Is it okay to stare at a blind girls breasts?

one-more-time said:
I'm suggesting that every statement defining or declaring value is just as obvious, just as real, just as "in the world" as the fact of saying: the Earth is round. The fact that sentient beings create welfare that has substance and integrity, and that you can harm it in ways that are intrinsically and fundamentally negative is a fact. It's not a subjective made-up fantasy, it's not a "Three pigs" story. It's the story of the actual circumstance, it's a truth in the world.
It is not "I like chocolate ice-cream", I'm saying: sentient beings have feelings and feelings are the only thing of value in the universe.

one-more-time said:
The existence of value as a reality, as some part of reality that we're describing philosophically or intelligently attempting to describe what is the game, what's the game we're playing and what's the value components of the game we're playing. I'm basically arguing that there's just one truth to the reality, to the function of the game, to the value of the game. We either get the right answer either the wrong answer, there are no multiple answers.

one-more-time said:
The fact that pie is a food is a fact. What kind of a pie you like is factual, but not relevant, it is not intrinsic value of the pie. It being desirable to you doesn't mean it has intrinsic value, but it does have intrinsic value as food as potential nourishment.
The state of our consciousness creates value. Every second of our lives, our consciousness is in a state of comfortable or uncomfortable. We're on a line of comfort, either low or high in terms of good or bad relative positions. Being in that state we radiate, in a sense, we create a gravity weight of value weight.

one-more-time said:
You can metaphor it in a different ways. In a sense we do radiate a capturable amount of this substance called welfare or a condition. That's one of the properties of being conscious. When you're unconscious your welfare is not relevant, meaningful or substantial, you are not generating any value at that moment.
When you are conscious, you are generating a positive either negative weight to the value pool. You are putting water in or you're taking water out of the NET value ether of the universe. These are metaphors, but the only way you can talk about this is metaphorically, because obviously value isn't a material thing. It is a conceptual description of relationship of properties that something has, they are not visible properties they are invisible nonmaterial, but they are fundamentally, in my opinion, discernible and definable. There's a certain and definite difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, the difference is significant, it's not irrelevant, it's not meaningless, it's not like the "dark side versus light side of the moon", no - it's meaningful difference, it's all the difference that matters in all of the universe, the welfare of the consciousness, the feeling thing that can be in a negative state. Negative in all of what that word implies: negative in bad, negative in bad, negative in void. You can use all these descriptive words like: rotten, nasty, wasteful, stupid.. it is decidedly negative, decidedly less positive, decidedly different than neutral or positive state.

one-more-time said:
The positive state is the trickier one, I would argue that most positive are merely the correction of the type of negative state, the deprivation creates a hunger and a hunger creates the opportunity for satisfaction. Essentially it's sinking in a quicksand to the noise, to the nastiness. And as you pull out of noise and nastiness, the suffocation, there is comfort and joy of fresh air, the ability to go back to the state you might have thought wasn't even that good state, but now it is a spectacular state, because it isn't negative anymore.
Desire sort of works in that mechanism. It pushes and pulls you with by relieving manipulations of our psychology as I would argue. It creates the opportunity for the positive, it does it in a way
where it sneaks the negative into us and pulls the gratification out of us. Kind of a gross example, but maybe the formation of a pimple. It grows on you slowly, the pain can come on you gradually. Once it's there, there's this opportunity for the relief, there's this opportunity to gain comfort.
And so I'm kind of arguing that our psychology works in a lots of different ways. But the mechanism that plays with us is that the tensions and pains are built into us gradually and slowly so we don't see ourselves being put into negative condition. But we can realise this huge potential release of this tension and frustration.
I might argue something like orgasm is merely a reflection of just how you're being relieved of being little tensions that exists inside of you.

one-more-time said:
If you take yourself in a neutral state, analyze your psychology, analyze your state of being. You can find miseries, you can find discomforts: pulled muscle here, these little nags and cruds, even the weight of gravity sometimes you can feel it on you as a tension, you can almost feel the potential to be relieved. That's what I would argue, that these pleasure sensations are built out of is it's merely body collecting saddle negative states and then providing you with a "taste" of what it feels like to be relieved of those, that'd be what we call pleasures.
Even the gratification in eating is creating a kind of physical bodily neutrality from which we're deriving the pleasure we're gaining. Basically the game is to take you out of the physical confinement. That's why most entertainments are called escapism, in a a sense that's part of the mechanism of the pleasure is escaping yourself, escaping the physical body and becoming liberated to fantasise or live in some other dimensional world in terms of your thoughts are no longer contained in brain, but extended in some other medium like movie screen or other mechanism.

