see journal entry on trees/fprests

The Temporal Rights point of view, reveals a profound moral truism:

Complex operators tend to have higher moral value than simpler ones.

This is evident in the Natural HIerarchy of operators in the universe and is confirmed in the Dependency Stack. Many points of established wisdom are confirmed by this fact.

High and Low Thinking

If more complex operators have higher moral value, and if evil is the unnecessary violation of natural rights, then destructive thinking is evil because it is the precursor of unnecessary destruction.

George’s thinking about the gender roles.

A male dependency stack and a female dependency stack.

Choice and transgenderism

Choice and abortion

Choice and morality

CHoice and vicinity

I have been thinking about a comment Glenn Beck made recently at a “40 Days to Life” convention, where he said that evil is “so slick” and I wondered if that was because of the abuse of abstractions.

Last night I awoke with one of those impressions that I feel must be written down or lost. It was that the problem called reification can be demonstrated in a way such as this:

When we look at a forest as a “thing” and then look at a tree as a “thing,” they are obviously equally real. However, a dependency statement, viz. “A tree can be without a forest, but a forest cannot be without a tree,” shows that perception is false. They are somehow not equally real, at least not in the logical sense. So there is a dilemma here; a contradiction, actually.

The clarity of that dependency statement proves tha the forest is actually not a lgoically fundamental reality but a logical abstraction in spite of the fact that they are both percieved as equally real.

A tree and a forest are both made of wood you can cut with a saw or burn, so they are both equally real in the physical reality. However, in the logical realm, the tree has precedence over the forest, being a more fundamental existence.

(This seems like an instance reflecting Plato’s idealized “forms”.)

The resolution of this dilemma is simple enough. When we are in sense mode, they are identical, but when we are in operational mode, they are not. To actually deal with a forest, whether that is a logging operation or measuring board feet of lumber available, or research, or whatever – when we actually deal with the forest instead of just sensing or observing it, we cannot deal with it in any way other than one tree at a time.

It is interesting that these two capabilities of the human being are aligned in the Dependency Stack of Temporal Rights, where sensing is more fundamental, closer to existence, than acquiring. This is coherent because acquiring is a higher-order capability denoting a higher-order natural right. So, in this case, thinking about the tree (so as to interact with it instead of the forest) is a higher-order recognition of the more fundamental reality of a tree.