[Hong Wu]

I'm on a deep thinks roll today, not going to lie, this is a dig at progressivism.

So a progressed, more advanced state is always better than the state that came before it because that state was comparatively regressive.

Doesn't this means that not only is the past always inferior to the future, but the present is also always inferior to the future?

And if the past and present are inferior to the future, any future moment is also inferior to a future that comes after that future.

Doesn't this mean that existence always sucks because some theoretical future person will always have it better than you do?

[Victoribus Spolia]

To play devil's advocate, I suppose the objection they (the progressives) would give is that you are being simplistic.

Progressives don't necessarily think everything is better that comes later (this is, in fact, their whole critique of what they call "reaction"); rather, progress is defined by a certain criteria; namely, the proliferation of international capitalism which will inevitably transition to international socialism and finally communism. Whatever may be interpreted as contributing to that "dialectic of history" would be seen as comporting with the inevitable (and implicitly moral) flow of history; whereas, anything that "bucks the tide" would be viewed as reactionary and dangerous to "true progress."

However, please note, that all true progressives also believe that reactionaries are fated to lose in their vain attempts to "turn-back-the-clock." This is why leftists tend to have a smug arrogance when dealing with conservatives, for conservatives are viewed as outdated troglodytes at best and utterly evil (as oppressors) at worst (this latter view being the growing opinion among leftists given their "no-platform" screeching).

Anyway, just some thoughts.

[Sivad]

Doesn't this means that not only is the past always inferior to the future, but the present is also always inferior to the future?

And if the past and present are inferior to the future, any future moment is also inferior to a future that comes after that future.

Doesn't this mean that existence always sucks because some theoretical future person will always have it better than you do?

It has nothing to do with temporal progression, it's about social progress - creating a more fair, just, honest, and rational society. It's true that that can only be done from the present and into the future because it's not possible to change the past, but that's trivial. Progressivism stems from the understanding that the prevailing order isn't perfect or divinely ordained, that we can always do better, and that norms/policies/institutions should be determined by science and reason and not tradition or dogma.

[Zamuel]

Doesn't this mean that existence always sucks because some theoretical future person will always have it better than you do?

No, that's a pessimistic viewpoint, not a progressive one. The progressive POV is not judgmental, it asks, "how can the present be improved?" It has a positive outlook, not the negative focus you propose.

Zam

[Hong Wu]

So progressivism doesn't include technological progress and the associated benefits?

[Sivad]

So progressivism doesn't include technological progress and the associated benefits?

why wouldn't it?

[RhetoricThug]

I'm on a deep thinks roll today, not going to lie, this is a dig at progressivism.

So a progressed, more advanced state is always better than the state that came before it because that state was comparatively regressive.

Doesn't this means that not only is the past always inferior to the future, but the present is also always inferior to the future?

And if the past and present are inferior to the future, any future moment is also inferior to a future that comes after that future.

Doesn't this mean that existence always sucks because some theoretical future person will always have it better than you do?

Whenever you're looking outside yourself (at the physical reality taking place) you're actually looking into the past, which means that whatever you see with your eyes, whatever is outside of your body, that has already happened. Time is a way of measuring motion. The continuum in which everything occurs is basically what you are. You're projecting the future through this present moment. The interconnected dynamic interaction taking place right now allows the mind to interface with matter and abstract a relative- cognitive- and sequential pattern. In other words, time is an illusion of energy, the past-future dialectic is a side-effect of BEING present, and it's the information loop flowing within/without yourself (streaming through the sensorium flooding the mind's filter) which gives us the illusion that "progress" is taking place. The only thing taking place is the infinite potential of the universe, unfolding through you (finite sensibility), because you're enfolded in IT (you're it). The Universe is a simultaneous happening, but you happen to BE present right NOW and that's why you posted this stupid thread. Poor little forum image.

[Hong Wu]

why wouldn't it?

Sorry, I misread temporal as technological.

@Zamuel the progressivism I'm familiar with is a metaphysical argument based upon supposed observations, allegedly the scientific method (the "moral arc of history" as a quasi-religion). I believe you are presenting it more as an ethical goal, modus or way. That isn't the progressivism I'm used to, although I did recently write a wall of text on an alternative ethical goal besides seeking equality. I think Sivad is basically using the same debate strategy. I think, for personal reasons at least, I've come up with an effective thesis against the metaphysical argument of progressivism in that it's implicitly better to live in the moment and assume we are not fundamentally bettered by progress, otherwise any given being is a loser compared to the next being. I also think that the people on this forum, in dodging the moral arc of history version of progressivism which we are all well aware of, have basically acknowledged this. So, forgive my arrogance but at this time I'm viewing this one as a win for me.

