Autonomy in immortality: a mythic argument
Ashes Mi
motherearthisalive at gmail.com
Mon Dec 9 10:20:54 EST 2013
Hey Guys It's me Kevin, been a Long time. Forgive me for posting here but
you all got to see this Cool Children Video about LUCIFER just in time for
the Holidays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meagyBWluBQ Hope You all
enjoy it, Ho Ho Ho Merry Christman and Beast Well :) Hey Mike you Know
about Fractals, Physics and Math here is a New Computing using Physics to
Count I think You will enjoy it Mike :)
http://ashesmi.yolasite.com/fractal-binary.php Be well Ho Ho Ho
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
> I post this as a matter of record. For anyone else who's interested,
> here the technology comes to grips with universals (cultural totality
> of myth, social totality of rational beings, infinite space and time)
> which allows it to serve as a critical lamp for reading social theory.
>
> I chose to start reading at Kant because he's said to be the inventor
> of autonomy [0]. But if the argument below holds, then autonomy is
> bound up with immortality, and the lamp should therefore be service-
> able not only going forward from the Enlightenment into modern times,
> but also backward into theology and the roots of mythic thought.
>
> I only started reading. I'm sure I'll make mistakes along the way.
> But so far, it's kind of fun; at least as fun as designing software.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/nMy#Autonomy_in_immortality:_a_mythic_argument
>
> Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration
> and reverence, the more often and more steadily one reflects on
> them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
> — Kant [1]
>
> The starry heavens
> ------------------
> Only the outline is copied here. For the full argument, see:
> http://zelea.com/w/Stuff:Votorola/p/nMy#The_starry_heavens
>
>
> [OYA] Outline of the mythic argument
>
> (PiA) The population is autonomous
> |
> +- (PiAi) The population is autonomous in its immortality
> |
> +- (PiM) The population is given to be mortal
> | |
> | +- (SiC) The survival of the population is contingent
> | | |
> | | +- (NxP) Let there be a natural existential risk to
> | | | the population
> | | |
> | | +- (AxP) Let there be an artificial existential risk
> | | to the population
> | |
> | +- (IiU) Let the accidental attainment of immortality be
> | unlikely
> |
> +- (PdI) The population determines above all to become
> | | immortal
> | |
> | +- (YiA) Let the mythic purpose (NpY) be autonomy in
> | immortality (PiAi)
> |
> +- (PrC) The population removes all contingency from the issue
> | of its survival
> |
> +- (NfS) Nothing could force survival on the population
> | |
> | +- (XiO) Let deliberate extinction be forever open to
> | the population
> |
> +- (PnX) The population ensures that nothing can force its
> | extinction
> |
> +- (PdF) Let the population develop a practice of star
> | faring
> |
> +- (PdS) Let the population distribute itself among
> | the stars
> |
> +- (XdS) Let existential risk (SiC) decline
> | exponentially with stellar extent
> |
> +- (PcF) Let the population continue its practice of
> star faring
>
> The moral law
> -------------
> Kant defines the principle of morality in terms of self-legislation,
> or autonomy: "act only according to that maxim through which you can
> at the same time will that it become a universal law." [2]- He names
> this definition of the principle the "categorical imperative", because
> it formulates an obligation or command (imperative) and the command
> allows for no exceptions (categorical) [3]. He says that the "ground
> of the obligation here must not be sought in the nature of the human
> being, or in the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but
> a priori soley in concepts of pure reason" [4]. Morality is a useful
> concept only if its law "must hold not merely for human beings but for
> all rational beings as such". [5]
>
> This suggests a similar generalization for the aim and conclusion of
> the mythic argument. Given that any population of rational beings has
> attained autonomy through immortality (PiAi), it follows that rational
> beings as a whole have thereby attained the same state:
>
> (RiAi) Rational beings are autonomous in their immortality.
>
> Which means that rational beings are autonomous, period.
>
> (RiA) Rational beings are autonomous.
>
> This future conclusion refers to rational beings as a collective. For
> an individual, recall that the principle of morality is already
> defined in terms of autonomy. Indeed, Kant asserts that autonomy and
> the moral principle are identical: [6]
>
> ... what else, then, can freedom of the will be, but autonomy,
> i.e. the property of the will of being a law to itself? But the
> proposition: the will is in all actions a law to itself, designates
> only the principle of acting on no maxim other than that which can
> also have itself as its object as a universal law. But this is
> just the formula of the categorical imperative and the principle of
> morality: thus a free will and a will under moral laws are one and
> the same.
>
> Kant underlines this with a further assertion: "Freedom must be
> presupposed as a property of the will of all rational beings" [7].
> From this it clearly follows that individual autonomy too must be
> presupposed, or at least its immediate availability through the
> re-aligning of one's actions. But there is no such guarantee of
> immediate availability in the case of collective autonomy, which is
> not bound to an ever present capacity for moral action. The moral
> principle cannot even apply to the collective of rational beings,
> which in its universality is already the referent of that principle.
>
> Individual and collective autonomy differ therefore in this regard:
> although both are defined as self-legislation against contingency, the
> former is tied to a morality that is everywhere within immediate
> reach, while the latter is tied to an immortality that is reached only
> through an enterprise of mythic proportions, if at all.
>
>
> Notes
> -----
>
> Kan85 Immanuel Kant. 1785. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
> Translated by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann, 2012. Cambridge
> University Press. http://books.google.ca/books?id=qfyKv1a-lPAC
>
> [0] Jerome B. Schneewind. 1998. The invention of autonomy: a
> history of modern moral philosophy. Cambridge University
> Press. http://books.google.ca/books?id=VfadsTs-1bUC
>
> [1] Immanuel Kant. 1788. Critique of Practical Reason.
> Translated by Mary J. Gregor, 1997. Cambridge University
> Press. p. 133. http://books.google.ca/books?id=E9S_ey6M3igC
>
> [2] Kan85, 4:421
>
> [3] Kan85, 4:413, 4:420
>
> [4] Kan85, 4:389
>
> [5] Kan85, 4:408
>
> [6] Kan85, 4:446-7
>
> [7] Kan85, 4:447-8
> _______________________________________________
> Votorola mailing list
> Votorola at zelea.com
> http://mail.zelea.com/mailman/listinfo/votorola
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.zelea.com/list/votorola/attachments/20131209/b95e2aed/attachment.html>
More information about the Votorola
mailing list