one-more-time said:
Anyways, I don't want to get lost in that. But the key argument is that this idea that there are people who will argue that there is somehow a possibility that value isn't set and intrinsic, that it is up to some sort of subjective interpretation. That somehow there's subjective way to define it, and I find it logically impossible to go with that model, because that model eventually will lead to some idea that the Holocaust didn't matter, that the suffering doesn't matter. And that you could double it, triple, quadruple, times and times the speed of light squared, and somehow you hadn't done a negative thing. When I think the intrinsic fundamental negative character of being in a negative state of consciousness, no matter how you call that. I might call my neutral state: boring, dull and tedious. Obviously to somebody, who's been lost in a desert for a week without water or comfort, this state of consciousness is bliss, because his state is so negative. But that's the only reason why it is, is only because his state is negative, it doesn't mean that he's subjectively allowed now to say that this state is a good state or that it has some sort of intrinsic value of great positive value. It just means that he, personally, is in a negative state and relative to his state this is a positive state, but that this state has any absolute positive value.

one-more-time said:
I would still argue that the whole feeling mechanism is a zero sum mechanism and that it can be pararelled to the desire mechanism, which is a zero sum mechanism, where there is nothing wrong until your brain makes something wrong. There is nothing to chase until your brain creates the hunger, the hunger doesn't exist in the food, the hunger exists in our perception. The value does not exist in terms of the desirability of having it in it, where intrinsically the value exists in the state of this consciousness in terms of it being clearly definable describiably in a more negative or a less negative state, we can do the relative thing even if we can't define where it converts from positive to negative, we can definitely and absolutely say that: this state is better than that state, when we compare these two states of being.

one-more-time said:
I would argue that if we could taste true neutrality, true escape from desire, tension, want, all these projections of "I need". That state would be rather blissful, that might be even orgasmic, and that's truly the true neutral.
We're just in this diluted state, because we're so deep in a hole. We have this sense of gravity telling us that we're climbing, we're improving our state, but we have no conception of the fact that we're really going up, but we're just getting out of negative hole. We're still below the neutral zero, it's just an illusion of a progress, because we're getting out of a hole our psychology creates. So again, we're sort of back to the argument of "need that doesn't need to be created", "the replication for the sake of replication", these are all self-justifying mechanisms, they contrive the defence for themselves, our function is to fix the lesser condition and improve it to better condition. That's the basic desire mechanism, the function of the being a value creator, caught up in a value mechanism. That's the intuitive structure is going to be focused on a simple idea that if I improve my state of being - I will do so, because it is necessarily logical, it's just by intrinsic and fundamental truth that it's better to feel better. But it's just inescapable logic to improve the condition not degrade the condition, it's much better to make it more efficient than less efficient, much better to make it productive instead of being excessively consumptive inefficient.

one-more-time said:
That's the nature of the nature, there isn't anything for us to do here. The best you can do is, if you're going to optimize your existence, is to fix a lot of broken, sloppy and messed up things. If you can make other people happy - it's good. If you can it so it's easier for them to do something - that's good. If you can facilitate or lubricate the world in a sense that you made it easier for things to elevate their condition, including yourself, yourself is a consciousness of importance. But obviously you are not the only consciousness, and in most cases we can do more to fix other peoples problems, because they're easier to fix than we can fix our own when exist in one of these rich countries. It's fairly easy to elevate the state of somebody in Africa, 50cents elevates their state of being, 100$ makes them deliriously happy.

one-more-time said:
Where it doesn't work on us. The efficient, the practicality would be that you can do more elevation of the state of consciousness by working on these other individuals than trying to work on yourself just because of the mechanics, just because of the steady state level at what you're at it becomes harder and harder to gain distance from the negative state. As you get closer to the surface, because of the mechanics it gets harder and harder to make more progress, it's almost like Einstein’s speed of light: you get closer and closer to speed of light, you become heavier and heavier and it becomes harder to gain any velocity that would move you faster.
And it's kind of a failure of the mechanism - the more you have, the harder it is to make that progress.