The only counter argument I can think of is "yes, future people are better and that's okay" but I'm not sure that anyone would actually take that position.

[RhetoricThug]

This is what you really mean

Sorry, I misread reality.

@Forum Image ABC, the progressivism second-hand thought I'm familiar with is a metaphysical argument human idea based upon supposed observations, allegedly the scientific method human bias. I believe you are presenting it more as your interpretation of the information available. Those are not the progressivism kind of second-hand thoughts I'm used to, although I did recently write a wall of compressed visual symbols on an alternative interpretation of the available information. I think forum image Sivad ABC is basically using the same debate strategy. I think, for personal reasons, I've come up with an effective therapy against being present. I also think that the people on this technological extension of consciousness, in dodging the obvious, have basically acknowledged this.

The only counter argument I can think of is "yes, future people are better and that's okay" but I'm not sure that anyone would actually take that position.

You have an opportunity to make future people "better" right now. Poor little forum image, using a computer from the past to rant about being present.

[Hong Wu]

This is what you really mean


You have an opportunity to make future people "better" right now. Poor little forum image, using a computer from the past to rant about being present.

FYI I'd respond to you more often if you were clearer. Don't get the impression that I'm ignoring you out of spite or anything.

I think a metaphysical or quasi-religious understanding of progressivism definitely exists. Here's a guy writing about it in the Washington Post as of yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 7c2d188f0d

I also believe that this metaphysical idea of progressivism is really a trap. It looks really good at the outset but because progress never ends, there is no ultimate, no God or Buddha, just an endless procession of subservient inferiors to whatever comes after them. This might even explain why progressives have become increasingly totalitarian over time; why shouldn't someone be subservient to something that is their moral superior?

[RhetoricThug]

Why is forum image ABC obsessed with the past? Why did forum image ABC want forum image CBA to make the universe more intelligible?

FYI I'd respond to you more often if you were clearer. Don't get the impression that I'm ignoring you out of spite or anything.

I think a metaphysical or quasi-religious understanding of progressivism definitely exists. Here's a guy writing about it in the Washington Post as of yesterday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 7c2d188f0d

I also believe that this metaphysical idea of progressivism is really a trap. It looks really good at the outset but because progress never ends, there is no ultimate, no God or Buddha, just an endless procession of subservient inferiors to whatever comes after them. This might even explain why progressives have become increasingly totalitarian over time; why shouldn't someone be subservient to something that is their moral superior?

The universe gave this thread a brief description of phenomenological relativity. Go retrieve it. The past is not inferior and the future is not superior. There's only the present. Progress is not taking place. The Universe is a simultaneous happening, but you're experiencing it subjectively through the lens of human observation. It's a mirror, and you're enfolded in its unfolding. Sequential determinism flows into non-local parallelism. The micro and macro fields are entangled, the micro-macro and everything-in-itself in-between this moment generate the existential singularity or the appearance of the universe. You will be recycled. The past is the future being experienced NOW. EVERYTHING YOU OBSERVE YOU'RE CO-GENERATING, this is the physical system you're involuntarily and voluntarily participating in.

I'm not going to play political dungeons and dragons with you. I don't care about the numbers you rolled, I care about the processes and interplay that occur while the dice roll (if they roll at all). I'm not going to use binary logic to describe some kind of self-referential thought pattern. I AM. WE ARE. IT IS. Happening NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW. NOW.

This isn't a joke
This isn't a meme
This IS IT
Here IT IS
A little piece of PIE
But it can be a joke
It can be a meme
Because the Universe never lies

[Zamuel]

The only counter argument I can think of is "yes, future people are better and that's okay" but I'm not sure that anyone would actually take that position.

You were fucked as soon as you made a value judgement … Better or Worse are relative concepts that depend on what comparison you choose. Today's Progress is always better which makes whatever was better yesterday worse, even though it was better than whatever it superseded. (If you choose to play that pointless game.)

Zam

[Potemkin]

You were fucked as soon as you made a value judgement … Better or Worse are relative concepts that depend on what comparison you choose. Today's Progress is always better which makes whatever was better yesterday worse, even though it was better than whatever it superseded. (If you choose to play that pointless game.)

