|
|
|
Chromatography - Hayrapetyan's Effect
"It was not so difficult to invent a new basic technology of Chromatography - Chromabarography; it is rather difficult to wait for its wide practical use for the development of science in the benefit of mankind!" Aram Hayrapetyan There are the...
Do You Neglect The Power Of Your Mind?
James Allen, who wrote the masterpiece, As a Man Thinketh, talks about the vital power of the mind in creating success. "All that a man achieves and all that he fails to achieve is the direct results of his own thoughts. In a justly ordered...
Dreams of Reality - The View, and the Point of View
A Dialogue about Art - Excerpts Between: Roberto Calvo Macias and Sam Vaknin Roberto: What's the meaning of it? Its sense? Why did that Altamira Cave man paint those animals, Why? For magical purposes? as a religious act? What was his...
Near Death Experiences -- Is There A Logical Explanation?
Near Death Experiences -- Is there a logical explanation? by Lady Camelot In the August edition of Reader's Digest, I stumbled upon a compelling article, "After Life," by Anita Bartholomew. The article takes an intricate look into the...
Science vs. Healers
Sherry (My ex) had a couple of problems of a medical nature. Her hypoglycemia had been miss-diagnosed and she had been given massive cortisone shots that I believe had contributed to the cancer that resulted in the partial mastectomy. I got her off...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Superultramodern Ethical / Aesthetical Relativism (SEAR)
According to Superultramodern Ethical/Aesthetical Relativism (SEAR) nothing is absolutely good or bad (or beautiful or ugly), but, as Shakespeare said, thinking makes it so. The novelty in SEAR is its foundations. A thinks C (say an idea) is good while B thinks C is bad. Now it seems that there can be no logical or conceptual criteria to determine if A, for example, is right or wrong. The law of syllogism ( if p implies q and q implies r then p implies r ), for example, is logically true in the sense that one ( at least I ) has to think ( apart from the principle of universal doubt ) that it is true and if someone thinks it to be false then it is his/her inability to see the truth in the law of syllogism or, more importantly, to understand what the law of syllogism states or the concepts it involves. So the principles like the law of syllogism are supposed to be eternal as they cannot be otherwise. They have to be the way they are forever, regardless of individual minds. However, this does not apply to ethical judgments, as one can reasonably think otherwise. The concepts good and bad allow far more flexibility, and if one, for example, thinks that it is good to hurt others for one’s own pleasure, this thinking involves no conceptual contradiction, as
that is the way that person defines the concept of goodness. And how can there be any logical/conceptual/reasonable restriction on how one defines goodness or badness ? In case of the law of syllogism once we are clear about the terms p, q, r, and implication, the truth cannot logically/conceptually/ reasonably be denied. Ethical concepts are thus vague concepts. Concepts like implication, on the other hand, are concrete or clear. ( It is a different thing that if we mean to call dog, for example, as implication then it is a mere attaching of the label ‘implication’ to the concept of dog as ‘dog’ is also nothing but a label attached to some concept. )
In this particular world majority of people more or less agree on ethical definitions because their minds are constructed that way ( i.e. Programs are created to generate appropriate states of consciousness.) In the NSTP ( Non - Spatial Thinking Process ) theoretical terms if the non - spatial universal program is changed people would disagree or think different way/s.
SEAR is a component of Superultramodern Science (SS).
About the Author
The Founder as well as the President of British Superultramodern Scientific Institution (BSSI)
http://superultramodern.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|