping the underdog defeat the rich and corrupt is pretty basic in my psyche.

I am of the oppinion that those in power won't give it up easily, so there has to be a clash, and it will be cruel.
We have to ruin the painted floor or remain status quo.

All of this was imprinted on me through my youth via the comics of marvel and DC.
I both love and hate what I've become, and because I'm asperger I tend to collect a lot of knowledge before I act, which had been one of the reasons why I've let countless people step me down in the dirt all my life, basically to keep track of how far they will take their selfishness.

I frequently run lots of honesty tests to see if people are to be trusted, and the harsh reality is that truly honest people are around 1% of the population. Selfishness is that deeply rooted in our genes.

I've got an insane amount of articles listed where I cover a lot of discoveries I've observed within magic.

Magic is very much a game designed to appeal to mental constructors.
The intent of the game was to see what humans were capeable of building.
It was a surprise however that it also appealed to another group of humans.
Copycats or mimics.

Nature is lazy, so when brilliant minds create genious mental constructs, then lesser minds capeable of seeing something good in them doesn't need to understand them, they just need to support them.
But when some of these less intelligent try to tweak the structures to gain more of an advantage, then the number of bad things that will result from it isn't a thing they can mentally grasp. From there the mental construct built by the brilliant gets handled by less and less smart beings who all try to tweak it, so suddenly the construct has a thousand deviant forms and very few can see how it may be fixed again.

The original creator might want to fix it, but a hundred idiots have hijacked it, and all of them are gaining something from the lessened construct.

It is an uphill battle, but becoming aware that we are burying ourselves is of the essence.
We may not need to stop progress, but we do need to make it clear that hijacking concepts and tweaking them to our own end will only end up destroying us.

We live in a world where brilliant minds are hired by rich stupid people who pay money to get more structures to bind the smartest into slavery. I can see the need. If I was dumb but had the ability to win someone smart, I'd do it in an instance, because that's clever.

But it's what will kill us in the end.
Dumb leaders with power is just dumb.

I can't tell if you're very chaotic good or lawful good

Most who know me, love when I say chaotic stupid :)
I used to be lawfull good, I'm transiting through neutral good and the aim is chaotic good.

I've always meant chaotic was really just another word for selfish, because when I've had the pleasure of playing chaotic neutral, I really go with the chaos part.

Neutral in ad&d is defined as wanting to restore the balance between good and evil all the time, so being neutral, no good deed must go unpunished, sort of like, "oh, we saved the world? Then let's torch the capital city".

Hi sorry for the delay, but I was really busy with work last week.

LOL! Darkman seems like an wicked bad movie :)

"The concept of helping the underdog defeat the rich and corrupt is pretty basic in my psyche."
Yeah that goes the same for me! I am also very much afraid that it might (have to) become bloody for things to change. Could you explain better your analogy of the painted floor and what you mean by it? You've mentioned it before, but I don't quite understand it yet.

I'm also not sure how you relate magic (the game I presume?) to mental constructors and copycats and how that relates to the rest of our discussion.

"when brilliant minds create genious mental constructs"
Yeah my point! You made it seem earlier that mental constructs are nescessarily something bad, which I don't agree with. It is true however that brilliant ideas get hijacked by other people, usually less intelligent people, corrupted and put to use for their own benefit. You also mentioned philosophers are among the worst, which might be true, but they are certainly among the best too!

I myself am a philosophy teacher in high school. For me my most important goal at this moment is fighting against polarization. Here also it is in the benefit of a small group to keep the masses at each others throats. I say if you think the other side is unfathomably stupid, you are probably part of the problem.

"If I was dumb but had the ability to win someone smart, I'd do it in an instance, because that's clever."
Love this one! :)

The paint analogy is rather known in cartoons. Someone is painting the floor, then suddenly realise they end up in a corner with no way out but either walk over the fresh paint or by settling in the corner and waiting. I somehow think there is a limit to the number of mental constructs a civilisation can maintain before collapsing. Since science is still out on how major civilisations collapsed in the past it's possible that it collapsed that way.

I'm working on an article on how to abuse the overall mental construction that players unconsciously build together, and I'll post it within this weekend, it's based on my growing study of mental structures.

Sometimes philosophy produces some great stuff, and modern science is based on concepts produced by philosophy.
One interesting aspect is that a couple of Greek philosophers have had similar ideas on structures, but at some point this way of thinking got burried by religious wars.

I think it was edward Blake that later stated "I must build a structure or be enslaved by another mans" so I'm actually far from being the first. I have the advantage of viewing it through some very modern eyes, having read through Richard Dawkins "the selfish gene" as a young student, and following the evolution of memes through persons like susan blackmore. (I now believe the meme-plex is another intentionally constructed thing developed by people who wants to blame memes for their irresponsible actions, creating a new "the devil made me do it" blame-sink.

I'm honoured by having this conversation with a philosophy teacher, and I recognize that I very much AM a part of the problem, by default, being a human.

I have had a past of being a conspiracy believer, and at a time I believed that koalas were actually aliens in control of the earth. But having darwinistic beliefs and learning about memes (as in "viruses of the mind" rather than the "fun picture, fun text" variant) actually brought me out of it. From there I started taking an interest in how and why I got captured in a mentally virtual world.

I think recognizing that we are not tool users but are actually structure users was how I cracked it.
I'm in the process of gaining the data, and writing about how we build up the structures in the first place.

Like I said I'm writing up how to abuse the way we construct a metagame, and I'll write when it's done.

Oh, forgot to say it was written :)
It's titled "deckbuilding and storytelling"

It covers some of the mental structures in magic, and magic as a game expresses how deep our need is to create them in general.

At the moment new scientist has an article about how many animals exhibit human like intelligence. They are also wondering how animals do what they do without a language.
I guess science haven't discovered the concept of "posing" that I described earlier :)