one-more-time said:
I want to emphasize the point that it's the futility of the mechanism is that it's all just carrots and whips and it's all made up in our perception and they're all made of essentially a whip, there isn't really a carrot, there's absence of whip. That's the dilemma we're caught up in, we're thinking that we're chasing the carrot, but we're really chasing is relieving the absence of the contrived desire, it's the relieving of the hunger, reliving of the desire that we're calling the satisfaction, but we're really taking away the negative to create the positive. That's all there is in a universe, the only way to "make" a positive is to correct a negative, to eliminate the negative is the only true positive.

one-more-time said:
It is a difficult subject, because we're talking about something that is invisible: value. Value has no physical structure, but I'm claiming it is just a real as the matter in universe.
The value of a welfare of a child is just as real as the Moon or the Earth, it's maybe more real in a sense that it is the only thing that has any significant weight, any meaning weight. All these things with all this dense material gravity have no meaning weight unless they're somehow implicating something that feels. But other than that they have no meaning, no relevance, no meaningful existence. This invisible thing of a consciousness is the thing where all the real meaning weight in universe exists. I will concede that it is hard to make a proof for it, I can't use a microscope or a scales, I have to use only logical argument to prove the truth of it.

one-more-time said:
This whole idea of intelligence and what can be done with it is an important subject, because people really do have this silly notion that intelligence has some sort of exponential growth potential.. that you actually can go somewhere. That the game somehow is going to leap out of Shakespearean drama into some other dimension of purpose and function, but it's not. We're made to be gladiators, we're competitive animals, we only play the game, because we're filled with a desire to play it. Hunger, food is stupid looking if you're not hungry. Sex is pretty gross if you're not horny. It's just the way it works, the truth of it is that it's all contrived crap for us, the more intelligent you get - the more you're going to be able to figure out that it's all just crap. Intelligence can't play stupid games, the smarter you get the less likely it is that you're going to be caught up in a game where you know that you're being played.
It's like the mule with with carrot on a stick in front of him, it ain't going to work on something intelligent, something with intelligence will thing: I'll just eat the stick and then I can eat the carrot. They're going to figure out a way, they're not going to allow themselves to be duped and keep chasing the carrot. They're not going to fall for it.
You don't need to exponentially grow intelligence to get there, we're already there. All you have to do is to be a little bit of intelligent and you can figure it out.
It's a dumb, stupid, idiotic game. It's carrots and whips and you're just being f- mules to a DNA molecules replication for the sake of replication. And you have the arrogance to call yourselves intelligent? And you're falling for this game? C'mon. It's a joke.
What is your counter-argument? What is it? You don't have anything. There is no evidence in a cosmos of anything brilliant. There's just a bunch of solar systems and galaxies and nebulas crashing into each other. There's just shit turning into radiation out there. Then you go smaller, what do you have? Electrons, photons and little packets of energy, you got nothing. There is no magic anywhere here. So here we are mechanically caught up in this merely because of this process of replication, the fact that one piece of chemistry acquired the capacity to do this "evolving" replicating, and that's it.. there's no other p-u-r-p-o-s-e.

one-more-time said:
That's it - replication for the sake of replication. Replication, because it did it. period.

Is that an intelligent statement? Does intelligence say: "Ohh yea, I really totally get that, yea that's a totally sufficient explanation, yes we should totally get behind the 5 letter sentence defining our existence, yea that's totally good enough!"

No, no, sorry. Five word sentences are not good enough, intelligence demands more than that, intelligence should demand more than that, intelligence has to demand more than that otherwise it is not intelligent.

Intelligence fails, it's corrupted if it's full of bullshit. You put bullshit in, you put fake words into the language and you brake it. That's what we have here - a bunch of fake in this theory of life, people have injected a bunch of fake into their theory of life and it's no longer an intelligent theory. It's a theory full of fake, fraud, bullshit. Because the truth is the replication for the sake of replication, and the truth is sentience creates the vulnerability to harm, it invents harm.
So you invent harm so you can replicate something for the sake of replicating it.
Yeah.. that math.. Intelligence cannot look at that math and say: yes that makes sense, good idea!
No, something unintelligent, something possessed by desire, something bigoted against intelligence is the only thing that can make sense out of that.