It began when I looked up the rules
for Go. It is remarkable how little information I could find upon a game that
was supposed to be better than Chess, as I was told in High School. As the
result of my Search, the song “Let It Go” from Frozen got stuck in my head, as
it still is presently. It began to drive me mad. I started to wonder about the
lyrics and how Disney could get away with promoting a message which was so
transparently emotivist in scope. As only a last resort, a desperate attempt to
salvage my own sanity, I searched “emotivism” on Google. I knew the concept
from my ethics classes, but this was the first time in a long time that I
realized it was not simply the invention of its critics, just some means by
which to mock the lesser people, but rather it was the fabrication of a Scorpio
whose star pupil and advocate was a Cancer.
Of course, the pseudointellectual
professed his finalizing point of view by necessitating an arbitrary standard
and then leaving it up to the Public to ridicule those who fell short of it.
The value was scientific proof, of course. Since it cannot be proven that something
is wrong, he feels justified in denying its moral identity entirely. It is obvious to any clear-thinking person
that this negation is invalid and false. But how great is the fear that one
must pretend it is otherwise, just to blend in with the public!! What if they
are really so barbaric as to surrender their lives for this charlatan??
Without a moral imperative, survival
itself loses meaning, since we would have no felt need to continue living on
Earth. Without a moral imperative, the facts themselves become illusory projections.
A.J. Ayer argues, like a child, that he can prove that money was stolen but not
that the theft was wrongful. Yet by what definition is it “money”? Who is to
determine that it was “stolen”? How are we to assign authorities to make this
affirmation if we cannot even trust OURSELVES to be of character and soundness
of mind?
Taken to its logical conclusion, I
would be moved to a degree of fury that might take precedence over all
reservations and would culminate in violence against all who offend my
principles, including the speaker and all other beings of his kind. But where
would that fury even COME from?
If human beings make decisions based
upon emotions, those emotions are extensions of their external environments,
since we get most if not all of our feelings from other living beings. As one
matures, it follows logically that one seeks to accommodate ALL emotions, in
all times and places, for everyone. Yet since this seems to be tragically and
devastatingly impossible, one develops a conscience, which is an internal
compass by which one derives meaning from one’s life (and hence justification
for it) by the extent to which the ATTEMPT is heroic, according to a set of
inherited principles called ethics. It is by this constant striving that Life
becomes bearable. As a more decent incarnation of the Scorpio archetype
described it, we must protest Absurdity and imagine Sisyphus being happy. To do
less than all of those things is to cede one’s identity as Human.
The sciences were only ever meant to
aid in the exploration of this external world so as to determine the best course
of action in accommodating the emotions of others. Is this not universally
self-evident? Pisces is not the only sign which Scorpio cannot manipulate. And
we all know the consequences of emotivism from Goebbels, another noteworthy rhetorician
of the Scorpio Sun Sign’s tradition.
[({Dm.A.A.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment