Riffing off this

This philosophical position is one in a pluralistic ontology. It is more extreme than mere moral relativism or amorality. It suggests that transcending morality means recognizing it as a constructed system and moving beyond it entirely to a state where only action and its consequences matter. The desirable future matters.

This brings to mind William James's pragmatism - the idea that truth is what works in practice to achieve desired outcomes. The focus on "desirable future" suggests that while conventional morality is transcended, there's still an organizing principle: the shaping of future states through action.

This raises interesting questions about agency and causation. If we're focused purely on actions and their consequences in creating desired futures, does this imply a kind of radical responsibility? Each action shapes reality, without the mediating framework of moral judgment to diffuse or distribute that responsibility.

Rather than asking "Is this right or wrong?" one asks "What future does this action create?" It's not amoral in the sense of being indifferent to consequences, but supramoral in the sense of operating outside the conventional moral framework, while maintaining a sophisticated understanding of causation and intention.

I came up for an analogy for this, inspired by the Hivemind chat. Apologies for being so augmented with the chatbot but typing this much with one finger sucks, haha! 🤪

I will prove that people want this worldview arsenal upgrade, with an example.

The Myers-Briggs personality tests provides a useful analogy for understanding pluralistic ontology.

In MBTI, there's no inherently "better" type -- an INTJ isn't superior to an ESFP. Rather, each type represents a different, yet equally valid way of perceiving and interacting with reality. Each type has its own internal logic and way of making decisions that makes sense within its framework.

Similarly, in a pluralistic ontology, different systems of thought/action (like conventional morality vs. pure action-consequence frameworks as put forth above) can coexist as valid ways of engaging with reality. Just as an INTJ might make decisions based on future implications, while an ESFP might focus on immediate experiential data, different (ontological) frameworks provide different yet valid bases for action.

In monistic ontology (like monotheistic religions or strict materialism), there is ONE fundamental reality or truth. Everything must ultimately be reconciled with or reduced to this single foundation. It's like trying to force every personality into a single "correct" MBTI type, saying "Everyone should be an INTJ" or "Everyone is really just an ESFP deep down."

Monistic thinking is dead and millions of roots grow off its carcass, all shooting for the light.

Lunar new year, 2025

POSTWOOK

why are libs trying to make elon look cool

https://youtu.be/dnnpyNuPdXs?si=ZBZ7CEqLLgv1S70E
Another interview with "The Bogeyman"! $100 next interview someone gets him to say "I am the Eggman"

FUCK ME I forgot to fill the car up and I'm going to wake up to Trump's tariffs. 😬 Whooops