Zam

But that's what makes Hong Wu's Deep Thinks so awesome, Zamuel. He's like an idiot savant, looking at things which everyone else takes for granted in a new, fresh and child-like way. He thinks thoughts which would never cross the mind of anyone else over the age of about five, and then he runs with those brilliantly idiotic thoughts. And by doing so he forces us to think about what we believe and to re-evaluate those beliefs from first principles, if only to demonstrate to him how idiotic his Deep Thinks actually are. I for one am deeply grateful to him.

[One Degree]

Ideologues believe they are brilliant due to their remembering what others have thought.
It is the naive who discovers the emperor has no clothes.
The undergrad who looks into the microscope without being fully indoctrinated to what he should see.
Ofcourse the professor gets top billing perpetuating the belief the ideologues are the ‘brilliant’ ones.
The observations of the naive should be encouraged, not denigrated.
If your ‘brilliance’ is determined by remembering others thoughts, then you just have a good memory.
A good test might be if you think people are too stupid to understand you, maybe you aren’t knowledgeable enough to explain it because you basically just memorized it.
Brilliance requires the ability to dismiss the truth.
There is no superior or inferior to the past, present, and future, just adaptation to ‘now’.

Edit: I had no specific individuals in mind in making my normal ramblings.

[Hong Wu]

I know I can be a little abrasive but sometimes I wonder if it's me or if certain people around here just have thin skin.

Some people in another place suggested to me that there is another way out of this dilemma I posed, that being to say that there is an end point to progress, that being when everyone is equal. My response to that was that if they say there is an endpoint of total equality, the person is now a communist. I'm not sure if this is a way out of the dilemma for two reasons. First, a communist isn't a progressive, so it's not really a relevant answer because the criticism is of progressivism, which is generally agreed to be distinct from communism. Second, all of the criticisms of communism would apply if the person has declared themselves a communist.

[One Degree]

I am just a nobody full of platitudes, but I believe ‘brilliance’ is questioning and ‘ignorance’ is believing you have the answers.
Just using ‘communism’ as suggesting it has a moral value is to remove things to be questioned. It is amusing there is almost unanimous agreement that humans are flawed and incapable of perfection, but we argue our ‘perfected’ views anyway and shout down all dissension.

[Zamuel]

But that's what makes Hong Wu's Deep Thinks so awesome, Zamuel. He's like an idiot savant, looking at things which everyone else takes for granted in a new, fresh and child-like way. He thinks thoughts which would never cross the mind of anyone else over the age of about five, and then he runs with those brilliantly idiotic thoughts. And by doing so he forces us to think about what we believe and to re-evaluate those beliefs from first principles, if only to demonstrate to him how idiotic his Deep Thinks actually are. I for one am deeply grateful to him.

I must admit he has inspired me to rethink charitable euthanasia …

Zam -

[Albert]

I know I can be a little abrasive but sometimes I wonder if it's me or if certain people around here just have thin skin.

Some people in another place suggested to me that there is another way out of this dilemma I posed, that being to say that there is an end point to progress, that being when everyone is equal. My response to that was that if they say there is an endpoint of total equality, the person is now a communist. I'm not sure if this is a way out of the dilemma for two reasons. First, a communist isn't a progressive, so it's not really a relevant answer because the criticism is of progressivism, which is generally agreed to be distinct from communism. Second, all of the criticisms of communism would apply if the person has declared themselves a communist.

Do not be discharged Hong Wu, you are a deep thinker and most people do not have the courage to dive into topics how you do. When you display this they feel threatened.

On top of that you have exposed something deep rooted in modern "Progressivism", that in the end it is people who envision something that will happen in the future with certainty. Like for example, where gay people will finally be fully accepted in society. Yet they forgot that in the end that is a prediction and not a fact. Yet they have come to believe it it fact.

It is no different then me saying that soon the moon will turn blue. Then forgetting that it is a production and then confusing it with a fact.

[Hong Wu]

Do not be discharged Hong Wu, you are a deep thinker and most people do not have the courage to dive into topics how you do. When you display this they feel threatened.

Thanks man, it is pretty emotionally dangerous to actually attempt originality on the internet. There's more than a little bit of competition there : ) and we know what most people act like when they get anonymity and freedom from consequences...

[SolarCross]

I know I can be a little abrasive but sometimes I wonder if it's me or if certain people around here just have thin skin.

You'd get the same response from Scientologists if you were to make a reasonable inquiry into the validity of dianetics. Also communists prefer to murder people such as yourself rather than examine their fallacies so you are inadvertently reminding them that they don't have the power to do so safely at the present time and that is another irritation.